Carrero-Ojeda v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Carrero-Ojeda v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/30

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 2133

MI NERVA CARRERO- OJ EDA,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

AUTORI DAD DE ENERG A ELCTRI CA; V CTOR RUI Z, i n hi s personaland of f i ci al capaci t i es; MI GUEL CORDERO, i n hi s per sonal and

of f i ci al capaci t i es; J OHN DOE,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Franci sco A. Besosa, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Thompson, Li pez, and Kayat t a,Ci r cui t J udges.

Wi l ber t Mndez Mar r er o f or appel l ant .Angel A. Val enci a- Apont e f or appel l ees Aut or i dad de Ener g a

El ctr i ca; V ctor Rui z, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y; and Mi guelCor der o, i n hi s per sonal and of f i ci al capaci t i es.

Susana I . Peagar cano- Br own, Assi st ant Sol i ci t or Gener al ,Commonweal t h of Puer t o Ri co, wi t h whom Margar i t a L. MercadoEchegaray, Sol i ci t or Gener al , Commonweal t h of Puer t o Ri co, was on

br i ef , f or appel l ee V ctor Rui z, i n hi s i ndi vi dual capaci t y.

J une 20, 2014


2/30

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Pl ai nt i f f - appel l ant Mi ner va

Car r er o- Oj eda ( "Car r er o" ) says t hat af t er she bl ew t he whi st l e on

wr ongdoi ng i n her of f i ce, her empl oyer and her super i or s r et al i at ed

agai nst her i n myr i ad ways. They t hr eat ened her , unj ust l y

di sci pl i ned her , and most r el evant l y f or our pur poses depr i ved

her of benef i t s owed t o her under t he Fami l y and Medi cal Leave Act

( "FMLA") , 29 U. S. C. 2601- 2654, and ul t i mat el y f i r ed her .

Car r er o now appeal s t he di st r i ct cour t ' s di smi ssal of her FMLA

compl ai nt f or f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m. She al so chal l enges the

cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o gr ant or , at l east , expr essl y deny her post -

j udgment r equest f or l eave t o amend t he pl eadi ngs. For r easons we

expl ai n shor t l y, we af f i r m.

I. BACKGROUND

Because t hi s appeal f ol l ows a di smi ssal pur suant t o

Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) ( "Rul e 12( b) ( 6) ") , we

t ake as t r ue t he f act s al l eged i n Car r er o' s compl ai nt and dr aw al l

r easonabl e i nf er ences i n her f avor . 1 See Mal oy v. Bal l or i - Lage,

744 F. 3d 250, 251 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

A. The Facts

Carr er o began worki ng f or def endant - appel l ee Aut or i dad de

Ener g a El ct r i ca ( t he Puer t o Ri co El ect r i cal Power Aut hor i t y, or

"PREPA") i n Sept ember 1986. At al l t i mes r el evant t o her

1 Unl i ke t he di st r i ct cour t , we do not consi der t he t hr eedocument s t hat def endant s appended t o t hei r mot i on t o di smi ss. Weexpl ai n why i n Par t I I ( A) , i nf r a.

-2-


3/30

compl ai nt , Car r er o hel d t he posi t i on of admi ni st r at i ve coor di nat or

i n PREPA' s Aguadi l l a Techni cal Of f i ce. Def endant - appel l ee V ct or

Rui z was di st r i ct engi neer of t he t echni cal sect i on and Car r er o' s

i mmedi ate super vi sor . Def endant - appel l ee Mi guel Corder o was

PREPA' s execut i ve di r ect or .

I n August 2007, PREPA' s i nt er nal af f ai r s of f i ce i ni t i at ed

an i nvest i gat i on of cor r upt i on i n t he Aguadi l l a Techni cal Of f i ce.

Car r er o' s super vi sor , Rui z, was one of t he t ar get s. Car r er o

t est i f i ed and pr ovi ded i nf or mat i on f or t he i nvest i gat i on. To get

back at her , Car r er o says, Rui z, " i n connect i on and conspi r acy wi t h

ot her empl oyees, commenced a pat t ern of di scr i mi nat ory act s agai nst

[ her ] af f ecti ng t he t er ms, condi t i ons, benef i t s[ , ] and pr i vi l eges

of her empl oyment . " Car r er o cl ai ms "[ t ] he act s of di scr i mi nat or y

r et al i at i on i ncl uded denyi ng [ her ] j ob pr omot i ons, denyi ng [ her ]

mar gi nal benef i t s, submi t t i ng [ her ] t o unj ust di sci pl i nar y

measur es, t hr eat eni ng [ her ] wi t h di smi ssal , i ni t i at [ i ng] i l l egal

admi ni st r at i ve pr ocedur es[ , ] . . . i l l egal l y di schar gi ng her f r om

her empl oyment , " and "vi ol at i ng her r i ght s under [ t he] FMLA. "

Speci f i cal l y, i n November 2007, Car r er o al l eges t hat Rui z

"commenced an admi ni st r at i ve i nvest i gat i on" agai nst her " f or

al l egedl y havi ng phot ocopi ed her per sonnel f i l e wi t hout [ hi s]

consent . " Car r er o says t hi s occur r ed "dur i ng t he per i od when [ she]

was on f ami l y l eave pr otect ed by t he FMLA[ ] f or t he car e of her

mot her due t o a medi cal procedure she had t o under go. " The

-3-


4/30

subsequent i nvest i gat i on l ed PREPA' s chi ef human r esour ces of f i cer ,

Al ex Car vaj al , 2 t o f i l e admi ni st r at i ve char ges agai nst Car r er o f or

vi ol at i ons of PREPA' s Rul es of Conduct 18 and 29, as wel l as Notes

1 and 5, on J anuary 30, 2008. ( Car r er o does not t el l us what t hese

r ul es pr ohi bi t or what t he char ges st at ed. Fromnow on, we' l l cal l

t hem t he "J anuar y 2008 char ges. " )

Whi l e t he J anuar y 2008 charges were pendi ng, ot her

har assment was under way. For exampl e, i n Mar ch 2008, PREPA' s l abor

af f ai r s of f i ce r ef used t o pay Car r er o' s t r avel expenses t o at t end

an admi ni st r at i ve hear i ng, t hough i t had al ways r ei mbur sed her f or

such t r avel bef or e. Car r er o cont ends t hat t hi s shows t he l abor

of f i ce was i n cahoot s wi t h Rui z and company. Because of t he

deni al , Car r er o f i l ed an admi ni st r at i ve cl ai m" bef or e t he Cour t of

Appeal s" ( she does not say whi ch one) , whi ch or der ed a hear i ng.

Car r er o says PREPA di d not compl y wi t h that cour t ' s j udgment ( but

does not say what t he j udgment was) .

I n Apr i l 2008, PREPA' s i nt er nal af f ai r s of f i ce summoned

Car r er o t o of f er t est i mony i n t he cor r upt i on i nvest i gat i on of t he

Aguadi l l a Techni cal Of f i ce. A f ew weeks l at er , Rui z i nst r uct ed a

secur i t y guar d t o wi t hhol d a vehi cl es r epor t f r om Car r er o t hat she

usual l y mai nt ai ned and t hat she had pl anned t o gi ve t o the

i nvest i gat or s.

2 We use t he spel l i ng of Carvaj al ' s name f ound i n def endant s'answer t o t he compl ai nt .

-4-


5/30

I n J une 2008, Car r er o' s mot her f el l and i nj ur ed her sel f .

Car r er o r equest ed and was gr ant ed l eave t o care f or her . Whi l e

Car r ero was away, human r esour ces chi ef Car vaj al and two co- worker s

( whose r ol es Car r ero does not expl ai n) pr omot ed t hr ee PREPA

empl oyees t o super i or posi t i ons i n t he Aguadi l l a Techni cal Of f i ce

"wi t hout gr ant i ng [ Car r er o] t he oppor t uni t y . . . [ t o] i nt er vi ew

and knowi ng[ ] she appl i ed f or such posi t i on. " I n doi ng so, Car r er o

says t hey depr i ved her of an oppor t uni t y f or pr omot i on i n vi ol at i on

of her FMLA r i ght s. I n r esponse, Car r er o f i l ed compl ai nt s wi t h t he

Equal Empl oyment Oppor t uni t y Commi ssi on ( "EEOC") , as wel l as a

gr i evance wi t h t he l abor af f ai r s of f i ce, none of whi ch wer e ever

r esol ved.

Al so whi l e Car r er o was out on l eave, Rui z and t wo

di f f er ent co- wor ker s ( whose rol es Car r er o l i kewi se does not

expl ai n) i nst i gat ed a second admi ni st r at i ve i nvest i gat i on of

Car r er o. The ensui ng i nqui r y caused human r esour ces chi ef Carvaj al

t o f i l e a second set of admi ni st r at i ve char ges agai nst Car r er o on

August 8, 2008 f or vi ol at i ons of PREPA' s Rul es of Conduct 17 and

27. ( Agai n, Car r er o does not t el l us what t hese r ul es pr ohi bi t or

what t he char ges st at ed. We' l l cal l t hemt he "August 2008 char ges"

f r om her e on out . ) I n r esponse, Car r er o f i l ed anot her compl ai nt

wi t h t he EEOC agai nst Rui z f or vi ol at i ng her FMLA r i ght s t hat was

al so never r esol ved.

-5-


6/30

I n Sept ember 2008, Rui z t asked Car r er o wi t h pr epar i ng

absence l et t er s f or empl oyees wi t h unsat i sf act or y at t endance.

Then, i n Oct ober 2008, Rui z asked Car r er o t o phot ocopy t he

per sonnel f i l es of ever y Aguadi l l a Techni cal Of f i ce empl oyee.

Car r er o compl ai ns t hat both j obs wer e beneat h her manager i al st atus

and wer e bet t er sui t ed t o "cl er i cal per sonnel . " Addi t i onal l y, she

says t he assi gnment s amount ed t o " empl oyment har assment " because

t hey vi ol at ed PREPA' s pr ocedures and because she was t hen under

i nvest i gat i on f or copyi ng her own per sonnel f i l e wi t hout

per mi ssi on. I n r esponse, she f i l ed a uni on gr i evance agai nst Rui z,

but no r esol ut i on was r eached.

On J anuar y 23, 2009, a hear i ng of f i cer r evi ewi ng t he

J anuar y 2008 char ges r ecommended Car r er o' s di schar ge. A f ew weeks

l at er , an empl oyee act i ng on Rui z' s behal f t wi ce at t empt ed t o

"f or ce [ Car r er o] t o r ecei ve" a copy of t he r esol ut i on of t he

char ges once at Rui z' s of f i ce and once at Car r er o' s of f i ce but

Car r er o r ef used. Car r er o per cei ved t hese at t empt ed del i ver i es t o

be "act s of i nt i mi dat i on. "

I n May 2009, Rui z, al ong wi t h unnamed co- conspi r ators i n

PREPA' s l abor of f i ce, deduct ed 6 hour s and 16 mi nut es f r om

Car r ero' s pay and made her use vacat i on l eave f or t i me spent

at t endi ng a meet i ng r egardi ng her EEOC compl ai nt s agai nst Rui z and

a co- wor ker f or vi ol at i ng her FMLA r i ght s. Lat er , PREPA' s di r ect or

-6-


7/30

of t r ansmi ssi on and di st r i but i on or der ed t hat Car r er o be rei mbur sed

f or t he di scount ed hour s.

On J une 22, 2009, t hough one hear i ng of f i cer had al r eady

r ecommended Car r er o' s t ermi nat i on based on the J anuar y 2008

char ges, Cor der o t hen newl y appoi nt ed as execut i ve di r ect or

order ed a second hear i ng on t hose charges bef ore a di f f er ent

of f i cer . I n t he meant i me, i n Sept ember 2009, a PREPA account i ng

of f i ce empl oyee deni ed Car r er o' s r ei mbur sement r equest f or $201 f or

t r avel t o San J uan f or a meet i ng wi t h t he l abor af f ai r s of f i ce.

The of f i ce usual l y pai d Car r er o back pr ompt l y f or her wor k- r el at ed

expenses.

On May 25, 2010, Car r ero i nf ormed Cordero by l et t er t hat

she was a col l abor at i ng wi t ness i n t he i nt er nal cor r upt i on

i nvest i gat i on. Shor t l y t her eaf t er , on J une 10, 2010, a second

hear i ng of f i cer r ecommended Car r er o' s di schar ge based on the

J anuar y 2008 char ges.

Not much l ater , on August 19, 2010, Car r er o agai n appl i ed

f or f ami l y l eave t o t ake car e of her si ck mot her , "who was

suf f er i ng [ f r om] var i ous ser i ous heal t h condi t i ons whi ch mi ght need

emer gency t r eatment and medi cal car e out si de and at home. " On

September 2, 2010, Rui z r ecommended that Car r ero' s r equest be

grant ed. Anot her empl oyee approved her r equest t hat same day, but

Car r er o di d not t ake t he l eave i mmedi atel y.

-7-


8/30

I n Oct ober 2010, as a r esul t of t he admi ni st r at i ve

i nvest i gat i on of cor r upt i on i n t he Aguadi l l a Techni cal Of f i ce, t he

i nt er nal af f ai r s of f i ce r ecommended f i l i ng char ges agai nst Rui z,

among ot her s, f or embezzl ement . Thereaf t er , Car r ero says she was

"subj ect [ ed] t o t hr eat s and r et al i at i on by . . . Rui z" and ot her s

under i nvest i gat i on, causi ng her t o "f ear [ ] f or her l i f e. "

"By t he mi ddl e of Oct ober [ ] 2010, " Car r er o' s l awyer

r ecei ved a l et t er si gned by execut i ve di r ect or Cor der o sayi ng t hat

Car r er o was di schar ged f r omher posi t i on ef f ect i ve Oct ober 3, 2010.

Car r er o' s l awyer t ol d her about t he l et t er , but Car r er o her sel f was

not not i f i ed by PREPA, so she kept worki ng as usual . Then, on

Oct ober 27, 2010, Car r er o' s l awyer r ecei ved a second l et t er , t hi s

t i me si gned by Angel Ri ver a ( another pl ayer whose r ol e Car r er o does

not expl ai n) on Cor der o' s behal f , r ei t er at i ng t hat Car r er o had been

di schar ged but amendi ng t he ef f ect i ve date to Oct ober 31, 2010.

Car r er o says she di d not r ecei ve a copy of t hi s l et t er ei t her .

I n t he mi ddl e of al l t hi s, on t he ni ght of Oct ober 21,

2010, Car r er o' s mot her f el l and " i nj ur [ ed] her hi p and ot her par t s

of her body. " The f ol l owi ng day, Car r er o not i f i ed Rui z t hat she

needed t hr ee mont hs of f ami l y l eave t o t ake car e of her mot her and

"r equest [ ed] t o act i vat e t he f ami l y l eave al r eady appr oved" on

Sept ember 2 " f or t he t i me she was goi ng t o be absent . " Car r ero

does not say whether she i n f act mi ssed work t o car e f or her mot her

t hat day, but because she says she " r equest ed her i mmedi at e absence

-8-


9/30

f r om wor k" af t er her mot her f el l , we assume she i n f act st opped

goi ng t o wor k on Oct ober 22. And because her empl oyment was

t er mi nated a f ew days l ater , we al so assume she di d not r et ur n t o

work f ol l owi ng t hi s absence, t hough her compl ai nt does not say so

expr essl y.

On November 4, 2010 a f ew days af t er Car r ero' s

di schar ge had t aken ef f ect Car r er o' s l awyer r ecei ved a l et t er

f r omPREPA' s l abor of f i ce st at i ng t hat PREPA woul d not acknowl edge

Car r er o' s l eave act i vat i on r equest . Car r er o' s mother passed away

on J une 18, 2011. Car r er o says she di d not per sonal l y r ecei ve a

l et t er not i f yi ng her of her di schar ge unt i l J ul y 15, 2011.

B. Travel of the Case

On Oct ober 31, 2011, Car r ero f i l ed a compl ai nt agai nst

PREPA, Rui z and Cor der o i n t hei r per sonal and of f i ci al capaci t i es,

and J ohn Doe, 3 al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of her r i ght s under ( 1) t he

FMLA, and ( 2) t he Puer t o Ri co Whi st l e Bl ower Act , as pr ovi ded by

P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 29, 194, and P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 1, 601.

Wi t h r espect t o her FMLA cl ai m, Car r er o sai d t hat i n

Oct ober 2010 t hough she qual i f i ed f or l eave, she had gi ven PREPA

adequat e not i ce t hat she i nt ended t o t ake l eave, and PREPA had

al r eady appr oved t he l eave when she t r i ed t o "act i vat e" t he

3 Car r er o descr i bed J ohn Doe as " any per son who may ber esponsi bl e f or t he act s commi t t ed agai nst [ her ] whose i dent i t y i snot known at t he moment , " and sai d she woul d j oi n such per son oncehi s or her i dent i t y became known.

-9-


10/30

l eave, PREPA wr ongf ul l y "deni ed her t he appl i cabl e FMLA benef i t s"

and "i l l egal l y di schar ged [ Car r er o] f r omher posi t i on . . . dur i ng

t he per i od she was pr ot ect ed by t he FMLA. " By di schargi ng her on

Oct ober 31, 2010, PREPA "i l l egal l y i nt er f er ed [ wi t h] , r est r ai ned[ , ]

and deni ed [ her ] t he f ami l y l eave approved on September 2, 2010 and

act i vat ed on Oct ober 22, 2010. " Ther e was "no . . . j ust i f i cat i on"

f or di schar gi ng her "dur i ng t he per i od she was under t he pr ot ect i on

of t he FMLA, " she sai d, ot her t han t o " r et al i at e agai nst her [ and]

t o depr i ve her of her r i ght [ s] as par t of t he pat t er n of har assment

and r et al i at i on [ she] suf f er ed. "4

On J anuary 18, 2012, def endant s f i l ed a mot i on t o di smi ss

Car r er o' s compl ai nt pur suant t o Rul e 12( b) ( 6) f or f ai l ur e t o st at e

a cl ai m on whi ch r el i ef coul d be gr ant ed. They cont ended Car r er o

was di schar ged f or di sci pl i nar y reasons ent i r el y unr el at ed t o any

exer ci se of her FMLA r i ght s. Moreover , t hey argued t he FMLA di d

not i nsul at e Car r er o f r om adver se empl oyment act i ons unr el at ed t o

her FMLA r i ght s.

Def endant s at t ached t hr ee document s t o t hei r mot i on t o

di smi ss: ( 1) t he di sci pl i nar y compl ai nt f i l ed agai nst Car r er o on

J anuar y 30, 2008, whi ch l ays out r el evant personnel r egul at i ons and

det ai l s Rui z' s accusat i ons agai nst her ; ( 2) t he admi ni st r at i ve

4 Car r er o al so cl ai med PREPA cancel ed her sal ary and benef i t sat t he begi nni ng of Oct ober , t hough she was not sl ated t o bedi schar ged unt i l Oct ober 31. She di d not f i l e a separ at e cl ai mbased on t hi s pr ematur e t er mi nat i on.

-10-


11/30

r ul i ng recommendi ng Car r er o' s di schar ge, dated J une 10, 2010 and

amended J ul y 30, 2010; and ( 3) t he l et t er di schar gi ng Car r er o

ef f ect i ve Oct ober 31, 2010, dated Oct ober 14, 2010. Car r er o had

not at t ached t hese document s t o her compl ai nt , but she di d not

obj ect t o t hei r consi der at i on or chal l enge t hei r aut hent i ci t y.

Rat her , she ci t ed the document s i n her opposi t i on t o t he mot i on t o

di smi ss, sayi ng t hey "ser ve[ d] t o demonst r at e t he pat t er n of

r et al i at i on per pet uat ed by [def endant s] . "

On J une 27, 2012, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed def endant s'

mot i on t o di smi ss. I n eval uat i ng t he mot i on, t he cour t consi der ed

both Car r er o' s compl ai nt and def endant s' document s. Assessi ng

Car r er o' s FMLA cl ai m, t he cour t f ound PREPA had "pr ovi ded [ Car r er o]

wi t h al l r equi r ed ent i t l ement s" and "di schar ged [ her ] f or r easons

ent i r el y i ndependent of t he FMLA, " whi l e Car r er o had " f ai l [ ed] t o

demonst r at e a causal connect i on bet ween her FMLA l eave and her

di schar ge. " Accor di ngl y, t he cour t di smi ssed Car r er o' s FMLA cl ai m

wi t h pr ej udi ce, and, l acki ng any f eder al cl ai mupon whi ch t o anchor

suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on, di smi ssed Car r er o' s Puer t o Ri co l aw

cl ai ms wi t hout pr ej udi ce.

On J ul y 25, 2012, Car r er o f i l ed a mot i on t o al t er or

amend j udgment pur suant t o Federal Rul e of Ci vi l Procedur e 59( e)

( "Rul e 59( e) " ) . She argued t he pl eadi ngs adequatel y suppor t ed her

al l egat i ons t hat def endant s had i nt er f er ed wi t h her FMLA r i ght s.

-11-


12/30

I n t he al t er nat i ve, she r equest ed l eave t o amend t he pl eadi ngs.

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed her mot i on a f ew days l at er .

On August 10, 2012, Car r er o f i l ed a mot i on f or

r econsi der at i on of t he or der denyi ng her mot i on. Def endant s

obj ect ed because Car r er o f i l ed the mot i on wi t hout t he cour t ' s

l eave. The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he mot i on on August 13, 2012.

Thi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

II. ANALYSIS

Bef or e us, Car r er o ar gues t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed by

f i ndi ng t hat her compl ai nt di d not st at e a suf f i ci ent l y pl ausi bl e

cl ai m f or r el i ef t o wi t hst and def endant s' mot i on t o di smi ss. I n

t he al t er nat i ve, she cont ends t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s

di scr et i on by not gr ant i ng or speci f i cal l y denyi ng her r equest f or

l eave t o amend t he pl eadi ngs. 5

We f i nd Car r ero' s ar gument s unpersuasi ve. But bef ore we

t ur n t o t he mer i t s of her cl ai ms, we pause t o ascer t ai n what

mat er i al s are pr oper l y bef or e us.

A. Configuring the Record

At t he mot i on- t o- di smi ss st age, our pr i mar y f ocus i s on

t he compl ai nt . See, e. g. , Mal oy v. Bal l or i - Lage, 744 F. 3d 250, 251

( 1st Ci r . 2014) . Or di nar i l y, cour t s may not consi der any document s

"out si de of t he compl ai nt , or not expr essl y i ncor por at ed t her ei n, "

5 Car r er o does not chal l enge t he di st r i ct cour t ' s di smi ssalwi t hout pr ej udi ce of her Puer t o Ri co l aw cl ai ms.

-12-


13/30

wi t hout conver t i ng t he mot i on i nt o one f or summary j udgment . Al t .

Ener gy, I nc. v. St . Paul Fi r e and Mar i ne I ns. Co. , 267 F. 3d 30, 33

( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( ci t i ng Wat t er son v. Page, 987 F. 2d 1, 3 ( 1st Ci r .

1993) ) . However , t her e i s a nar r ow except i on f or document s t he

aut hent i ci t y of whi ch i s not chal l enged t hat ar e cent r al t o t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s cl ai m or suf f i ci ent l y r ef er r ed t o i n t he compl ai nt ,

even i f t hose document s ar e not physi cal l y at t ached t o t he

pl eadi ng. I d. ( ci t i ng Wat t er son, 987 F. 2d at 3) ; see al so Schat z

v. Republ i can St ate Leader shi p Comm. , 669 F. 3d 50, 55 ( 1st Ci r .

2012) ; Rodi v. S. N. E. Sch. of Law, 389 F. 3d 5, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ;

Beddal l v. St at e St . Bank & Tr ust Co. , 137 F. 3d 12, 17 ( 1st Ci r .

1998) .

Her e, when appr ai si ng def endant s' Rul e 12( b) ( 6) mot i on,

i n addi t i on t o t he compl ai nt , t he di st r i ct cour t consi der ed t hr ee

document s submi t t ed by def endant s. As a qui ck r ef r esher , t hose

document s wer e: ( 1) t he J anuar y 2008 di sci pl i nar y compl ai nt f i l ed

agai nst Car r er o; ( 2) t he J une 2010 admi ni st r at i ve r ul i ng

r ecommendi ng Car r er o' s di schar ge; and ( 3) t he Oct ober 2010 l et t er

t ermi nat i ng Car r ero. Though Car r ero had not appended t hose

document s t o her compl ai nt , t he cour t sai d she had "ma[de] expl i ci t

r ef er ence t o" t hem, so i t coul d pr oper l y consi der t hem.

I t i s a cl ose quest i on whet her t hese document s are

suf f i ci ent l y r ef er r ed t o i n Car r er o' s compl ai nt t o war r ant

consi der at i on at t hi s st age. See Al t . Ener gy, I nc. , 267 F. 3d at

-13-


14/30

33. Whi l e Car r er o ment i oned t he Oct ober 2010 l et t er i n her

compl ai nt , she di d not di r ect l y ci t e t he di sci pl i nar y compl ai nt or

admi ni st r at i ve r ul i ng; r at her , she si mpl y di scussed t he pr oceedi ngs

memor i al i zed i n t hose document s.

Absent any pr eser ved obj ect i on by ei t her par t y, we, l i ke

t he di st r i ct cour t , coul d choose t o r egar d t he document s "as par t

of t he pl eadi ngs" and consi der t hem her e. See Mal oy, 744 F. 3d at

251 n. 1 ( ci t i ng Wat t er son, 987 F. 2d at 4) . But because we f i nd

Car r er o' s compl ai nt i nsuf f i ci ent t o sur mount def endant s' mot i on t o

di smi ss on i t s own, we f eel no need t o muddy t he wat ers of our

anal ysi s by consi der i ng def endant s' document s. So we move on t o

t he mer i t s, consi der i ng Car r er o' s compl ai nt al one.

B. Family and Medical Leave Act Claims

Car r er o' s mai n cont ent i on on appeal i s t hat her compl ai nt

cont ai ned suf f i ci ent f act ual al l egat i ons t o make out a pl ausi bl e

cl ai m f or r el i ef under t he FMLA. Accor di ngl y, she says t he

di st r i ct cour t er r ed by gr ant i ng def endant s' mot i on t o di smi ss.

1. Standard of Review

We r evi ew order s gr ant i ng mot i ons t o di smi ss under Rul e

12( b) ( 6) de novo, appl yi ng t he same cr i t er i a as t he di st r i ct cour t .

Schat z, 669 F. 3d at 55. Our " sol e i nqui r y . . . i s whet her ,

const r ui ng t he wel l - pl eaded f act s of t he compl ai nt i n t he l i ght

most f avor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i f f [ ] , t he compl ai nt st at es a cl ai mf or

whi ch r el i ef can be gr ant ed. " Ocasi o- Her nndez v. For t uo- Bur set ,

-14-


15/30

640 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( ci t i ng Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) ( 6) ) .

I n ot her wor ds, we ask whet her t he compl ai nt "cont ai n[ s] suf f i ci ent

f act ual mat t er t o stat e a cl ai mt o r el i ef t hat i s pl ausi bl e on i t s

f ace. " Rodr guez- Reyes v. Mol i na- Rodr guez, 711 F. 3d 49, 53 ( 1st

Ci r . 2013) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) .

We pr oceed i n t wo st eps: Fi r st , we " i sol at e and i gnor e

st at ement s i n t he compl ai nt t hat si mpl y of f er l egal l abel s and

concl usi ons or mer el y r ehash cause- of - act i on el ement s. " Schat z,

669 F. 3d at 55. Second, we t ake t he f act s of t he compl ai nt as

t r ue, "dr awi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n [ pl ai nt i f f ' s] f avor ,

and see i f t hey pl ausi bl y nar r at e a cl ai m f or r el i ef . " I d.

"Pl ausi bl e, " we have not ed, "means somet hi ng mor e t han

mer el y possi bl e. " I d. And a compl ai nt t hat "pl eads f act s t hat ar e

' mer el y consi st ent wi t h' a def endant ' s l i abi l i t y . . . ' st ops shor t

of t he l i ne bet ween possi bi l i t y and pl ausi bi l i t y. ' " Ocasi o-

Her nndez, 640 F. 3d at 12 ( quot i ng Ashcr of t v. I qbal , 556 U. S. 662,

678 ( 2009) ) .

However , a compl ai nt need not "pl ead f act s suf f i ci ent t o

est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case, " Rodr guez- Reyes, 711 F. 3d at 54

( al t er at i on added) , or "al l ege ever y f act necessar y t o wi n at

t r i al , " Rodr guez- Vi ves v. P. R. Fi r ef i ght er s Cor ps of P. R. , 743

F. 3d 278, 283 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) , t o make out a pl ausi bl e cl ai m. See

al so Swi er ki ewi cz v. Sorema, 534 U. S. 506, 515 ( 2002) . "The pr i ma

f aci e st andar d i s an evi dent i ar y st andar d, not a pl eadi ng st andar d,

-15-


16/30

and t her e i s no need t o set f or t h a det ai l ed evi dent i ar y pr of f er i n

a compl ai nt . " Rodr guez- Reyes, 711 F. 3d at 54 ( al t er at i on added) .

That sai d, t he el ements of a pr i ma f ace case r emai n

r el evant t o our pl ausi bi l i t y assessment , as " [ t ] hose el ement s are

par t of t he backgr ound agai nst whi ch a pl ausi bi l i t y det er mi nat i on

shoul d be made. " I d. Though " [ t ] her e need not be a one- t o- one

r el at i onshi p bet ween any si ngl e al l egat i on and a necessary el ement

of t he cause of act i on, " r ef er ence t o t he pr i ma f aci e el ement s can

hel p a cour t det er mi ne whet her t he "cumul at i ve ef f ect of t he

compl ai nt ' s f act ual al l egat i ons" i s a pl ausi bl e cl ai mf or r el i ef .

I d. at 55 ( br acket s omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

The bot t oml i ne i s t hat " t he combi ned al l egat i ons, t aken

as t r ue, must st at e a pl ausi bl e, not mer el y concei vabl e, case f or

r el i ef . " Ocasi o- Her nndez, 640 F. 3d at 12 ( quot i ng Sepl veda-

Vi l l ar i ni v. Dep' t of Educ. of P. R. , 628 F. 2d 25, 29 ( 1st Ci r .

2010) ( Sout er , J . ) ) . Havi ng t hus descri bed t he pl ausi bi l i t y bar

Car r ero must over come, we next provi de a basi c FMLA pr i mer bef or e

we consi der Car r er o' s FMLA cl ai ms.

2. FMLA Primer

The FMLA was enact ed t o hel p wor ki ng women and men

bal ance t he compet i ng demands of wor k and per sonal l i f e. Hodgens

v. Gen. Dynami cs Corp. , 144 F. 3d 151, 159 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ; see 29

U. S. C. 2601( b) ( 1) - ( 2) . I t i ncl udes t wo t ypes of pr ovi si ons:

"t hose est abl i shi ng subst ant i ve r i ght s and t hose pr ovi di ng

-16-


17/30


18/30

I n her compl ai nt , Car r er o cont ends t hat def endant s bot h

i nt er f er ed wi t h and r et al i at ed agai nst her f or exer ci si ng her FMLA

r i ght s. We t ackl e each of her cl ai ms i n t ur n, begi nni ng wi t h

r et al i at i on f or ease of anal ysi s.

3. Retaliation Claim

Car r er o f i r st al l eges t hat def endant s i mper mi ssi bl y

r et al i at ed agai nst her f or exer ci si ng her FMLA r i ght s when t hey

f i r ed her whi l e "she was under t he pr ot ect i on of [ t he] FMLA" i n

Oct ober 2010. She says her t er mi nat i on r epr esent ed t he cul mi nat i on

of a "pat t er n of di scr i mi nat or y act s" by def endant s t hat began

af t er she st ar t ed hel pi ng wi t h t he i nt er nal cor r upt i on

i nvest i gat i on i n August 2007. To t he extent t hat def endant s' ot her

act s of mi st r eat ment coi nci ded wi t h or f ol l owed Car r er o' s use of

f ami l y l eave, Car r er o says t hose act s amount ed t o FMLA r et al i at i on

as wel l .

As we poi nted out above, t he FMLA f or bi ds an empl oyer

f r om r et al i at i ng agai nst an empl oyee f or exer ci si ng her FMLA

r i ght s. Henr y v. Uni t ed Bank, 686 F. 3d 50, 55 ( 1st Ci r . 2012)

( ci t i ng 29 U. S. C. 2615( a) ) . Thus, f or exampl e, an empl oyer may

not use an empl oyee' s FMLA l eave as a negat i ve f act or i n deci di ng

t o hi r e, f i r e, pr omot e, or pr ovi de benef i t s t o an empl oyee. 29

C. F. R. 825. 220( c) ; see Henr y, 686 F. 3d at 55. However , whi l e an

empl oyee may not be penal i zed f or exer ci si ng her r i ght s under t he

st at ut e, an empl oyee may never t hel ess be di scharged, not pr omot ed,

-18-


19/30

or deni ed benef i t s f or i ndependent r easons dur i ng or af t er her

t aki ng of FMLA l eave. See Henr y, 686 F. 3d at 55 ( ci t i ng Nagl e, 576

F. 3d at 3) ( f i ndi ng t hat empl oyee was di schar ged f or i ndependent

r easons) . I n an FMLA r et al i at i on case, t he empl oyer ' s i nt ent

i . e. , why t he empl oyer f i r ed or act ed agai nst t he empl oyee

mat t er s. Hodgens, 144 F. 3d at 160.

To make out a pr i ma f aci e case of FMLA r et al i at i on, an

empl oyee must show: ( 1) she avai l ed hersel f of a pr ot ect ed FMLA

r i ght ; ( 2) she was " adver sel y af f ect ed by an empl oyment deci si on; "

and ( 3) " t her e was a causal connect i on bet ween [ her ] pr otect ed

conduct and t he adver se empl oyment act i on. " See Or t a- Cast r o v.

Merck, Sharp & Dohme Qu mi ca P. R. , I nc. , 447 F. 3d 105, 107 (1st

Ci r . 2006) . Though, as we set out above, a pl ai nt i f f need not

pl ead f act s suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case at t he

pl eadi ng st age, t he el ement s of a pr i ma f aci e case ar e usef ul "as

a pr i sm t o shed l i ght upon t he pl ausi bi l i t y of a [ pl ai nt i f f ' s]

cl ai m. " Rodr guez- Reyes, 711 F. 3d at 54. We vi ew Car r er o' s

r et al i at i on cl ai ms t hr ough t hat l ens now, aski ng whet her she has

pl eaded enough f act s i n t ot o t o make ent i t l ement t o r el i ef

pl ausi bl e i n l i ght of t he pr i ma f aci e st andar d t hat wi l l per t ai n at

t r i al . See i d.

Car r er o' s pr i mar y cl ai m i s t hat def endant s r et al i at ed

agai nst her f or exer ci si ng her FMLA r i ght s when t hey di schar ged her

af t er she at t empted t o take FMLA l eave i n Oct ober 2010. We assume

-19-


20/30

f or t he sake of ar gument t hat t hi s cl ai mmeet s t he f i r st t wo pr ongs

of t he pr i ma f aci e t est : Fi r st , she avai l ed her sel f of her FMLA

r i ght s when she took f ami l y l eave i n November 2007 and J une 2008,

and agai n when she at t empt ed t o "act i vat e" l eave i n Oct ober 2010

t hat was appr oved i n September 2010. Second, she was adversel y

af f ect ed by her t er mi nat i on ef f ect i ve Oct ober 31, 2010.

However , as t o t he t hi r d pr ong, Car r er o of f er s t oo l i t t l e

t o connect her t aki ng of FMLA l eave and her t ermi nat i on t o push her

cl ai m across t he pl ausi bi l i t y t hr eshol d. Appl yi ng our t wo- st ep

pl ausi bi l i t y anal ysi s, we f i r st set asi de Car r er o' s concl usor y

st at ement t hat t her e was "no . . . j ust i f i cat i on" f or di schar gi ng

her "dur i ng t he per i od she was under t he pr otect i on of t he FMLA, "

ot her t han t o "r et al i at e agai nst her . . . as par t of t he pat t er n

of har assment and r et al i at i on [ she] suf f er ed. " See Schat z, 669

F. 3d at 55. Cal l i ng her di schar ge FMLA r et al i at i on does not make

i t so. I ndeed, t o t he extent t he act i ons about whi ch she compl ai ns

coul d be seen as r et al i at or y, Car r er o' s par t i ci pat i on i n t he

i nt er nal cor r upt i on i nvest i gat i on of f er s a mor e l i kel y expl anat i on.

Next , we l ook t o t he f act s Car r er o put s f or t h, t aki ng

t hem as t r ue and dr awi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n her f avor .

See i d. Car r er o says she was f i r ed "dur i ng t he ef f ect i veness" of

her FMLA l eave. She appear s t o assume t hat t he chronol ogi cal

over l ap bet ween her t ermi nat i on and her l eave r enders t he causal

connect i on between t he t wo act i ons obvi ous. But whi l e t empor al

-20-


21/30

pr oxi mi t y i s one f actor f r omwhi ch an empl oyer ' s bad mot i ve can be

i nf er r ed, by i t sel f , i t i s not enough especi al l y i f t he

sur r oundi ng ci r cumst ances under mi ne any cl ai m of causat i on. See

Wr i ght v. CompUSA, I nc. , 352 F. 3d 472, 478 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( f i ndi ng

pl ai nt i f f est abl i shed pr i ma f aci e case of r et al i at i on under t he

Amer i cans wi t h Di sabi l i t i es Act but not i ng t hat "chr onol ogi cal

pr oxi mi t y does not by i t sel f est abl i sh causal i t y, par t i cul ar l y i f

t he l ar ger pi ct ur e under cut s any cl ai m of causat i on" ( br acket s

omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ; Hodgens, 144 F. 3d at

170 ( " [ T]emporal pr oxi mi t y may gi ve r i se t o a suggest i on of

r et al i at i on, [ but ] t hat suggest i on i s not necessar i l y concl usi ve. "

( br acket s omi t t ed) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) .

Car r er o gi ves us no f act s beyond t he t i mi ng of her

di schar ge e. g. , no negat i ve comment s, compl ai nt s, or expr essi ons

of r el uct ance by her super i ors or co- worker s about her FMLA l eave-

t aki ng, no di scussi on of her FMLA l eave st at us i n per f or mance

r evi ews, et c. t hat woul d l ead us t o t hi nk t hat def endant s t ook

her FMLA r equest s or l eave st atus i nt o account when deci di ng t o

di schar ge her . Compar e Hodgens, 144 F. 3d at 165 ( f i ndi ng pl ai nt i f f

suf f i ci ent l y showed causal connect i on bet ween hi s FMLA- l eave- t aki ng

and hi s t er mi nat i on wher e hi s super vi sor warned hi m "he was t aki ng

' t oo much t i me of f ' " shor t l y af t er he t ook l eave, hi s per f or mance

eval uat i on "advi sed hi m t o ' make ever y ef f or t t o have [ hi s]

-21-


22/30

absent eei sm f al l wi t hi n company gui del i nes, ' " and hi s empl oyer

deci ded whi ch empl oyees t o l ay of f based on a ranki ng t hat

consi der ed pl ai nt i f f ' s absence r at e) , wi t h Donal d v. Sybr a, I nc. ,

667 F. 3d 757, 763 ( 6t h Ci r . 2012) ( f i ndi ng t empor al pr oxi mi t y pl us

super vi sor ' s si ngl e negat i ve comment di d not est abl i sh empl oyer ' s

bad mot i ve at summar y j udgment st age) .

I nst ead, Car r er o' s compl ai nt pr ovi des us wi t h anot her

expl anat i on f or def endant s' deci si on t o t er mi nat e her at t hat t i me:

Af t er an i nvest i gat i on of Car r er o f or al l eged mi sconduct , t wo

di f f er ent of f i cer s r ecommended her t er mi nat i on af t er t wo separ at e

hear i ngs, and execut i ve di r ect or Cor der o deci ded t o f ol l ow t hei r

advi ce i n Oct ober 2010. 6 Whet her t he i nvest i gat i on was

wel l - gr ounded or i nst ead par t of a l ong- st andi ng desi r e t o get r i d

of Car r er o, t he key poi nt i s t hat bot h t he i nvest i gat i on and t he

al l eged ani mus pr e- exi st ed Car r er o' s Oct ober 2010 at t empt t o t ake

FMLA l eave. I n t hi s r espect , t he bul k of t he al l egat i ons i n t he

compl ai nt r el at e t o her FMLA cl ai m onl y i n t hat t hey pr ovi de a

det ai l ed expl anat i on of why she was f i r ed, r i ght l y or wr ongl y, and

cut di r ect l y agai nst any concl usi on t hat her f i r i ng was r el at ed t o

FMLA- pr ot ect ed act i vi t y. Consequent l y, consi der i ng, as we must ,

t he "cumul at i ve ef f ect of t he compl ai nt ' s f act ual al l egat i ons, " see

6 Needl ess t o say, we make no j udgment as t o whet her Car r er oactual l y commi t t ed t hi s mi sconduct . We onl y note t hat themi sconduct al l egat i ons ar e the r eason both Car r er o and hersuper i or s pr ovi de f or her t er mi nat i on.

-22-


23/30

Rodr guez- Reyes, 711 F. 3d at 55, and t he " l ar ger pi ct ur e"

sur r oundi ng her di schar ge, see Wr i ght , 352 F. 3d at 478, we cannot

f i nd t hat Car r er o' s compl ai nt pl ausi bl y suppor t s a f i ndi ng t hat her

t er mi nat i on was causal l y connect ed t o her r equest s f or FMLA l eave.

Car r er o al so cl ai ms t hat ot her adver se act i ons by

def endant s const i t ut ed i mper mi ssi bl e FMLA r et al i at i on i nsomuch as

t hey coi nci ded wi t h or f ol l owed her use of f ami l y l eave. For

exampl e, i n November 2007 and J une 2008, Rui z i ni t i at ed mi sconduct

i nvest i gat i ons of Car r er o whi l e Car r er o was out on f ami l y l eave.

Al so, whi l e Car r er o was out on l eave i n J une 2008, Car vaj al

pr omot ed t hr ee of Car r er o' s co- wor ker s wi t hout gi vi ng Car r er o an

oppor t uni t y t o i nt er vi ew.

However , even assumi ng arguendo t hat t hi s cl ai mmeet s t he

f i r st t wo pr ongs of t he pr i ma f aci e i nqui r y, Car r er o has not put

f or t h suf f i ci ent f act s t o demonst r at e a causal connect i on bet ween

her FMLA l eave- t aki ng and def endant s' act s t o est abl i sh a pl ausi bl e

cl ai m f or r el i ef . Agai n, beyond synchr oni ci t y, Car r er o makes no

connect i on bet ween those act s and her l eave- t aki ng.

As f or Rui z' s openi ng of mi sconduct i nvest i gat i ons,

Car r er o expl i ci t l y says Rui z act ed as he di d because of her

par t i ci pat i on i n t he i nt er nal cor r upt i on i nvest i gat i on. She

nei t her di scl ai ms nor admi t s any mi sconduct on her par t , and she

-23-


24/30

does not say t he accusat i ons were unf ounded. 7 She si mpl y says Rui z

began t he i nvest i gat i ons " dur i ng t he per i od when [ she] was on

f ami l y l eave pr otect ed by t he FMLA. " Agai n, an empl oyer can t ake

adver se act i on agai nst an empl oyee whi l e she i s on l eave f or

r easons ot her t han her l eave st atus. See Henr y, 686 F. 3d at 55

( ci t i ng Nagl e, 576 F. 3d at 3) . Thus, t hi s al l egat i on al one,

wi t hout mor e, i s not enough t o suppor t a pl ausi bl e cl ai m.

As f or Car vaj al ' s pr omot i on of Car r er o' s co- wor ker s,

Car r er o says onl y t hat t hese act i ons "af f ect ed [ her ] r i ght t o a

pr omot i on whi l e pr otect ed by [ t he FMLA] . " Car r er o has no gr eater

( or l esser ) r i ght t o pr omot i on by vi r t ue of her FMLA- l eave st at us.

See 29 C. F. R. 825. 216( a) ( "An empl oyee has no gr eater r i ght . .

. t o . . . benef i t s or condi t i ons of empl oyment " because she takes

FMLA l eave. ) ; 29 C. F. R. 825. 220( c) ( " [ E] mpl oyer s cannot use t he

t aki ng of FMLA l eave as a negat i ve f actor i n empl oyment act i ons,

such as . . . pr omot i ons. " ) . Though Car r er o says she appl i ed f or

t he open posi t i ons and was not gi ven a chance t o i nt er vi ew, she

asser t s no f act ual al l egat i on as t o why her FMLA l eave had any

bear i ng on Car vaj al ' s deci si on not t o i nt er vi ew her or awar d her

t he posi t i on. See Or t a- Cast r o, 447 F. 3d at 114 ( f i ndi ng no pr oof

t hat def endant s t ook pl ai nt i f f ' s absences i nt o account i n denyi ng

her a hi gher posi t i on, even wher e pl ai nt i f f al l eged an uni dent i f i ed

7 Agai n, we do not j udge whet her Car r ero act ual l y commi t t edt hi s mi sconduct .

-24-


25/30

human r esour ces r epr esent at i ve t ol d her she was not gi ven the

posi t i on because of her absent eei sm, and af f i r mi ng di smi ssal of

pl ai nt i f f ' s cl ai m) .

Consi der i ng Car r er o' s f act ual al l egat i ons as a whol e, we

agai n cannot say she has st at ed a pl ausi bl e cl ai m of FMLA

r et al i at i on based on def endant s' adver se act i ons. As a r esul t , t he

di st r i ct cour t r i ght l y f ound Car r er o had not al l eged a suf f i ci ent l y

pl ausi bl e r et al i at i on cl ai mt o wi t hst and def endant s' Rul e 12( b) ( 6)

mot i on t o di smi ss. So we j our ney on.

4. Interference Claim

Car r er o al so says def endant s i nt er f er ed wi t h her FMLA

r i ght s by t ermi nat i ng her empl oyment whi l e she was out on l eave t o

car e f or her si ck mot her .

As we set f or t h above, t he FMLA makes i t unl awf ul f or

"any empl oyer t o i nt er f er e wi t h, r est r ai n, or deny t he exer ci se of "

any FMLA- pr ot ect ed r i ght . 29 U. S. C. 2615( a) ( 1) . We r ecal l t hat

t he FMLA ent i t l es an empl oyee t o t wel ve weeks' l eave per year f or

l i st ed f ami l y and medi cal r easons, such as t o car e f or a par ent

wi t h a ser i ous heal t h condi t i on. Nagl e, 576 F. 3d at 2; Hodgens,

144 F. 3d at 159 ( ci t i ng, i nt er al i a, 29 U. S. C. 2612( a) ( 1) ( C) ) .

However , " [ i ] f an empl oyee i s l ai d of f dur i ng t he cour se of t aki ng

FMLA l eave and [her ] empl oyment i s t ermi nat ed, t he empl oyer ' s

r esponsi bi l i t y t o cont i nue FMLA l eave, mai nt ai n . . . benef i t s[ , ]

and rest ore t he empl oyee cease at t he t i me t he empl oyee i s l ai d

-25-


26/30

of f . " 29 C. F. R. 825. 216( a) ( 1) . ( We r emember , of cour se, t hat an

empl oyer cannot di schar ge an empl oyee because she r equest s or t akes

FMLA l eave, see 29 C. F. R. 825. 220( c) , but we deal t wi t h t hi s

concer n wi t h r espect t o Car r er o' s r et al i at i on cl ai m. )

To wi t hst and a mot i on t o di smi ss on her i nt er f er ence

cl ai m, a pl ai nt i f f need onl y pl ausi bl y st at e t hat she i s ent i t l ed

t o t he di sput ed l eave. See Cobur n, 429 F. 3d at 331 ( descr i bi ng

summar y j udgment st andar d) . 8 Unl i ke i n a r et al i at i on cl ai m, "no

showi ng as t o empl oyer i nt ent i s r equi r ed. " I d. The key i ssue i s

si mpl y whet her t he empl oyer pr ovi ded i t s empl oyee t he benef i t s t o

whi ch she was ent i t l ed per t he FMLA. Hodgens, 144 F. 3d at 159.

I n her compl ai nt , Car r er o does not asser t t hat def endant s

wr ongf ul l y deni ed her r equest s f or FMLA l eave. To t he cont r ar y,

she says PREPA per mi t t ed her t o t ake FMLA l eave bot h i n November

2007 and J une 2008. Rui z al so appr oved her t hi r d FMLA l eave

r equest i n Sept ember 2010. I nst ead, Car r er o says def endant s

i nt er f er ed wi t h her FMLA r i ght s by t er mi nat i ng her empl oyment once

8 Ot her ci r cui t s have descr i bed t he pr i ma f aci e i nt er f er encest andard more f ul l y as r equi r i ng an empl oyee t o show: ( 1) she wasel i gi bl e f or t he FMLA' s pr ot ect i ons; ( 2) her empl oyer was cover edby t he FMLA; ( 3) she was ent i t l ed t o l eave under t he FMLA; ( 4) shegave her empl oyer not i ce of her i nt ent i on t o t ake l eave; and ( 5)

her empl oyer deni ed her FMLA benef i t s t o whi ch she was ent i t l ed.E. g. , Donal d v. Sybr a, I nc. , 667 F. 3d 757, 761 ( 6t h Ci r . 2012)( r eh' g and r eh' g en banc deni ed) ; Goel zer v. Sheboygan Ct y. , Wi s. ,604 F. 3d 987, 993 ( 7t h Ci r . 2010) . As most of t hese el ement s areundi sput ed here, we use t he abr i dged st andard f r om our summaryj udgment j ur i spr udence t o f ocus i n on what i s at i ssue. SeeCobur n, 429 F. 3d at 331.

-26-


27/30

she "act i vat ed" her t hi r d l eave i n Oct ober 2010, r at her t han

per mi t t i ng her t o t ake t he t hr ee mont hs' l eave she r equest ed.

Car r er o admi t s her l awyer was not i f i ed of her di schar ge

or i gi nal l y ef f ect i ve Oct ober 3 but amended t o Oct ober 31 "by

t he mi ddl e of Oct ober [ ] 2010. " She cl ai ms she was not i nf ormed of

her t er mi nat i on at t hat t i me. Rat her , she i nsi st s t hat she

r emai ned empl oyed when she pr oper l y t r i gger ed her pr evi ousl y

appr oved FMLA l eave on Oct ober 22, was ent i t l ed to t hat l eave, and

was " pr ot ect ed by t he l aw at t he t i me she was i l l egal l y di schar ged

f r om her empl oyment . "

However , t he FMLA does not prot ect an empl oyee f r om

di schar ge f or any r eason whi l e she i s on l eave r at her , as we

di scussed i n t he r et al i at i on cont ext , i t pr ot ects her onl y f r om

di scharge because she r equest s or t akes FMLA l eave. See 29 C. F. R.

825. 220( c) . Thus, whi l e Car r er o may have had a cl ai m f or l eave

pr i or t o Oct ober 31, once her di schar ge t ook ef f ect , Car r er o was no

l onger ent i t l ed t o FMLA l eave benef i t s. 9 See 29 C. F. R.

9 At oral argument , t he panel asked Car r er o' s counsel whet her ,i n t he al t er nat i ve, Car r er o was al so ar gui ng t hat def endant s hadi nt er f er ed wi t h her FMLA r i ght s f or t he l i mi t ed t i me span bet weenOct ober 22 ( when she r equest ed l eave) and Oct ober 31 ( when she wasdi schar ged) . I n r esponse, counsel si mpl y r epeated hi s argument

t hat t he t er mi nat i on was nul l and voi d, so Car r er o had a r i ght t ot hr ee mont hs' l eave. Accor di ngl y, any separ at e argument r el at i ngt o t hi s l i mi t ed t i me per i od i s wai ved. See Uni t ed St at es v.Ander son, 745 F. 3d 593, 598 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ; Rodr guez v.Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan, 659 F. 3d 168, 175 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( " [ W] edeem wai ved cl ai ms not made or cl ai ms adver t ed t o i n a cur sor yf ashi on, unaccompani ed by devel oped argument . " ) .

-27-


28/30

825. 216( a) ( 1) . As a r esul t , she cannot st at e a pl ausi bl e FMLA

i nt er f er ence cl ai m, and t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y gr ant ed

def endant s' Rul e 12( b) ( 6) mot i on t o di smi ss on t hi s gr ound as wel l .

C. Motion to Amend the Pleadings

I n a l ast - di t ch ef f or t t o save her FMLA cl ai ms, Car r er o

ar gues t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s di scr et i on by not gr ant i ng or

expl i ci t l y denyi ng her post - j udgment r equest t o amend t he

pl eadi ngs. Car r er o asked f or l eave t o amend t he pl eadi ngs as

al t er nat i ve r el i ef i n her mot i on t o al t er or amend j udgment under

Rul e 59( e) . The di st r i ct cour t di d not addr ess Car r er o' s amend-

pl eadi ngs r equest separ at el y f r om her amend- j udgment r equest ;

r at her , i t deni ed t he mot i on al t oget her , sayi ng onl y that Car r er o

"ha[ d] not demonst r at ed a cl ear er r or of l aw, a change i n t he l aw,

or new evi dence t hat [ she] coul d not have pr esent ed pr evi ousl y. "

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of r el i ef under

Rul e 59( e) f or abuse of di scr et i on, mi ndf ul t hat t he cour t enj oys

"consi der abl e" di scr et i on i n t hi s ar ea. Sot o- Padr o v. Pub. Bl dgs.

Aut h. , 675 F. 3d 1, 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ; see al so Mar kel Am. I ns. Co.

v. D az- Sant i ago, 674 F. 3d 21, 32 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . Rul e 59( e)

per mi t s a par t y t o move t o al t er or amend j udgment wi t hi n 28 days

of ent r y of j udgment . Fed. R. Ci v. P. 59( e) . We gener al l y

r ecogni ze t hr ee val i d gr ounds f or Rul e 59( e) r el i ef : "an

' i nt er veni ng change' i n t he cont r ol l i ng l aw, a cl ear l egal er r or ,

or newl y- di scover ed evi dence. " Sot o- Padr o, 675 F. 3d at 9.

-28-


29/30

Request s t o amend t he pl eadi ngs, on t he ot her hand, are

gener al l y gover ned by Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 15( a) ( "Rul e

15(a)"). 10 Fi sher v. Kadant , I nc. , 589 F. 3d 505, 508 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) . Rul e 15( a) says t hat " [ t ] he cour t shoul d f r eel y gi ve l eave

[ t o amend] when j ust i ce so r equi r es. " Fed. R. Ci v. P. 15( a) ( 2) .

" I f , however , a mot i on t o amend i s f i l ed af t er t he ent r y of

j udgment , t he di st r i ct cour t l acks aut hor i t y t o consi der t he mot i on

under Rul e 15( a) unl ess and unt i l t he j udgment i s set asi de. "

Fi sher , 589 F. 3d at 508 ( ci t i ng Pal mer v. Champi on Mor t g. , 465 F. 3d

24, 30 (1st Ci r . 2006) ; Mal donado v. Domi nguez, 137 F. 3d 1, 11 (1st

Ci r . 1998) ) ; Acevedo- Vi l l al obos v. Her nandez, 22 F. 3d 384, 389 ( 1st

Ci r . 1994) . I n ot her words, so l ong as t he j udgment r emai ns i n

ef f ect , a mot i on under Rul e 15( a) i s besi de t he poi nt . Fi sher , 589

F. 3d at 509.

Bef or e us, Car r er o does not chal l enge t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s deni al of her r equest t o amend j udgment based on t he mer i t s

of her cl ai ms; r at her , she appeal s onl y i t s r ef usal of her r equest

t o amend t he pl eadi ngs "wi t hout any j ust i f i abl e r eason. " However ,

t he cour t di d expl ai n i t s r ej ect i on of Car r er o' s Rul e 59( e) mot i on

over al l : Car r er o had not est abl i shed any of t he thr ee accept ed

gr ounds f or Rul e 59( e) r el i ef i . e. , a change i n t he l aw, an er r or

of l aw, or newl y di scover ed evi dence i n her mot i on. Car r er o does

10 Car r er o of f er ed no speci f i c l egal suppor t f or her r equestt o amend t he pl eadi ngs, but we pr esume her r equest f el l under Rul e15( a) .

-29-


30/30

not say t hat t hi s aspect of t he cour t ' s r ul i ng amount ed t o an abuse

of di scret i on. Because t he cour t ' s i ni t i al j udgment di smi ssi ng

Car r er o' s cl ai ms t her ef or e r emai ned i n pl ace, Car r er o' s al t er nat i ve

r equest t o amend t he pl eadi ngs aut omat i cal l y f ai l ed. See Fi sher ,

589 F. 3d at 508- 09. The di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s

di scr et i on by not spel l i ng out what shoul d have been obvi ous based

on i t s r esol ut i on of Car r er o' s Rul e 59( e) amend- j udgment r equest .

Accor di ngl y, we r ej ect Car r er o' s f i nal chal l enge on t hi s f r ont .

III. CONCLUSION

Our wor k compl et ed, f or t he f or egoi ng r easons, we af f i r m

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s di smi ssal of Car r er o' s FMLA cl ai ms wi t h

pr ej udi ce.

-30-

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Carrero-Ojeda v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents