Date post: | 02-Mar-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | scribd-government-docs |
View: | 295 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 42
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
1/42
United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit
No. 15- 1424
ELI ZABETH CARRASQUI LLO- ORTI Z; CARMEN GUZMN- VZQUEZ;
OUVI A; V CTOR RI VERA; MATI LDE RODR GUEZ- NOA; BRENDAVZQUEZ- D AZ; FRED VOLTAGGI O- DE J ESS,
Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s ,
v.
AMERI CAN AI RLI NES, I NC. ,
Def endant , Appel l ee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO
[ Hon. Gust avo A. Gel p , J r . , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge
Bef or e Thompson, Hawki ns, * and Bar r on,Ci r cui t J udges.
Al f r edo Fer nndez- Mar t nez, wi t h whom Del gado & F
LLC, was on br i ef , f or appel l ant s.J uan Enj ami o, wi t h whom Hunt on & Wi l l i ams LLP was
f or appel l ee.
J anuar y 22, 2016
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
2/42
BARRON, Circuit Judge. Ar t i cl e 3 of Puer t o R
No. 80 ( "Law 80") r equi r es compani es t hat oper ate i n Pu
t o pay a st at ut or y sever ance, cal l ed a "mesada, " t o t hei r
i n Puer t o Ri co who ar e t er mi nat ed as par t of a down
r est r uct ur i ng. The mesada must be pai d onl y i f t hose
wer e t er mi nated even t hough l ess seni or empl oyees wi t hi n
category r emai n. For a company wi t h onl y one of f i
cal cul at i on i s f ai r l y st r ai ght f or war d. But f or a com
sever al of f i ces, i t can be mor e compl ex. The st at ut e
t hat f or such a company, an empl oyee' s seni or i t y must be
i n r el at i on t o t he seni or i t y of "al l t he empl oyees of t he
t hat i s to say, t aki ng i nt o consi der at i on al l of i t s of f
t he company r egul ar l y t r ansf er s empl oyees among i t s of
t he of f i ces oper at e i n a "hi ghl y i nt egr at ed manner . "
Ann. t i t . 29, 185c(b) .
The di sput e at hand concer ns t he pr oper appl i
t hi s aspect of Ar t i cl e 3 t o Amer i can Ai r l i nes, I nc. ( "Am
t he def endant her e and a company wi t h a l one of f i ce i n Pu
and many of f i ces wor l dwi de. I n par t i cul ar , we must deci
t r eat empl oyee t r ansf ers Amer i can made t o, f r om, and
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
3/42
t he seni or i t y of t er mi nat ed empl oyees i n Amer i can' s Pu
of f i ce i n rel at i on t o empl oyees i n Amer i can' s of f i ces wo
The answer t o t hat quest i on i s det er mi nat i v
appeal br ought by t he pl ai nt i f f s. They ar e seven f or mer
empl oyees who worked i n Amer i can' s sol e Puer t o Ri co of f
pl ai nt i f f s concede t hat t hey wer e t he l east seni or emp
t he Puer t o Ri co of f i ce when Amer i can cl osed i t down and
go. Thus, t he pl ai nt i f f s coul d be ent i t l ed t o a mesad
t hei r seni or i t y had t o be comput ed i n r el at i on t o A
of f i ces gener al l y, a comput at i on t hat woul d be r equi r e
Amer i can' s t r ansf er s of empl oyees out si de Puer t o Ri co co
Ar t i cl e 3.
The Di st r i ct Cour t r ul ed i n f avor of Amer i ca
basi s of t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t ' s r ecent const r
Ar t i cl e 3 i n Reyes Snchez v. Eat on El ec. , 189 P. R.
( 2013) . The Di st r i ct Cour t r ead t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme
have const r ued Ar t i cl e 3 t o count onl y those t r ansf er s t
i n Puer t o Ri co and t o count none that ar e made to or f r om
out si de of i t . Because we r ead t hat pr ecedent as l ess d
on t he par t i cul ar i ssue conf r ont ed her e t han t he Di st r
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
4/42
Ri co Supr eme Cour t , as t he r ul es of t hat cour t per mi t
See P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 32, app. I I I , Rul e 53. 1( f ) .
I.
Law 80 r equi r es compani es t o pay a mesada t o
who ar e t er mi nat ed wi t hout " j ust cause. " Ot er o- Bur gos
Amer i can Uni v. , 558 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . The
pr ovi des si x exampl es of j ust cause, i ncl udi ng t hr ee t h
t o company r est r uct ur i ng or downsi zi ng. See P. R. Laws
29, 185b( d) , ( e) , ( f ) . I f an empl oyer t er mi nat es empl
one of t hose t hr ee r easons, however , t he empl oyer m
pr ef er ence t o those empl oyees wi t h gr eat er seni or i t y o
wi t h l ess seni or i t y wi t hi n t he same occupat i onal cl assi
I d. 185c. I f t he empl oyer t er mi nates a more seni or emp
r et ai ns a l ess seni or empl oyee wi t hi n the same occ
cl assi f i cat i on, t he empl oyer must pay t he t er mi nated e
mesada. I d. 185a, 185c.
Ar t i cl e 3 of Law 80 f ur t her est abl i shes l i mi t
ext ent of t he seni or i t y anal yses t hat must be per f
compani es t hat "have sever al of f i ces. " I d. 185c( a) .
case of compani es " whose usual and r egul ar pr act i ce i
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
5/42
cont r ast , i f t he company' s " r egul ar and usual pr act i
t r ansf er i t s empl oyees f r om one uni t t o anot her , and var i ous uni t s oper at e i n a r el at i vel y i nt egr at ed manner wi
t o per sonnel aspect s, seni or i t y shal l be comput ed on t he
al l t he empl oyees of t he company, t hat i s t o say, t a
consi der at i on al l of i t s of f i ces. " I d. 185c( b) .
st at ut e makes t he t r ansf er anal ysi s a necessary pr edi c
determi nat i on of how t he company must "comput e[ ] " seni or
Her e, t he par t i es agr ee t hat Amer i can t er mi
pl ai nt i f f s as a resul t of a company downsi zi ng or r est
t hat f i t wi t hi n one of t he t hr ee subsect i ons t hat t r
appl i cat i on of Ar t i cl e 3. The par t i es f ur t her agr ee t
t he t er mi nat i on of t he pl ai nt i f f s, no empl oyees i n t he pl
occupat i onal cl assi f i cat i on - l ess seni or or ot he
r emai ned i n Amer i can' s l one Puer t o Ri co of f i ce, whi ch i s
San J uan. Fi nal l y, t he par t i es agr ee t hat empl oyee
pl ai nt i f f s' occupat i onal cl assi f i cat i on di d r emai n empl o
l east some of Amer i can' s ot her of f i ces wor l dwi de.
The key di sput e between t he par t i es t hus con
Ar t i cl e 3 appl i es t o an empl oyer wi t h one of f i ce i n Pu
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
6/42
Amer i can has j ust one of f i ce i n Puer t o Ri co, we must deci d
t he st at ut e' s pr edi cat e t r ansf er anal ysi s can be satt r ansf er s t hat ar e made t o or f r om an of f i ce out si de
Ri co. I f t he t r ansf er anal ysi s cannot be sat i sf i ed t hat
pl ai nt i f f s ' cl ai m cannot succeed.
II.
On i t s f ace, t he t ext of Ar t i cl e 3 cer t ai nl y
r ead t o accor d wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f s' posi t i on. Ar t i cl e 3
di st i nct i on bet ween of f i ces i n Puer t o Ri co and t hose o
Puer t o Ri co. Ar t i cl e 3 i nst ead si mpl y r ef er s t o t he t r a
of empl oyees "f r om one of f i ce, f act or y, br anch or
anot her , " wi t hout def i ni ng any of t hose t er ms. I d.
Thus, pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat al l of a company' s t
i ncl udi ng t r ansf er s t o or f r om an of f i ce out si de of Pue
count f or t he pur pose of det ermi ni ng whet her t he comp
"r egul ar and usual pr act i ce" of t r ansf er r i ng i t s empl oye
t he meani ng of Ar t i cl e 3.
But t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t appear s t o
a si gni f i cant l i mi t at i on i nt o t he f aci al l y br oad l an
Ar t i cl e 3. I n Reyes Snchez, 189 P. R. Dec. at 608 (
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
7/42
est abl i shment s on an i nt er nat i onal l evel . Thi s anal ysi s i
t o det er mi ni ng t he f r equency of t r ansf er s of empl oyees becompany' s est abl i shment s i n t he j ur i sdi ct i on of Puer t o R
Read l i t er al l y, t hen, Reyes Snchez appear s t o
t hat t r ansf er s t o or f r om of f i ces out si de of Puer t o Ri co
di sr egarded i n consi der i ng whether a company has a " r e
usual pr act i ce" of t r ansf er r i ng empl oyees acr oss of f i ces.
t hat under st andi ng of Reyes Snchez, a company wi t h j ust o
i n Puer t o Ri co, l i ke Amer i can, can never have a " r egul ar
pr act i ce" of t r ansf er r i ng empl oyees f or t he pur poses of A
And so, such a company i s never subj ect t o t he
r equi r ement s of subpar agr aph ( b) .
The pl ai nt i f f s' pr i mar y ar gument agai nst af f i
t hat Reyes Snchez ar ose i n a f act ual cont ext di f f er ent
one we conf r ont her e and t hat t he Cour t ' s hol di ng was i
l i mi t ed t o t hat cont ext . Speci f i cal l y, t he pl ai nt i f f s no
t he appel l ees appear t o accept - - t hat t he empl oyer
Snchez, Eat on El ect r i cal de Puer t o Ri co, I nc. , oper at ed
Ri co onl y as a subsi di ar y of a l ar ger , mul t i nat i onal cor
t he Eat on Cor por at i on. For t hat r eason, t he pl ai nt i f f
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
8/42
Puer t o Ri co that wer e at i ssue i n Reyes Snchez wer e
f r om one cor por at e ent i t y t o anot her . Si nce Amer i can i scor por at e ent i t y, under whi ch al l of i t s of f i ces wor l dwi de
pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat a t r ansf er f r om Amer i can' s San J u
t o one of i t s of f i ces i n anot her j ur i sdi ct i on woul d be a
bet ween t wo of f i ces wi t hi n t he same cor por at e ent i t y. An
pl ai nt i f f s cont end, Reyes Snchez si mpl y does not addr es
st at ut or y anal ysi s appl i es t o such a company.
Mor eover , t he pl ai nt i f f s cont end, t her e i s go
t o t r eat a company t hat oper ates i n Puer t o Ri co onl y
l ocal subsi di ar y di f f er ent l y f r om one t hat oper at es as
gl obal cor por at e ent i t y wi t h of f i ces i n Puer t o Ri c
pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat because t he l at t er t ype of com
di r ect l y avai l ed i t sel f of t he l aws of Puer t o Ri co,
pr ot ect i ons l i ke t hose i n Ar t i cl e 3 shoul d appl y wi t hout l
on such a company. By cont r ast , a company t hat operat es
Ri co onl y t hr ough a l ocal subsi di ar y has not avai l ed i t se
l aws of Puer t o Ri co, and t hus onl y t hat subsi di ar y
subj ect ed t o t he r est r i ct i ons i mposed by Ar t i cl e 3.
But Reyes Snchez di d use seemi ngl y br oad l a
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
9/42
609 n. 21 ( cer t i f i ed t r ansl at i on at 25 n. 21) The Co
emphasi zed t hat Ar t i cl e 3' s anal ysi s was "l i mi t ed tt r ansf ers of empl oyees bet ween t he company' s est abl i shmen
j ur i sdi ct i on of Puer t o Ri co, " I d. at 608 ( cer t i f i ed t r ans
24) wi t hout any ment i on of t he appar ent f act t hat t he
spanned t wo cor por at e ent i t i es.3
Mor eover , t he Cour t nowher e acknowl edged, m
r el i ed on, t he appar ent f act t hat Eat on El ect r i cal de Pue
I nc. , oper at ed as a subsi di ar y of Eat on Cor por at i on. I ns
cour t r ef er r ed t o Eat on El ect r i cal de Puer t o Ri co, I nc. , a
and never ment i oned Eat on Cor por at i on. I d. at 608 (
t r ansl at i on at 24) . And t hen, when descr i bi ng t he i nt e
t r ansf er s at i ssue i n t hat case, t he Cour t r ef er r ed t o
pl ant i n Hai na, Domi ni can Republ i c" usi ng t he same l a
used t o r ef er t o "Eat on' s pl ant i n Las Pi edr as" ( a ci t y
Ri co) . I d. at 607 n. 20, 609 n. 21 ( cer t i f i ed t r ansl at i
n. 20, 25 n. 21) . Fi nal l y, when t he Cour t appl i ed i t s h
t he f act s bef or e i t , t he Cour t st at ed t hat "movement of
or t r ansf er s f r om Eat on' s pl ant s i n ot her j ur i sdi ct i on
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
10/42
consi der ed a t r ansf er f or pur poses of est abl i shi ng t he
of t r ansf er s bet ween t he company' s est abl i shment s i n PuerI d. at 609 ( cer t i f i ed t r ansl at i on at 24- 25) ( emphasi s
Thus, t he Cour t at no poi nt i ndi cat ed t hat i t even knew,
consi der ed, t he f act t hat t he Eat on pl ant s i n ot her j ur i
may have been oper ated by a di f f er ent corporate ent i t y ti n Puer t o Ri co.
And t he Reyes Snchez Cour t ' s descr i pt i on
l egi sl at i ve hi stor y of Ar t i cl e 3 i s i nconsi stent
pl ai nt i f f s' pr ef er r ed r eadi ng of t hi s pr ecedent . T
descr i bed Ar t i cl e 3 as "est abl i sh[ i ng] cer t ai n addi t i onal
t hat compani es t hat have more t han one est abl i shment
Ri co must compl y wi t h. " I d. at 602 ( cer t i f i ed t r ansl at i
( emphasi s added) . The Cour t t hen not ed t hat , pr i o
enact ment of subsect i ons ( a) and ( b) , t he i nt er pr et at i
Puer t o Ri co Depar t ment of Labor and Human Resour ces was t
a company t hat had sever al est abl i shment s r educed perso
or der of r et ent i on based on seni or i t y had t o be est abl i s
on al l of t he empl oyees of t he di f f er ent est abl i shment
company i n Puer t o Ri co. " I d. ( emphasi s added) . Fi nal l y,
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
11/42
company wi t h whi ch t he empl oyee has had no r el
what soever . " I d. at 603 ( cer t i f i ed t r ansl at i on at 17- 18) added) .
Thus, Reyes Snchez descr i bes t he t wo subp
wi t hi n Ar t i cl e 3 as pl aci ng a l i mi t on a pr evi ous
i nt er pr et at i on of Ar t i cl e 3, under whi ch a seni or i t y anaal ways r equi r ed t o span al l of a company' s of f i ces i n Pue
But i f t hat under st andi ng of Ar t i cl e 3' s or i gi nal scope
t hen on t he pl ai nt i f f s' vi ew, subpar agr aph ( b) di d not mer
a l i mi t but al so si mul t aneousl y br oadened t he scope of
dr amat i cal l y, by creat i ng an obl i gat i on t o conduct a
seni or i t y anal ysi s under some ci r cumst ances.
I t i s not abl e, t her ef or e, t hat t he Reyes Snche
descr i pt i on of t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y t o Ar t i cl e 3 con
r ef er r ed t o t he t wo subpar agr aphs of Ar t i cl e 3 as a l
i mpact i ng "compani es t hat have more t han one est abl i s
Puer t o Ri co. " I d. at 602 ( cer t i f i ed t r ansl at i on at 16)
added) . By cont r ast , t he Reyes Snchez Cour t ' s descr
t hat l egi sl at i ve hi st or y makes no r ef er ence t o what p
cont end i s t he l i nchpi n of t he pr ovi si on: t hat t r ansf er
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
12/42
Never t hel ess, a hol di ng i n f avor of Amer i c
r equi r e an i nf er ence f r om si l ence as wel l . The Reyehol di ng, al t hough f r amed i n br oad t er ms, was cr af t ed t o d
a par t i cul ar case wi t h par t i cul ar f act s. The Cour t si mpl
cl ear l y addr ess, because i t had no occasi on to addr ess, a
i n whi ch t he empl oyer ' s Puer t o Ri co and ot her of f i ces al lwi t hi n t he same cor por at e ent i t y. And, as not ed, t he p
of Ar t i cl e 3, st andi ng on i t s own, does not i t sel f pr ovi d
basi s f or f i ndi ng a gener al l i mi t at i on of t he ki nd t he
Cour t , qui t e under st andabl y, r ead Reyes Snchez t o ha
r esi di ng i n t he st at ut e.
We ar e t hus l ef t wi t h a choi ce bet ween app
hol di ng of Reyes Snchez t o a f act ual scenar i o i t di d not
addr ess, or appl yi ng t he unqual i f i ed t ext of t he st at ut
t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t ' s havi ng al r eady l i mi
l anguage i n Reyes Snchez. Faced wi t h such a choi ce,
nor mal l y woul d be ot her Puer t o Ri co pr ecedent i nt er pr et i n
3 of Law 80. Her e, however , i t appear s t hat no on- poi nt
besi des Reyes Snchez exi st s. Nei t her Amer i can nor t he p
have ci t ed any such pr ecedent , and we have f ound none.
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
13/42
Gr ay LLP v. J al ber t ( I n Re Engage, I nc. ) , 544 F. 3d 50
Ci r . 2008) .4
And al t hough Reyes Snchez cont ai ns a i ndi cator s suggest i ng t hat t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t
l i kel y t o ext end t hat hol di ng t o t hi s case, we ar e r el
"encr oach on t he pr er ogat i ve of t hat cour t by r eso
quest i on our sel ves. " I d. ; see Sant i ago- Hodge v. Par keCo. , 859 F. 2d 1026, 1033 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) ( " [ O] ur cr e
acr oss- t he- boar d rul e may be unnecessary, and may of f end t
due t o l ocal cour t s, si nce Puer t o Ri co cour t s have never
t hi s speci f i c i ssue. ") . I nst ead, t hi s i s a case "i n wh
ar e l ocal i ssues of l aw t hat ar e deci si ve i n t he
act i on . . . , f or whi ch t her e ar e no cl ear pr ecedent
deci si ons of t he Supr eme Cour t of t he Commonweal t h of Puer
P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 32, app. I I I , Rul e 53. 1( f ) . We t hu
t he bet t er cour se i s, consi st ent wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f s' s
i n t hei r br i ef i ng t o us, [ Repl y Br . 10- 11] , t o cer t i f y t he
i n accor dance wi t h t he r ul es of t he Puer t o Ri co Supr e
See Pagn- Col n, 697 F. 3d at 19.
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
14/42
III.
Accordi ngl y, we hereby certify t he f ol l owi ng qut he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t :
I n Reyes Snchez v. Eat on El ec. , 189 P. R. Dec. 586, ( 2013) , t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t st ated t hat anal ysi s of empl oyer t r ansf er act i vi t y under Ar t i cof Law 80 " i s l i mi t ed t o det er mi ni ng t he f r equenc
t r ansf er s of empl oyees bet ween t he compaest abl i shment s i n t he j ur i sdi ct i on of Puer t o RiUnder Reyes Snchez, does t hat l i mi t at i on appl y wt he empl oyer has one of f i ce i n Puer t o Ri co and mul tof f i ces i n ot her j ur i sdi ct i ons and oper at es al l ofof f i ces under t he same cor por at e ent i t y?
We woul d al so wel come any f ur t her gui dan
r el evant Puer t o Ri co l aw t hat t he Puer t o Ri co Supr eme
choose t o pr ovi de. See Bost on Gas Co. v. Cent ur y I ndem.
F. 3d 8, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .
The Cl er k of t hi s cour t i s di r ect ed t o f or wa
Puer t o Ri co Supr eme Cour t , under t he of f i ci al seal of t h
a copy of t he cer t i f i ed quest i on and our opi ni on i n t
al ong wi t h copi es of t he br i ef s and appendi x f i l ed by t he
We r et ai n j ur i sdi ct i on over t hi s appeal pendi ng r esol ut i
cer t i f i ed quest i on.
-Appendix Follows-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
15/42
-15-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
16/42
-16-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
17/42
-17-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
18/42
-18-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
19/42
-19-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
20/42
-20-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
21/42
-21-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
22/42
-22-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
23/42
-23-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
24/42
-24-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
25/42
-25-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
26/42
-26-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
27/42
-27-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
28/42
-28-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
29/42
-29-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
30/42
-30-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
31/42
-31-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
32/42
-32-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
33/42
-33-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
34/42
-34-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
35/42
-35-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
36/42
-36-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
37/42
-37-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
38/42
-38-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
39/42
-39-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
40/42
-40-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
41/42
-41-
7/26/2019 Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. American Airlines, Inc., 1st Cir. (2016)
42/42
-42-