Ruiz-Morales v. American Airlines, Inc.

MOTION to Strike Paragraphs 6 to 39 of Re: 28 Statement

D.P.R.March 18, 2019

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO ROXANNE RUIZ MORALES Plaintiff v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant CIVIL NO. 16-2837 (ADC) Re: Wrongful Termination PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE PARAGRAPHS 6 TO 39 OF AMERICAN AIRLINES STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS (DOCKET #28) TO THE HONORABLE COURT: NOW COMES the plaintiff, Roxanne Ruiz, through the undersigned attorney, and respectfully requests that the court strike paragraphs 6 to 39 of American Airlines Statement of Material Facts as to which there is No Genuine Issue to be Tried, Docket #28 for its failure to comply with the statutory pleadings requirements included in article 11 of Law 80 of 1976. Article 11 of Law 80 requires that a defendant allege in its Answer to the Complaint the specific facts that gave rise to the dismissal and the justification for the discharge, at the risk of waiving the “just cause” defense. American Airlines failed to include factual allegations in its Answer to the Complaint in support of the “just cause”defense, limiting itself to blanket denials without stating the underlying facts that led to these denials. American also failed to allege any facts in support of its affirmative defenses of “just cause” thereby waiving their right to present facts in support thereof. In support of the relief requested herein, plaintiff respectfully states as follows: Case 3:16-cv-02837-ADC Document 35 Filed 03/18/19 Page 1 of 8 I. THE PLEADINGS Plaintiff Roxanne Ruiz filed a wrongful discharge claim under Law 80 of 1976, 29 L.P.R.A. §185a et seq. , in the Superior Court of Puerto Rico. In its Complaint, plaintiff presented twenty five factual allegations, which included the period of time in which she worked at American Airlines, the position held, her responsibilities in the last position held, the fact that she was notified by the defendant that she would be dismissed as a result of a reorganization, and that she was the only person dismissed as a result of the reorganization See Docket #1-1 at ¶¶ 3.1 to 3.8. Plaintiff further specifically alleged, that there were four employees who held the Customer Service Manager Position (“CSM”), three of which had less seniority than her, Id., at ¶ 3.9; that the CSM position required the same tasks and responsibilities carried out by her, Id., at ¶ 3.11; that the CSM and plaintiff had the same classification of “004 Mgt Ops”and were in the same group salary scale (FRNLNSUP), Id , at ¶ 3.12; that the three CSM’s who had less seniority than plaintiff, were at the same Authorization level as Ms. Ruiz, had the same salary scale and the same level of authority. Id., at ¶ 3.13; that Mrs. Ruiz held the same occupational classification as the Customer Service Managers. Id., at ¶ 3.14; and that American Airlines had terminated her despite the fact that she had more seniority than three of the CSM’s. Id., at ¶ 3.14, 3.16 and 3.17 Plaintiff alleged that in light of these facts American Airlines had wrongfully discharge her entitling her to the mesada. Id., at ¶ 3.20 On October 17. 2016, defendant filed a notice of removal based on diversity of citizenship. Docket #1. A few months later, American Airlines filed its Answer to the Complaint. Docket #20. 2 Case 3:16-cv-02837-ADC Document 35 Filed 03/18/19 Page 2 of 8 In its Answer to the Complaint, American Airlines limited its answer to plaintiffs allegations to admitting or denying the facts without providing any explanation or factual allegation in support of its denial. At paragraph 3.9 they admitted that there were four employees who held the Customer Service Manager Position (“CSM”), three of which had less seniority than Ms. Ruiz. Docket #20 at ¶3.9. With respect to the specifics on the responsibilities and classifications of CSM and the position held by Ms Ruiz the defendant limited itself to blanket denials without providing any factual allegations in support of the nature of the responsibilities of the CSMs, and failed to state what the classification, pay grade or authorization level of the position were or how they differed from the ones carried out by the plaintiff. See table below. Factual Statement made in the Complaint (Docket #1- 1) Answer to the Complaint (Docket #20) Factual allegation presented by defendant in support of its denial ¶3.11: “the CSM position requires tasks and responsibilities practically identical to those performed by the PSM” ¶3.11: “Denied” No facts were alleged by AA in support of the denial of this allegation ¶ 3.12: “The four employees and the plaintiff had the same classification of “004 Mgt Ops”and were in the same group on the salary scale (FRLNSUPV)” ¶3.12: “Denied” No facts were presented in support of the denial of this allegation. AA did not provide a classification for the position held by plaintiff or for the four CSM’s. ¶3.13: The three employees that had less seniority than the plaintiff were at the same level within the salary scale group and had the same level of authority. ¶3.13: “Denied” No facts were alleged in support of the denial of this allegation. AA did not provide the salary scale group and/or level of authorization of the referenced employees. 3 Case 3:16-cv-02837-ADC Document 35 Filed 03/18/19 Page 3 of 8 ¶3.14: The position held by Ms. Ruiz and the position held by the CSM were within the same occupational classification” ¶3.14: “Denied” No facts were alleged by AA in support of its denial of this allegation. AA dd not even state the occupational classification of the CSMs or of the plaintiff. ¶3.17: At the time of Ms. Ruiz’ termination, there were other employees in the same occupational classification as her that had less seniority ¶3.17: American denies that there were other employees in Puerto Rico who were in the same occupational classification. In this denial American did not allege what was plaintiff’s occupational classification ¶3.20: Ms. Ruiz termination constitutes a wrongful termination under Act 80. Therefore plaintiff is entitled to receive severance pay from AA ¶3.14: “Denied” American failed to allege any facts that would justify plaintiff’s termination from American Airlines. In its affirmative defenses, with respect to the wrongful discharge allegations under Law 80, AA presented two conclusory allegations that read almost identical to the “just cause” provisions included in law 80. It first stated that Plaintiff was laid off for “just cause” pursuant to Law 80. That her position was eliminated due to economic conditions that made it necessary due to the reduction in volume of production, sales or profits, that were actual or anticipated, at the time of discharge. See Docket #20, at Second Affirmative Defense . Subsequently, AA agreed to dismiss this1 affirmative defense in order to not produce any information bout the company’s economic situation .2 The second affirmative defense raised was that Plaintiff’s position was eliminated because of the Article 2 of Law 80, subsection (f) provides that “reductions in employment made necessary by1 a reduction in the anticipated or prevailing volume of production, sales or profits at the time of the discharge” constitute just cause for dismissal under Law 80 29 L.P.R.A. § 185b(f). See Exhibit 1C, to Roxanne Ruiz’s Statement of Uncontested Facts and Response to American2 Airlines Statement of Material Facts as to which there are no Genuine Issues to Be Tried, at pages 4 and 5, ¶¶13 to 15(sic). 4 Case 3:16-cv-02837-ADC Document 35 Filed 03/18/19 Page 4 of 8 partial closing and reduction in operations in San Juan, and because of reorganizational changes. See Docket #20, at Third Affirmative Defense . 3 As can be seen, the affirmative defenses presented by AA were mere conclusory allegations in which defendant merely recited the circumstances contemplated within the text of Law 80 that may justify a dismissal. AA failed to allege any facts whatsoever in support of its allegations that plaintiffs termination was justified. On January 31, 2019, defendant presented a statement of uncontested facts as to which it alleges there are no factual controversies. See Docket#28. In the statement of facts, AA presented many facts in an attempt to show that plaintiff’s dismissal was justified under Law 80. To that effect it presented statements with respect to plaintiff’s responsibilities. See Docket #28 at ¶¶6 to 12. AA provided some of the responsibilities carried out by the three CSM’s who had less seniority than Ms. Ruiz and made distinctions between the tasks carried out by CSM’s below and above the wing. See Docket #28 at ¶¶13 to 16. It further offered facts in support of its theory that the CSM responsibilities differed from Ms. Ruiz responsibilities in their reporting, in the type of employee supervised, and where they carried out the work, whether below or above the wing. See Docket #28 at ¶¶28 to 39. None of these facts, were even hinted at in its AA’s Answer to the Complaint. Moreover, AA in the statement of uncontested facts presented a number of factual statements to justify the affirmative defense that there had been an actual partial closing of the operation. To that effect AA presented factual statements with respect to the closing of the Admiral’s Club where Ms. Ruiz worked, that the closing resulted from Aerostar’s (the Airports administrator) refusal to Article 2 of Law 80 subsections (d) and (e) provide that “the full, temporary or partial closing of3 the operations of the establishment; technological or reorganization changes [...]” constitute just cause for dismissal under Law 80. 29 L.P.R.A. § 185b(d) and(e). 5 Case 3:16-cv-02837-ADC Document 35 Filed 03/18/19 Page 5 of 8 pay for the rebuilding of the Admiral’s Club, and that AA did not have the budget to cover said costs, and that therefore Ms. Ruiz’ position had been eliminated. See Docket #28 at ¶¶17 to 27. None of these facts were even hinted at in the Answer to the Complaint. Law 80 pleading requirements Article 11 of Law 80 provides a statutory pleading requirement applicable to defendants in all cases filed for wrongful discharge under the Law. It specifically requires that in every action filed by an employee for unjust dismissal, “the employer is bound to plead in his answer to the complaint, the facts that led to the dismissal, and prove that it was justified …" in order to not to have to pay the mesada. (emphasis supplied) P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29 § 185k(a). Otherwise, the employer waives its defenses and judgment shall be rendered in favor of the employee. Id. Article 11, also establishes a presumption of unjust dismissal against employers. Diaz Fontanez v. Wyndham, 155 D.P.R. 364 (2001); Belk Arce, supra, at 230-31; Delgado Zayas v. Hosp. Interamericano, 137 D.P.R. 643, 1994 Juris P.R. 149 (1994). Thus, an employer not only has the burden of alleging the facts that justify the dismissal in its pleadings, but also has the duty of proving by preponderance of the evidence that the dismissal of the employee was justified. In this case, American Airlines, has miserably failed to adequately plead any facts whatsoever that justify plaintiff’s dismissal. By failing to do so, it has waived its right to justify the employment termination with any facts that were not alleged in the Answer to the Complaint. As stated before, in the Answer to the Complaint, American Airlines, the party with the burden of proving that the termination was justified, limited its allegation to one reason, “[...] Plaintiff’s position was eliminated because of the partial closing and reduction in operations in San Juan, and the (sic) because of reorganizational changes” in essence repeating one of the justifications 6 Case 3:16-cv-02837-ADC Document 35 Filed 03/18/19 Page 6 of 8 contemplated in Article 2 of the Law. See, Answer to Complaint, Docket 20, at page 6, Third Affirmative Defense, . Moreover, in its answer to the specific allegation made by plaintiff in the Complaint, America alleged no facts whatsoever, to justify its reasons for the termination. It failed to alleged any facts with respect to its denial of allegations included by plaintiff as to how the CSM position had practically the same tasks and responsibility as Ms. Ruiz. See, Docket #20 at page 4, ¶3.11. It failed to allege any facts to justify its denial of the allegation that the CSM and PSM positions had the same classification of “004 Mgt Ops”and were in the same group in the salary scale (FRLNSUPV), or that they were part of the same occupational classification, Docket #20 at page 4, ¶¶3.12 and 3.13. It did not provide the occupational classification for any of these position or the difference that existed at the time of discharge between Ms. Ruiz’ position and the CSM position. AA has also failed to state any facts whatsoever to support its defense of “partial closing and reduction in operations in San Juan, and because of reorganizational changes”, despite the clear requirement of factual allegations as stated in Article 11 of Law 80. In light of the above, and of the clear language in Article 11 of Law 80, which imposes a statutory requirement on the employer to plead in his answer to the complaint, the facts that led to the dismissal, at the risk of waiving its ability to present facts in support thereof, it is clear that AA has waived its right to present any facts in support of its purported justification for plaintiff’s dismissal. In light of the above, plaintiff respectfully requests that the paragraphs 6 to 39 be stricken from the statement of uncontested facts presented by AA, Docket #28. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests the court to strike paragraphs 6 to 39 of 7 Case 3:16-cv-02837-ADC Document 35 Filed 03/18/19 Page 7 of 8 American Airlines Statement of Material Facts as to which there is No Genuine Issue to be Tried, Docket #28 for its failure to comply with the statutory pleadings requirements included in article 11 of Law 80 of 1976. This is to certify that this motion is being filed through the ECF filing system, which will automatically notify all counsel of record. Respectfully submitted in San Juan Puerto Rico, this 18 day of March, 2019.th Berkan/Mendez Calle O’Neill G-11 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-2301 Tel.: (787) 764-0814 Fax.: (787)250-0986 berkanmendez@gmail.com By:/s/ Mary Jo Mendez Mary Jo Mendez US DC No. No.209407 mendezmaryjo@microjuris.com 8 Case 3:16-cv-02837-ADC Document 35 Filed 03/18/19 Page 8 of 8