Where a defendant employer was awarded summary judgment on a plaintiff’s retaliation claim under Puerto Rico’s Whistle-Blower Act, the lower court erred, as a jury question as to pretext exists in light of the fact that the employer has provided inconsistent and contradictory explanations for the plaintiff’s termination.
“About five months after he began receiving treatment for a work-related injury, Plaintiff-Appellant Erasto Román Mercado (‘Román’) received a letter from his employer, Defendant-Appellee Hyannis Air Service Inc. (‘Cape Air’), informing him that he was terminated from his job as a cross train agent. Román sued Cape Air in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, alleging various state and federal claims. The district court disposed of all of them — some at the motion to dismiss and others at the summary judgment stage.
“In this appeal, Román challenges only the district court’s summary judgment ruling as to his retaliation claim under Puerto Rico’s Whistle-Blower Act, P.R. Laws Ann. Tit. 29 § 194 (‘Law 115’). We are hence called upon to determine whether a jury should be the one who determines if Cape Air’s reasons for Román’s termination were pretextual, and, ultimately, whether Cape Air retaliated against him under Law 115. While the district court believed that the issue should be resolved at the summary judgment stage — and so ruled — we, however, see it differently. We thus vacate the district court’s entry of summary judgment as to...
Top News The Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, says the Federal Government’s high-level delegation currently in the United States is actively confronting and corre...