06 ~IAR 21 p''; I~' 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RIco· Li~): • , ; I' "

C. ' ~}

: ;

1'1:; :

",: t, ~~; 1'" ~,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, v.
MUNICIPIO DE VEGA ALTA,
Defendant.

Civil Action No. 00- [30 d- (P0 )
JURY DEMAND

COMPLAINT Plaintiff, the United States of America, alleges:
1. This action is brought on behalf of the United States to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII").
2. The Court has jurisdiction ofthis action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(t) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345.
3. Defendant Municipio de Vega Alta ("Municipality of Vega Alta") is a governmental body created pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
4. The Municipality of Vega Alta is a "person" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a) and an "employer" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
5. Defendant the Municipality of Vega Alta, by and through its agency Policia Municipal de Vega Alta ("Municipal Police"), has discriminated against female officers Laura Molina Rodriguez ("Molina Rodriguez"), Madeleine Garcia Gonzalez ("Garcia Gonzalez"), and Iris Bidot Figueroa ("Bidot Figueroa"), and similarly situated female officers on the basis of their sex in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), among other ways, by: (a) excluding them from supervisory duties, regular shift work, driving patrol cars and other motorized vehicles, and conducting investigations commensurate with their previous work experience; (b) assigning them to "plant6n" or clerical duties; and (c) failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discriminatory treatment. 6. Defendant the Municipality of Vega Alta, by and through its agency the Municipal
Police, has retaliated against officer Rafael Miranda Vazquez ("Miranda Vazquez") in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), because he participated in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") investigation of charges filed by officers Molina Rodriguez, Garcia Gonzalez, and Bidot Figueroa, among other ways, by:
(a) excluding him from supervisory duties in the Maritime-Tourist Area Unit of the Municipal Police; (b) transferring him out of the Maritime-Tourist Area Unit; (c) denying him the opportunity to participate in training sessions relevant and related to the work performed by officers in the Maritime-Tourist Area Unit; (d) threatening him with suspension or termination; (e) denying him a letter of reference for employment with the Municipality of Dorado; and
-2 -

(f) failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the retaliatory treatment. 7. The EEOC received timely charges of discrimination filed by officers Molina Rodriguez (Charge No. 162-2003-00307), Garcia Gonzalez (Charge No. 162-2003-00282), and Bidot Figueroa (Charge No. 162-2003-00297), in which these Charging Parties alleged that the Municipal Police discriminated against them in employment on the basis of their sex. 8. The EEOC received a timely charge of discrimination filed by officer Miranda Vazquez (No. 162-2004-00147), in which he alleged that the Municipal Police retaliated against him because he had participated in the EEOC's investigation of the charges of sex discrimination filed by officers Molina Rodriguez, Garcia Gonzalez, and Bidot Figueroa. 9. In accordance with § 706 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, the EEOC investigated the charges of sex discrimination filed by officers Molina Rodriguez, Garcia Gonzalez, and Bidot Figueroa, and the charge of retaliation filed by officer Miranda Vazquez, and found reasonable cause to believe that violations of Title VII had occurred. The EEOC attempted unsuccessfully to achieve a voluntary resolution of the charges through conciliation, and subsequently referred the charges to the United States Department of Justice. 14. All conditions precedent to filing suit have been performed or have occurred. WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court grant the following relief: (a) Enjoin the Defendant from failing or refusing to:
(i) provide remedial relief sufficient to make whole Charging Parties Molina Rodriguez, Garcia Gonzalez, and Bidot Figueroa, and similarly situated female officers, and Charging Party Miranda Vazquez for the losses they
-3-

have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them as alleged in this Complaint; and (ii) take other appropriate nondiscriminatory measures to overcome the effects of the discrimination. (b) Award compensatory damages to Charging Parties Molina Rodriguez, Garcia Gonzalez, Bidot Figueroa and Miranda Vazquez for mental and/or physical injuries caused by the Defendant's discriminatory conduct pursuant to and within the statutory limitations of § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.c. § 1981a; and (c) Award such additional relief as justice may require, together with Plaintiff s costs and disbursements in this action.
Jury Demand The United States hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
WAN J. KIM Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
BY: DAVID J. ALMER (DC Bar No. 417834) Chief
W LIAM B. FE ON (DC BarNo. 414990) Deputy Chief
- 4-

IA RIOS (PR USDC No. 205602) Senior Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Patrick Henry Building, Room 4014 Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 616-9750 Facsimile: (202) 514-1005
ISABEL MvNOZ-ACOtsTA (PRDC No. 128302) Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorneys Office Torre Chardon Suite 1201 350 Carlos Chardon Avenue San Juan, PR 00918 Telephone: (787)766-5656 Facsimile: (787)766-6219 Attorneys for the United States of America
-5-

 
 Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 7 Filed 06/13/2006 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v.
MUNICIPIO DE VEGA ALTA, Defendant.

Civil No. 06-1302 (PG) Plaintiff Requests Trial by Jury

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
COME NOW the defendant, Municipio de Vega Alta, through the undersigned attorneys, and respectfully states, prays and alleges:
1. Paragraph one (1) of the Complaint states pursuant to which statute the case at bar is presented. Hence no response is required.
2. The jurisdictional allegation contained in Paragraph two (2) is denied insofar as the Municipio de Vega Alta (“Defendant”) has not violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as alleged therein, nor incurred in the discriminatory conduct alleged by Plaintiff.
3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. 6. Denied. 7. Denied for lack of knowledge and/or information.
1

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 7 Filed 06/13/2006 Page 2 of 4
8. Denied for lack of knowledge and/or information. 9. Denied for lack of knowledge and/or information. 14. Denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. The claims included in the Complaint are time barred. 3. The corrective measures requested by Plaintiffs in the Complaint have already been instituted in the Municipality 4. The damages claimed by Plaintiff are excessive. 5. Defendant is not liable for any of the acts alleged in the Complaint. 6. The Defendant has not incurred in intentional discrimination against the Plaintiffs. 7. All personnel decisions and actions taken by Defendant and/or its representatives were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. 8. Plaintiffs failed to take advantage of the Municipality’s established antidiscrimination procedures. 9. The facts alleged in the complaint fail to state a prima facie case of sex discrimination. 10. The facts alleged in the complaint fail to state a prima facie case of retaliation. 11. Defendants did not retaliate against plaintiff Miranda-Vázquez and the personnel decisions pertaining to him were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. 12. Plaintiffs are not entitled to compensatory damages, punitive damages, back pay, interest on back pay, nor costs.
2

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 7 Filed 06/13/2006 Page 3 of 4
13. In the alternative, the amount of compensatory damages are limited by42 U.S.C. sec. 1981a.
14. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages. 15. The elements of a sex discrimination claim under Title VII are not adequately pleaded. 16. The elements of a retaliation claim under Title VII are not adequately pleaded. 17. In the alternative it is alleged that all personnel decisions and actions taken by Defendant and/or its representatives are in compliance with 42 U.S.C. A sec. 2000e-2(h) and 2000e2(e)(1). 18. Defendant reserves the right to amend the answers to the complaint, and to raise any other affirmative defenses they may deem proper after completion of discovery in this case. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests from the Court that it take note of the preceding, and enter judgment dismissing the Complaint with prejudice, and granting anyother relief to the Defendant it deems warranted. Respectfully submitted. In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 13th day of June, 2006. I HEREBY CERTIFY: That on this same date I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to attorneys of record.
NACHMAN & GUILLEMARD Attorneys for Plaintiffs P.O. Box 9949 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00908 Tel. (787) 724-1212 Fax: (787) 725-1339
3

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 7 Filed 06/13/2006 Page 4 of 4 S/ MONIQUE GUILLEMARD NOBLE Monique Guillemard-Noble USDC-PR 215203 S/FRANCIS A. MARQUEZ SAN MARTÍN Francis A. Márquez-San Martín USDC-PR 222712
4

 
 Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 9-1 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 1 of 12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

MADELINE M. GARCÍA, IRIS N. BIDOT, LAURA MOLINA, AND RAFAEL MIRANDA-VÁZQUEZ,

CIVIL NO. 06- 1302 (PG)

Plaintiffs

vs.
MUNICIPALITY OF VEGA ALTA; HON. JOSE M. COLÓN GARCÍA, in his personal and official capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of Vega Alta, VÍCTOR M. REY DE LA CRUZ, in his personal capacity as former Commissioner of the Muncipal police of the Municipality of Vega Alta,

GENDER DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION
TRIAL BY JURY

Defendants

INTERVENER COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
PLAINTIFFS, through the undersigned attorneys, very respectfully state and pray:
NATURE OF THE ACTION AND JURISDICTION 1. The instant action is brought pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. sections 2000e et seq; the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. sections 1981a, 1983 and 1988; Puerto Rico Law No. 100 of June 30, 1959, as amended; Puerto Rico Law No. 69 of July 6, 1985; and Puerto Rico Law No. 115 of December 20, 1991, to seek redress for defendants’ sex discrimination and retaliation against plaintiffs, Madeline M. García (hereinafter referred to as “García”), Iris N. Bidot (hereinafter referred to as “Bidot”), and Laura Molina (hereinafter referred to as “Molina”), while in the course of their employment relationship; and to seek redress for defendants’ retaliation against

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 9-1 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 2 of 12
plaintiff, Rafael Miranda Vázquez (hereinafter referred to as”Miranda”), while in the course of his employment relationship. Plaintiffs seek the following relief: injunctive relief in the nature of a permanent order to defendants to cease and desist of any further discriminatory conduct; an award of compensatory, double and punitive damages, costs and reasonable attorneys fees.
2. This Court has original jurisdiction to entertain this action pursuant to Section 706 of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5); 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343(4). Its supplemental jurisdiction is also invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 to hear the Commonwealth law claims because these are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case and controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b)(1) and (2). ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
4. Plaintiffs filed several administrative charges against defendant before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging gender discrimination and retaliation.
5. After investigating the charges, the EEOC reached a finding of probable cause to believe that violations of Title VII had occurred. After conciliation efforts to resolve the charges were unsuccessful, the EEOC referred them to the United States Department of Justice.
6. On March 21st, 2006, the United States of America filed a complaint against the Municipality of Vega Alta, Civil Action No. 06-1302 (PG), Docket No. 1, on behalf of
2

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 9-1 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 3 of 12
García, Bidot, and Molina based on their charges of gender discrimination, and on behalf of Miranda, based on his charge of retaliation.
7. Pursuant to Section 706(f) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sec.2000e-5, appearing plaintiffs intervene in the instant action to join the United States of America in pursuing the claims of García, Bidot and Molina based on their charges of gender discrimination, and the claim of Miranda based on his charge of retaliation, against the Municipality of Vega Alta, and against the additional co-defendants included in the instant intervener complaint.
8. Pursuant to Section 706(f) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sec.2000e-5, appearing plaintiffs also intervene in the instant action to include the claims of co-plaintiffs García, Bidot and Molina, against codefendants, based on their charges of retaliation filed before the EEOC, and which are not being pursued by the United States of America as well as claims of retaliation pursuant to the local law provisions invoked by them in the instant intervener complaint.
THE PARTIES 9. Plaintiff, García is a resident of Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, and began working for the Municipal Police of the Municipality of Vega Alta in August 1992. She is currently working as a municipal officer. 10. Plaintiff, Bidot is a resident of Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, and began working for the Municipal Police of the Municipality of Vega Alta in the year 2000. She is currently working as a municipal officer.
3

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 9-1 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 4 of 12
11. Plaintiff, Molina, is a resident of Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, and began working for the Municipal Police of the Municipality of Vega Alta in April, 1996. She is currently working as a municipal officer.
12. Plaintiff, Miranda is a resident of Vega Alta, Puerto Rico, and began working as municipal officer for the Municipal Police of the Municipality of Vega Alta in January, 2000, until July 15, 2004, date in which he was constructively discharged from his position of municipal officer.
13. The Municipality of Vega Alta, (hereinafter referred to as “defendant” or “the Municipality”), was and is plaintiffs’ employer. Defendant is a “person” and an “employer” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e(a) and (b) and within the meaning of all the legal provisions of Puerto Rico law upon which plaintiffs predicate their claims for relief.
14. Defendant Hon. José M. Colón García, (hereinafter referred to as”Colón” or “the Mayor”) has been at all times relevant to the complaint, the Mayor of the Municipality of Vega Alta.
15. The Mayor was ultimately responsible and the highest authority regarding the hiring, training, supervision, discipline, control, evaluation and conduct of his subordinates.
16. At all times relevant the Mayor acted under color of law and pursuant to his authority as Mayor of Vega Alta. He is an “employer” within the meaning of all the legal provisions of Puerto Rico law upon which plaintiffs predicate their claims for relief.
4

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 9-1 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 5 of 12
17. The Mayor is being sued in his personal and in his official capacity. 18. Co-defendant, Víctor M. Rey De la Cruz (hereinafter referred to as “Rey”) was the former Commissioner of the Municipal Police of the Municipality, and was plaintiffs’ immediate supervisor at all times relevant herein. He is being sued in his personal capacity. Rey is an “employer” within the meaning of all the legal provisions of Puerto Rico law upon which plaintiffs predicate their claims for relief. 19. At all times relevant, Rey acted under color of law and pursuant to official authority.
RELEVANT FACTS 20. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every preceding allegation as if fully set herein. 21. Plaintiffs began working as municipal officers of the Municipality between the years 1996 and 2000. 22. For the past three election terms, Colón has been elected as Mayor of the Municipality. He is currently occupying said position. 23. All plaintiffs are career employees of the Muicipality of Vega Alta. 24. On June 2, 2003, Colón appointed Rey as Police Commissioner of the Municipal Police of Vega Alta. 25. Prior to his appointment, plaintiffs had always performed their duties in a satisfactory manner, and had obtained positive marks during their personnel evaluations.
5

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 9-1 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 6 of 12
26. Shortly after his appointment as Police Commissioner, Rey began a campaign agenda to discriminate against the female officers at the Municipal Police of Vega Alta.
27. Following his appointment, co-plaintiffs García, Bidot and Molina were the subjects of gender based discriminatory remarks by Rey. These were denigrating comments toward women.
28. Rey began sidelining them. They were ordered by Rey to refrain from carrying out duties inherent to their positions, such as: supervision of subordinates, driving patrol cars and police motorcycles, working at the Maritime Tourist-Unit, and conducting investigations, among others, because he claimed that these were tasks that only male officers could perform.
29. Rey openly stated that he did not want women working at the Municipal Police.
30. As a result, co-plaintiffs García, Bidot, and Molina, filed charges of gender discrimination before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
31. As part of the investigation conducted by the EEOC, in August of 2003, co-plaintiff Miranda, a fellow male co-worker of plaintiffs, was called in as witness and provided testimony in favor of García, Bidot, and Molina, corroborating their allegations of gender discrimination on behalf of Rey.
32. Miranda witnessed Rey’s denigrating remarks towards women within the municipal police force, including co-plaintiffs, and received specific instructions from Rey to exclude female officers from driving patrol cars and motorcycles.
6

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 9-1 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 7 of 12
33. Miranda informed Rey, who was also his immediate supervisor, about the testimony he had provided before the EEOC.
34. Days later, Miranda was removed from his supervisory shifts and related duties, which he had been performing since at least November, 2002.
35. Miranda was also transferred out from the Maritime -Tourist Unit, for which he had sought special training and several certifications in order to be qualified and appointed to that unit. He was assigned to the municipal headquarters in town, where he was sidelined.
36. Miranda was replaced at the Maritime Unit by other less experienced officers who did not have the necessary training and certifications.
37. In light of these circumstances and the retaliatory conduct he was being subjected to, Miranda requested from Rey a recommendation letter to be transferred to the Municipal Police of the Municipality of Dorado. The same was denied by Rey without any valid justification.
38. Furthermore, Rey began to constantly threaten Miranda with suspension and/or termination.
39. The situation at work deteriorated to such an extent that it became intolerable and Miranda was left with no other alternative than to resign.
40. Miranda’s resignation was the proximate result of defendants’ discriminatory and retaliatory conduct.
41. As a proximate result of having filed charges before the EEOC, coplaintiff’s García, Bidot, and Molina, were also subjected to retaliatory conduct on behalf of defendants.
7

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 9-1 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 8 of 12
42. Accordingly, new charges for retaliation were filed by co-plaintiffs García, Bidot, and Molina before the EEOC.
43. Some of the retaliatory measures to which they were subjected to by defendants were: the inordinate assignment of clerical duties, or to “plantón” status at isolated and remote locations, without being allowed to drive to such locations in patrol cars or their own personal vehicles; they were assigned to foot patrol on locations, such as the town plaza, for long periods of time without being allowed to use the nearby sanitary services; and, receiving negative performance evaluations.
44. Defendants’ conduct was in retaliation for plaintiffs’ attempt to assert their federal and local protected rights to be free from gender based discrimination and retaliation at their place of work.
45. Plaintiffs sent several letters to the Mayor informing him of the discriminatory and retaliatory conduct they were being subjected to by Rey. None of these communications were answered.
46. Despite being aware of the illegal conduct that was taking place, the Mayor failed and refused to take remedial action to eradicate the discriminatory treatment to which plaintiffs were being subjected. Colón was aware of Rey’s discriminatory tactics but failed to take any effective action to insure that it ceased. Colón condoned Rey’s discriminatory conduct and permitted it to become the policy, custom and usage at the municipality’s police force.
47. As a result of defendants’ unlawful conduct plaintiffs have suffered severe and substantial emotional damages for which they have had to seek and receive psychological treatment.
8

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 9-1 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 9 of 12
48. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for all damages caused to plaintiffs.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 49. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every preceding allegation as if fully set herein. 50. Defendants’ conduct constitutes gender based discrimination against plaintiffs, García, Bidot and Molina, in violation of Title VII’s and the Civil Rights Act of 1991’s mandate to eradicate from the workplace any type of discrimination on the basis of sex. Defendants are liable to plaintiffs for all damages caused as a proximate result of their discriminatory conduct. 56. The actions and omissions of the Mayor and the Police Commissioner, were the custom and usage of the Municipal Police and, thus the Municipality of Vega Alta is jointly liable to plaintiffs for all of the damages suffered by them. 57. All defendants are jointly and severally liable to plaintiffs.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 58. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every preceding allegation as if fully set herein. 59. Defendants’ conduct constitutes a violation of Local Laws No. 100 of June 30, 1959, as amended, and Law No. 69, of July 6 1985, which prohibit discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sex. 60. As a result of defendant’s conduct, plaintiff has suffered damages for which defendants are fully liable. Under the above cited statutes, defendants are liable
9

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 9-1 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 10 of 12
for double the damages suffered by plaintiffs as a result of defendants’ unlawful conduct.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 61. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every preceding allegation as if fully set herein. 62. Plaintiffs, García, Bidot, and Molina, were subjected to unlawful conduct by defendants in retaliation for having opposed unlawful conduct under Local Law No.69 and Local Law No. 115. 63. As a result of this retaliatory conduct, co-plaintiff, Miranda, was constructively discharged from his employment. 64. Under Local Law No. 115, defendants are liable to plaintiffs for double the damages proximately caused as a result of their retaliatory conduct.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 65. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every preceding allegation as fully set herein. 66. The individual defendants’ conduct constitutes a callous disregard and deliberate indifference to the federally protected rights of plaintiffs. 67. The individual defendants are liable to plaintiffs for punitive damages.
TRIAL BY JURY 68. Plaintiffs demand that the instant action be tried before a jury. WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiffs pray from this Honorable Court for the following relief:
10

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 9-1 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 11 of 12 1. An order directed at Defendants to cease and desist of any further
discriminatory treatment and retaliation against plaintiffs; 2. Back pay, together with interest, for co-plaintiff Miranda; 3. Lost benefits both, past and future, for co-plaintiff Miranda; 4. Compensatory damages in an amount not less than $500,000.00, for
each plaintiff, for a total not less than $2,000,000.00. 5. Punitive damages under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988 in
an amount equal to $300,000.00 for each plaintiff; 6. Double compensatory damages pursuant to Law No. 69, and Law
No.115; 7. Costs and reasonable attorneys fees; and; 8. Any other relief which this Court may deem just and proper.
11

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 9-1 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 12 of 12
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. In San Juan Puerto Rico this 19th day of July, 2006. I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this same date this document was filed electronically through the CM/ECF system which will send notification to the parties to their registered email addresses.
GONZÁLEZ MUÑOZ & VICÉNS SÁNCHEZ PO BOX 9024055 SAN JUAN, PR 00918-2404 Tel: 787-725-8700 Fax:787-725-8774 gmlopsc@polo-norte.com vvicens@polo-norte.com S/JUAN RAFAEL GONZÁLEZ MUÑOZ JUAN RAFAEL GONZÁLEZ MUÑOZ USDC-PR-202313 S/VANESA VICÉNS SÁNCHEZ VANESA VICÉNS SÁNCHEZ USDC-PR-217807
12

 
 Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 49 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MUNICIPIO DE VEGA ALTA, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil No. 06-1302 (PG) Plaintiff Requests Trial by Jury

ANSWER TO RAFAEL MIRANDA’S INTERVENER COMPLAINT1 TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
COME NOW the defendant, Municipio de Vega Alta, through the undersigned attorneys, and respectfully states, prays and alleges:
NATURE OF THE ACTION AND JURISDICTION 1. Paragraph one (1) of the Complaint states pursuant to which statutes the case at bar is presented. Hence no response is required. However, the same is denied inasmuch as it alleges that

1 On July 19, 2006, Iris Bidot, Madeleine Garcia, Rafael Miranda and Laura Molina jointly filed an intervener complaint. (Docket No. 9). Thereafter, the Municipality filed a Motion to Dismiss Intervener Complaint (Docket No. 34) seeking the dismissal of Bidot, García and Molina’s federal causes of action. Said relief was not sought as to Miranda, for which the Municipality requested leave to file its answer to Miranda’s complaint (Docket No. 35) until its motion to dismiss were ruled on by the Court. At the December 14, 2006 status conference, however, the Court ordered the Municipality to answer the intervener complaint only with regards to Miranda. Consequently, the Municipality files the present answer, which deals exclusively with Miranda’s claims.
1

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 49 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 2 of 8
the Municipality of Vega Alta (the “Municipality”) discriminated and retaliated against intervening plaintiff Rafael Miranda (“Miranda”).
2. Paragraph two (2) of the intervener complaint is a jurisdictional statement which does not require a response.
3. Paragraph three (3) of the intervener complaint is a statement as to venue which does not require a response.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 4. Denied. 5. Denied. 6. Admitted. 7. Paragraph seven (7) is a legal statement which does not require a response. In the alternative, it is denied as drafted. 8. Paragraph eight (8) is not directly related to Miranda’s claims, for which no response is warranted.
THE PARTIES 9. Paragraph nine (9) is not directly related to Miranda’s claims, for which no response is warranted. 10. Paragraph ten(10) is not directly related to Miranda’s claims, for which no response is warranted. 11. Paragraph eleven (11) is not directly related to Miranda’s claims, for which no response is warranted. 12. Denied as drafted.
2

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 49 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 3 of 8
13. The first sentence of paragraph thirteen (13) is Denied as drafted. The second sentence is a legal statement which does not require a response. In the alternative, it is denied.
14. Denied as drafted. 15. Denied as drafted. 16. Denied as drafted. 17. Admitted. 18. Denied. 19. Denied.
RELEVANT FACTS 20. The Municipality repeats and incorporates the preceding answers as if stated herein. 21. Admitted that Miranda began working at the Municipality in the year 2000. The remaining assertions of paragraph twenty-one are denied. 22. Denied. 23. Denied as drafted. 24. Denied as drafted. 25. Denied as drafted. 26. Denied. 27. Paragraph twenty-seven (27) is not directly related to Miranda’s claims, for which no response is warranted. 28. Paragraph twenty-eight (28) is not directly related to Miranda’s claims, for which no response is warranted.
3

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 49 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 4 of 8
29. Paragraph twenty-nine (29) is not directly related to Miranda’s claims, for which no response is warranted.
30. Paragraph thirty (30) is not directly related to Miranda’s claims, for which no response is warranted.
31. Paragraph thirty-one (31) is Admitted only as to Miranda’s participation as a witness before the EEOC on behalf of Bidot, Garcia and Molina. The remaining portions of paragraph thirtyone are Denied for lack of knowledge and/or information.
32. Denied. 33. Denied. 34. Denied. 35. Denied. 36. Denied. 37. Denied as drafted. 38. Denied. 39. Denied. 40. Denied. 41. Paragraph forty-one (41) is not directly related to Miranda’s claims, for which no response is warranted. 42. Paragraph forty-two (42) is not directly related to Miranda’s claims, for which no response is warranted. 43. Paragraph forty-three (43) is not directly related to Miranda’s claims, for which no response is warranted.
4

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 49 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 5 of 8
44. Paragraph forty-four (44) is not directly related to Miranda’s claims, for which no response is warranted. If the Court were to consider said allegation to encompass Miranda’s claims, the same is Denied.
45. Denied as to Miranda. 46. Denied. 47. Denied. 48. Denied.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 49. The Municipality repeats and incorporates the preceding answers as if stated herein. 50. Paragraph fifty (50) is not directly related to Miranda’s claims, for which no response is warranted. 56.2 Paragraph fifty-six (56) is not directly related to Miranda’s claims, for which no response is warranted. 57. Paragraph fifty-seven (57) is not directly related to Miranda’s claims, for which no response is warranted.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 58. The Municipality repeats and incorporates the preceding answers as if stated herein. 59. Paragraph fifty-nine (59) is not directly related to Miranda’s claims, for which no response is warranted.
2 The Municipality notes that the intervener complaint’s allegations jump from paragraph number fifty (50) to fifty-six (56).
5

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 49 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 6 of 8
60. Paragraph sixty (60) is not directlyrelated to Miranda’s claims, for which no response is warranted.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 61. The Municipality repeats and incorporates the preceding answers as if stated herein. 62. Paragraph sixty-two (62) is not directly related to Miranda’s claims, for which no response is warranted. 63. Denied. 64. Denied.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 65. The Municipality repeats and incorporates the preceding answers as if stated herein. 66. Denied. 67. Denied.
TRIAL BY JURY 68. Paragraph sixty-eight (68) does not require a response.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. The claims included in the intervener complaint are time barred. 3. The corrective measures requested by Miranda in the Complaint have already been instituted in the Municipality 4. The damages claimed by Plaintiff are excessive. 5. Defendant is not liable for any of the acts alleged in the Complaint. 6. The Defendant has not incurred in intentional discrimination against the Plaintiffs.
6

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 49 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 7 of 8
7. All personnel decisions and actions taken by Defendant and/or its representatives were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
8. Miranda failed to take advantage of the Municipality’s established anti-discrimination procedures.
9. The facts alleged in the complaint fail to state a prima facie case of retaliation. 10. Defendants did not retaliate against plaintiff Miranda-Vázquez and the personnel decisions pertaining to him were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. 11. Miranda was not entitled to supervisory duties, nor was he formally provided any. 12. Plaintiff is not entitled to compensatory damages, punitive damages, back pay, interest on back pay, nor costs. 13. In the alternative, the amount of compensatory damages are limited by 42 U.S.C. sec. 1981a. 14. Miranda failed to mitigate damages. 15. Miranda was not constructively discharged. 16. Miranda failed to adequately exhaust administrative remedies. 17. The elements of a retaliation claim under Title VII are not adequately pleaded. 18. In the alternative it is alleged that all personnel decisions and actions taken by Defendant and/or its representatives are in compliance with 42 U.S.C. A sec. 2000e-2(h) and 2000e2(e)(1). 19. Defendant reserves the right to amend the answers to the complaint, and to raise any other affirmative defenses they may deem proper after completion of discovery in this case.
7

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 49 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 8 of 8
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests from the Court that it take note of the preceding, and enter judgment dismissing the Complaint with prejudice, and granting anyother relief to the Defendant it deems warranted.
Respectfully submitted. In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 22nd day of January, 2007. I HEREBY CERTIFY: That on this same date I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to attorneys of record.
NACHMAN & GUILLEMARD Attorneys for Plaintiffs P.O. Box 9949 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00908 Tel. (787) 724-1212 Fax: (787) 725-1339
S/ MONIQUE GUILLEMARD NOBLE Monique Guillemard-Noble USDC-PR 215203
S/FRANCIS A. MARQUEZ SAN MARTÍN Francis A. Márquez-San Martín USDC-PR 222712
8

 
 Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 64 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

MADELINE GARCIA, et al Plaintiffs v.
MUNIPIO DE VEGA ALTA, et al. Defendants

CIVIL NO. 06-1302(PG)

ANSWER TO THE INTERVENER COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
COMES NOW defendants, Jose Colón and Victor Rey de la Cruz through the undersigned attorney, and respectfully submits his answers to the complaint as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION AND JURISDICTION 1. Averments 1 thru 3 are statements of plaintiffs regarding subject matter federal and
supplemental jurisdiction of the Court for this claim. Thus, these paragraphs constitute a statement of legal conclusions; as such do not require a responsive pleading. On the alternative, they are denied
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 2. Averments 4 thru 6 are statements that constitute factual background regarding the
original complaint and the procedure before the EEOC. They do not require a responsive pleading from the appearing defendants since all causes of actions under Title VII against the appearing defendants were dismissed with prejudice. On the alternative, all of them are admitted.

1

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 64 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 2 of 7
3. The causes of actions included in Averments 8 and 9 were dismissed with prejudice in favor of the appearing defendants. They do not require a response from them. PARTIES
4. Averments 9 thru 11 contain statements regarding the identity of the plaintiffs. They do not require a response from the appearing defendants. In the alternative they are admitted.
5. In averment 12 it is denied that the plaintiff Miranda was constructively discharged. It is admitted that plaintiff Miranda was a municipal officer until July 15, 2004. The rest of the averment refers to the identity of this plaintiff and therefore, does not require a response from the appearing defendants. In the alternative, the rest of the averment is admitted.
6. Averment 13 does not require a response from the appearing defendants. In the alternative it is denied.
7. In averment 14 it is admitted that José M. Colón Garcia is the former Major of Vega Alta. The rest of the averment is denied.
8. Averments 15 and 16 are denied. 9. In averment 17 it is admitted that codefendant Colón is sued only in his individual
capacity since he is no longer the Major of Vega Alta. The rest of the averment is denied. 10. In averment 18 it is admitted that codefendant Rey de la Cruz is the former
Commissioner of Vega Alta’s Municipal Police. The fact that codefendant Rey de la Cruz is sued only in his personal capacity does not require a response from the appearing defendants. The rest of the averment is denied. 11. Averment 19 is admitted.
RELEVANT FACTS 2

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 64 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 3 of 7
12. The appearing defendants restate their responses to the previous averments. 13. In averment 21 it is admitted that Miranda began working at the Municipality in the year
2000. The rest of the averment is denied. 14. Averment 22 is denied. 15. In averment 23 it is admitted that all plaintiffs were employees of the Municipality of
Vega Alta, the rest of the averment is denied. 16. In averment 24 it is admitted that codefendant Rey de la Cruz was appointed as
Commissioner of the Municipal Police of Vega Alta, the rest of the averment is denied. 17. Averments 25 thru 48 are denied.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 18. The appearing defendants restate all the responses to the previous averments. 19. Averments 50, 56 and 57 are denied. Furthermore, this cause of action was dismissed
with prejudice as to the appearing defendants. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
20. The appearing defendants restate all the responses to the previous averments. 21. Averments 59 and 60 are denied.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 22. The appearing defendants restate all the responses to previous averments. 23. Averments 61 thru 64 are denied.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 24. The appearing defendants restate all the responses to previous averments. 25. Averments 65 thru 67 are denied.
TRIAL BY JURY 3

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 64 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 4 of 7
28. The appearing defendants restate in full all of their responses to the previous averments. 29. Regarding averment 68, it does not require a response from the appearing defendants
since it is plaintiffs’ request for a jury trial. If a response is required, it is denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The complaint is time barred and/or barred by statute of limitations. 2. The appearing defendants are entitled to the “Qualified Immunity Defense”. 3. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which a relief may be granted against the
appearing defendants and/or cognizable under any applicable federal or state statute. 4. The Complaint fails to state specific acts of the appearing defendants which amount to a
deprivation of any of plaintiff’s constitutional rights and/or federally protected rights. At all time, defendant acted in compliance with his duty. 5. The Complaint fails to state a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 6. The appearing defendants are not liable under § 1983 because their conduct did not reflect a reckless disregard nor deliberate indifference to plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, nor and the complaint fails to allege the type of evil motive or intent actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 7. Plaintiffs were not deprived of a property right therefore, they do not have a valid cause of action under § 1983 against the appearing defendants. 8. Co plaintiff Miranda resigned from his position in the Vega Alta Municipal Police because he was hired as municipal police officer by another municipality. 9. The appearing defendants, at all times, acted according to law and in the good faith performance of duties and within the framework of their authority and duties, and neither
4

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 64 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 5 of 7
acted negligently nor intentionally violated any of plaintiffs’ constitutional and/or protected rights. 10. The complaint fails to state specific facts adequate to show that Plaintiffs suffered any damages because of the conduct of the appearing defendants. 11. There is no supervisor liability under 42 USCA § 1983. 12. Any damages suffered by plaintiffs were self-inflicted. 13. Any damages suffered by plaintiff are grossly exaggerated. 14. Plaintiffs have not mitigated the alleged damages. 15. The injuries claimed by the plaintiffs are speculative and non-existent. 16. Plaintiff cannot recover special damages, since they have not properly pleaded for them. 17. There is no causal connection between any acts or omissions, which may be attributed to the appearing defendants and the alleged damages claimed to have been suffered by plaintiffs. 18. This court does not have Supplemental Jurisdiction to entertain state law causes of actions. 19. The appearing defendants are not liable under Puerto Rico Act No. 100 because they are not “employers” by definition of said law. 20. Puerto Rico Act No. 115 is not applicable to the appearing defendants therefore, they cannot be deemed liable under said law. 21. Puerto Rico Act No. 69 is not applicable to the appearing defendants because they are not “employers” as per the definition under said law. 22. Plaintiffs are not entitled to attorney’s fees.
5

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 64 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 6 of 7 23. Any and all damages allegedly suffered by plaintiffs were caused by their own conduct
and/or negligence. 24. In the hypothesis that plaintiffs are entitled to any relief, which the appearing defendants
deny, plaintiffs have failed to mitigate damages. 25. The appearing defendants reserve the right to amend the answers to the complaint before
the conclusion of discovery proceedings and to raise additional affirmative defenses that arises as result of the discovery process. WHEREFORE, the appearing defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court take notice of this answer to the complaint.
6

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 64 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this same date that on this same date I electronically filed the foregoing using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all parties through their attorneys of record.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED in San Juan, Puerto Rico on this 10th day of July of 2007.

ROBERTO SANCHEZ RAMOS Secretary of Justice
VIVIAN GONZALEZ MENDEZ Acting Deputy Secretary of Justice For Litigation
FRANCISCO A. OJEDA DIEZ Acting Director Legal Affairs Unit VI

S/Anabelle Quiñones-Rodríguez ANABELLE QUIÑONES-RODRIGUEZ Attorney, Litigation Division Unit VI USDC-PR Bar No. 219908 Department of Justice of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico P.O. Box 902192 San Juan, PR 00902-0192 Tel. 721-2900 Ext. 2647, 2641 Fax No. 723-9188 Email: aquinones@justicia.gobierno.pr

7

 
 U.S. v. Municipio De Vega Alta, 244 F.R.D. 118 (2007)
244 F.R.D. 118 United States District Court,
D. Puerto Rico.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v.
MUNICIPIO DE VEGA ALTA, Defendants.
Civ. No. 06-1302 (PG). | May 15, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*120 Isabel Munoz-Acosta, United States Attorney’s Office, Torre Chardon, San Juan, PR, Maria H. Rios-Gandara, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Andres Guillemard-Noble, Monique Guillemard-Noble, Francis A. Marquez-San Martin, Nachman & Guillemard, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.
Opinion
OPINION AND ORDER
JUAN M. PEREZ-GIMENEZ, District Judge.
The instant case is a discrimination and retaliation action pursuant to the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”) initially brought forth by the United States of America against the Municipality of Vega Alta (“the Municipality”) on behalf of Laura Molina (“Molina”), Madeleine García (“García”), Iris Bidot (“Bidot”) and Rafael Miranda (“Miranda”). Molina, García, Bidot and Miranda (collectively “Intervenor Plaintiffs”) filed an Intervener Complaint against the Municipality, and Hon. José Colón García (“Colón”) and Victor Rey de la Cruz (“Rey”) (collectively “Intervenor Defendants”) in both their personal and official capacities. Intervenor Plaintiffs seek redress and injunctive relief pursuant to Title VII; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a, 1983 and 1988; and several other supplemental state law claims for Defendants’ sex discrimination and retaliation against them while in the course of their employment relationship.
Now pending before the Court is Defendant Municipality of Vega Alta’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 34), and Intervenor Defendants Colón and Rey’s “Motion Joining and Supplementing Motion to Dismiss” (Docket No. 53). Defendants contend that Intervenor Plaintiffs’ claim is time-barred. For the reasons set forth below, this Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART

Defendants’ Motions.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 21, 2006, the United States of America brought forth the present Title VII action against the Municipality of Vega Alta for having discriminated by and through its agency, the Municipal Police of Vega Alta, against female officers Molina, García and Bidot on the basis of their sex. See Docket No. 1. The Municipality discriminated against Molina, García and Bidot by allegedly excluding them from supervisory duties and their regular work shift, not allowing them to drive patrol cars and other motor vehicles, and not letting them conduct investigations commensurate with their prior work experience. See Docket No. 1, ¶ 5(a). It is also alleged that the Municipality of Vega Alta assigned them clerical duties and refused to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discriminatory treatment against them. See Docket No. 1, ¶ 5(b)-5(c).
The United States also alleged that the Municipality retaliated against male officer Miranda in violation of Title VII because he participated in the investigation performed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) regarding the sex-discrimination charges filed by Molina, García and Bidot. See Docket No. 1, ¶ 6. The Municipality allegedly retaliated against Miranda by excluding him from supervisory duties in the Maritime-Tourist Area Unit of the Municipal Police, eventually transferring him out of said unit, denying him the opportunity to participate in training sessions, threatening him with suspension or termination, denying him a letter of reference for another job, as well as refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the retaliatory treatment against him. See Docket No. 1, ¶ 6(a)-6(f).
On July 19, 2006, Molina, García, Bidot and Miranda filed an Intervenor Complaint (Docket No. 9) against the Municipality of Vega Alta, Hon. José Colón García in his personal and official capacity, and Victor Rey de la Cruz in his personal and official capacity. Defendant Colón had been, at all times relevant to the complaint, the Mayor of the Municipality of Vega Alta, whereas Rey was the Commissioner of the Municipal Police of *121 the Municipality, as well as Intervenor Plaintiffs’ immediate supervisor at all times relevant herein. See Docket No. 9, ¶ 14, 18. In addition to seeking redress for Intervenor Defendants’ sex-based discrimination, Molina, García and Bidot also seek relief for the retaliatory actions against them in violation of Title VII. Furthermore, Intervenor Plaintiffs also filed claims pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a, 1983 and 1988; Puerto Rico Law No.
1

U.S. v. Municipio De Vega Alta, 244 F.R.D. 118 (2007)

100 of June 30, 1959, as amended, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 146 et seq.; Puerto Rico Law No. 69 of July 6, 1985, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29 § 1321 et seq.; and Puerto Rico Law No. 115 of December 20, 1991, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 194 et seq. See Docket No. 9.
According to Intervenor Plaintiffs, shortly after his appointment as Police Commissioner, Rey began a sex-based discriminatory campaign against all female officers of the municipal police force. See Docket No. 9, ¶ 26. Consequently, Molina, García and Bidot filed charges of gender discrimination before the EEOC. See Docket No. 9, ¶ 30. In August of 2003, co-plaintiff Miranda, a fellow male co-worker of plaintiffs, was called in as witness as part of the investigation conducted by the EEOC. Miranda provided testimony in favor of Molina, García and Bidot, corroborating their allegations of gender discrimination. See Docket No. 9, ¶ 31. As a result of filing charges and testifying before the EEOC, Intervenor Plaintiffs Molina, García and Bidot allege they were also victims of retaliation. Accordingly, García, Bidot, and Molina filed new charges of retaliation before the EEOC. See Docket No. 9, ¶ 42.
Pending now before the Court is the Municipality of Vega Alta’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 34) in which it claims that García, Bidot and Molina’s Intervenor Complaint is untimely. Attached to the Municipality’s Motion to Dismiss are García, Bidot and Molina’s right-to-sue letters from the EEOC postmarked on March 29, 2006. The Municipality argues that García, Bidot and Molina failed to file this cause of action within the requisite ninety-day period following the receipt of their “right-to-sue” letter from the EEOC. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). As a result, Defendants request García, Bidot and Molina’s Intervenor Complaint be dismissed as time-barred.1

1

This Court notes that the Municipality does not move to

dismiss Miranda’s Intervenor Complaint. The

Municipality’s request is limited to Intervenor Plaintiffs

García, Molina and Bidot.

Intervenor Plaintiffs opposed the Municipality’s request (Docket No. 42) claiming it only requested the dismissal of García, Bidot and Molina’s Title VII retaliation claim. Although Intervenor Plaintiffs admitted that the dismissal with prejudice of García, Bidot and Molina’s Title VII retaliation claim was “warranted because the Intervenor Complaint was filed outside the 90 day period applicable to these claims,” they argue that their supplemental state law claims should not be dismissed because they were timely filed, they are closely related to the remaining federal claims, and it would result in a more efficient use of the Court’s resources since the evidence that will be presented to sustain the remaining claims is practically

identical. See Docket No. 42.
The Municipality filed a reply to Intervenor Plaintiffs’ opposition (Docket No. 50) pointing out that Intervenor Plaintiffs incorrectly state that dismissal is only sought with regards to their Title VII retaliation claim. See Docket No. 50 at 2. The Municipality submits that, contrary to what Intervenor Plaintiffs aver in their opposition, its Motion to Dismiss clearly requests the dismissal of Intervenor Plaintiffs’ entire Title VII claim, not just the Title VII retaliation claim.
Finally, Intervenor Defendants Colón and Rey filed a “Motion Joining and Supplementing Motion to Dismiss” (Docket No. 53). Colón and Rey joined the Municipality’s Motion to Dismiss and additionally argued that even though Colón was sued by Intervenor Plaintiffs in his official capacity, Colón was no longer the Mayor of the Municipality of Vega Alta when the Intervenor Complaint was filed. Therefore, Colón claims he cannot be sued in his official capacity since he is no longer an employee of the Municipality. Intervenor Defendants also submit that they should not be held individually liable for Intervenor Plaintiffs’ Title VII claim because *122 they are not an “employer” within the meaning of Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (b).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A. Motion to Dismiss Standard under Rule 12(b)(6) [1] [2] Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a defendant to file a motion to dismiss where the allegations in the complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See FED. R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6). When ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion a court must accept all well-pled factual averments as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Berezin v. Regency Savings Bank, 234 F.3d 68, 70 (1st Cir.2000). A complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond any doubt that the non-moving party can prove no set of facts which may support a claim entitling him or her to relief. Ronald C. Brown v. Hot, Sexy, and Safer Productions, Inc., 68 F.3d 525 (1st Cir.1995).
[3] [4] [5] While this standard is very generous to the non-moving party, it does not follow that it is completely “toothless”. Zeus Projects Limited v. Pérez y Cia, 187 F.R.D. 23, 26 (D.P.R.1999). The complainant may not rest merely on “unsupported conclusions or interpretations of law.” Washington Legal Foundation v. Massachusetts Bar Foundation, 993 F.2d 962, 971 (1st Cir.1993). In order to survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must set forth “factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element necessary to sustain recovery.” Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp., 851 F.2d
2

U.S. v. Municipio De Vega Alta, 244 F.R.D. 118 (2007)
513, 515 (1st Cir.1988). The Court need not accept “bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like.” Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996).
[6] Ordinarily, the Court cannot consider any documents not attached to the complaint, or not expressly incorporated therein, unless the motion is properly converted into one for summary judgment under Rule 56. See FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6). “However, many courts have made narrow exceptions for documents whose authenticity is not disputed by the parties; for instance, for official public records; for documents central to a plaintiff’s claim; or for documents sufficiently referred to in the complaint.” Valentin Rodriguez v. Municipality of Barceloneta, 236 F.Supp.2d 189, 192 (D.P.R.2002) (quoting Romani v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, 929 F.2d 875, 879 n. 3 (1st Cir.1991); Mack v. South Bay Beer Distrib., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir.1986); In re: Wade, 969 F.2d 241, 249 & n. 12 (7th Cir.1992)).
III. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Title VII-Statute of Limitations and Intervention On March 21, 2006, the United States filed suit against the Municipality of Vega Alta for sex-based discrimination against female municipal police officers García, Bidot and Molina. On March 29, 2006, the EEOC issued a “Notice of Right to Sue within 90 Days” to García, Molina and Bidot. See Exhibit to Motion to Dismiss, Docket No. 34. On July 19, 2006, one hundred and twelve (112) days after the EEOC issued and postmarked the “right-to-sue” letters, García, Bidot and Molina filed an Intervenor Complaint against the Municipality, Colón and Rey for sex-based discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Title VII. Defendants assert that Intervenor Plaintiffs García, Bidot and Molina’s cause of action pursuant to Title VII is time barred by the ninety-day (90) limitation period to bring suit under Title VII. In their opposition, García, Bidot and Molina accept dismissal is warranted, but only as to their Title VII retaliation claim. This Court agrees.
[7] [8] Title VII prohibits any employer, employment agency, or labor organization from engaging in unlawful employment practices based upon a person’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), once the EEOC makes the determination to dismiss an employee’s Title VII charges, or has itself failed to begin a civil action within 180 days of the original EEOC filing, the EEOC “shall so notify the person aggrieved and within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought” in District Court by the aggrieved *123

employee. That is, “[t]he employee may commence a civil action against her employer if, and only if, the EEOC has dismissed the administrative complaint or has itself failed to begin a civil action within 180 days of the original EEOC filing.” Jorge v. Rumsfeld, 404 F.3d 556, 564 (1st Cir.2005). A civil action must then be commenced within ninety (90) days after the movant party receives the “right-to-sue” letter issued by the EEOC. “Only upon issuance of a right-to-sue notice will a claimant be deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies in order to be able to file a civil action, and this he may do within ninety days of receipt of such notice.” Pérez Cordero v. Wal-Mart PR, Inc., 235 F.Supp.2d 95, 101 (D.P.R.2002).
[9] [10] Also pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII, a federal employee may intervene in an action brought by the EEOC on his or her behalf. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); see Jorge v. Rumsfeld, 404 F.3d at 564 n. 6. “The person or persons aggrieved shall have the right to intervene in a civil action brought by the Commission or the Attorney General in a case involving a government, governmental agency, or political subdivision.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). Therefore, “a private party whose interests may be affected by a suit the EEOC brings has an unqualified right to intervene in the suit, if he timely seeks to do so ... Moreover, it has been held that a private plaintiff’s sole avenue of redress is intervention if the EEOC sues.” Truvillion v. King’s Daughters Hospital, 614 F.2d 520, 525 (5th Cir.1980) (citing McClain v. Wagner Electric Corp., 550 F.2d 1115 (8th Cir.1977))(emphasis ours). “If the Commission sues first, individual employees are not permitted to sue independently but may intervene as of right in the Commission’s suit as provided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a).” McClain v. Wagner Elec. Corp., 550 F.2d 1115, 1119 (8th Cir.1977).
An application for leave to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a) must be “timely,” and the question of whether a given application is timely must be answered in the light of all of the relevant facts and circumstances in the particular case; ultimately the question addresses itself to the judicial discretion of the judge to whom the application is made....
Id.
[11] [12] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) allows intervention upon timely application “when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene.” FED.R.CIV.P. 24(a). The timeliness requirement is of first importance, and the trial court’s
3

U.S. v. Municipio De Vega Alta, 244 F.R.D. 118 (2007)
determination of timeliness is case-specific and is entitled to substantial deference. See Caterino v. Barry, 922 F.2d 37, 40 (1st Cir.1990); see also Cadle Co. v. Schlichtmann, Conway, Crowley & Hugo, 338 F.3d 19, 21 (1st Cir.2003). The factors to be considered in evaluating the timeliness of a motion to intervene as of right are: (i) the length of time the prospective intervenors knew or reasonably should have known of their interest before they petitioned to intervene; (ii) the prejudice to existing parties due to the intervenor’s failure to petition for intervention promptly; (iii) the prejudice the prospective intervenors would suffer if not allowed to intervene; and (iv) the existence of unusual circumstances militating for or against intervention. See Caterino v. Barry, 922 F.2d 37, 40 (1st Cir.1990) (citing Culbreath v. Dukakis, 630 F.2d 15, 17, 20-24 (1st Cir.1980)).
[13] The United States of America brought forth the present Title VII action against the Municipality for having discriminated against Molina, García and Bidot on the basis of their sex. However, in their Intervenor Complaint, Molina, García and Bidot not only claim that they were victims of sex-based discrimination, but also of retaliation in violation of Title VII. Therefore, because the United States did not bring suit against the Municipality as a result of Molina, García and Bidot’s charges of retaliation before the EEOC, Molina, García and Bidot had to commence a civil action to that effect within ninety (90) days after the receipt of their “right-to-sue” letter. As Defendants correctly point out, and Intervenor Plaintiffs admit, dismissal is warranted as to their Title VII retaliation claim since Molina, García and Bidot filed their Title VII retaliation complaint well after the expiration of the 90-day limitations period (given the March 29, 2006 *124 “right-to-sue” letter). Thus, Molina, García and Bidot’s Title VII retaliation claim is time-barred, and must be dismissed.
[14] However, by the time Molina, García and Bidot filed their Intervenor Complaint, the United States had already begun a sex-based discrimination action against the Municipality pursuant to Title VII, which gives the persons aggrieved an unconditional right to intervene in a federal law suit brought against defendant by the Commission or the Attorney General. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). In fact, Intervenor Plaintiffs’ sole avenue of redress was timely intervention in the Title VII sex-based discrimination claim filed by the United States. See Truvillion, 614 F.2d at 525. The Intervenor Complaint was filed roughly four (4) months after the United States filed its suit, just as discovery in the case commenced. Thus, Intervenor Plaintiffs Molina, García and Bidot’s intervention in the Title VII sex-based discrimination claim filed by the United States is not untimely.
B. Supplemental State Law Claims

[15] A federal court exercising original jurisdiction over federal claims also has “supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to the claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367(a); see also Camelio v. American Federation, 137 F.3d 666, 672 (1st Cir.1998). “Certainly, if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, ..., the state claims should be dismissed as well.” Id. Here, the Court has not dismissed all of Intervenor Plaintiffs federal claims, thus, it will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Intervenor Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

C. Individual Liability pursuant to Title VII Intervenor Defendants Colón and Rey argue that Intervenor Plaintiffs’ Title VII claim against them should be dismissed because they are not an “employer” as defined by Title VII and the statute does not provide for personal liability. See Docket No. 53.
[16] Section 701 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e, defines the term employer as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person....” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e. “Although the First Circuit has yet to decide whether a Title VII plaintiff may maintain a suit against an individual in his personal capacity, most circuits have held that no personal liability can be attached to agents or supervisors under Title VII.” Gomez Gonzalez v. Guidant Corp., 364 F.Supp.2d 112, 115-116 (D.P.R.2005).2 Following the majority of the circuit courts, this District Court has held that individual defendants are not liable under Title VII. Id.; see also Perez Cordero v. Wal-Mart PR, Inc., 235 F.Supp.2d 95 (D.P.R.2002); Vargas-Caban v. Sally Beauty Supply Co., 476 F.Supp.2d 109, 115-116 (D.P.R.2007).

2

See Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295 (2nd

Cir.1995); Dici v. Com. of Pa., 91 F.3d 542 (3rd

Cir.1996); Lissau v. Southern Food Serv., Inc., 159

F.3d 177, 180-81 (4th Cir.1998); Grant v. Lone Star

Co., 21 F.3d 649 (5th Cir.1994) cert. denied, 513 U.S.

1015, 115 S.Ct. 574, 130 L.Ed.2d 491 (1994); Wathen

v. General Elec. Co., 115 F.3d 400, 405-06 (6th

Cir.1997); Gastineau v. Fleet Mortgage Corp., 137

F.3d 490, 493-94 (7th Cir.1998); Lenhardt v. Basic

Inst. of Tech., Inc., 55 F.3d 377 (8th Cir.1995); Miller

v. Maxwell’s Int’l, Inc., 991 F.2d 583 (9th Cir.1993);

Haynes v. Williams, 88 F.3d 898 (10th Cir.1996); Cross

v. Alabama, 49 F.3d 1490, 1504 (11th Cir.1995); Smith

v. Lomax, 45 F.3d 402 (11th Cir.1995); Gary v. Long,

59 F.3d 1391, 1399 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S.

1011, 116 S.Ct. 569, 133 L.Ed.2d 493 (1995).

4

U.S. v. Municipio De Vega Alta, 244 F.R.D. 118 (2007)
Therefore, Intervenor Plaintiffs’ Title VII claims against Colón and Rey fail and must be dismissed. There remains against the two (2) individual Intervenor Defendants the local claims pursuant to Puerto Rico Laws No. 100, 69 and 115. See Perez Cordero v. Wal-Mart PR, Inc., 235 F.Supp.2d 95 (D.P.R.2002); Arroyo Rodríguez v. Econo Supermarket, Inc., 204 F.Supp.2d 289, 293-95 (D.P.R.2002)(supervisors can be held individually liable under the local anti-discrimination laws in Puerto Rico); *125 Pacheco Bonilla v. Tooling & Stamping, Inc., 281 F.Supp.2d 336, 339 (D.P.R.2003) (citing Rosario Toledo v. Distribuidora Kikuet, Inc., 2000 PRSC 193); Diaz-Rivera v. El Dia, Inc., 2005 WL 2333645, at *3 (D.P.R. Sept.23, 2005)(given the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico’s broad interpretation of other labor laws’ definitions of the term “agent” in favor of the employee, the Court declined to narrow the definition of the term “agent” as defined in Puerto Rico Law No. 115).

IV. CONCLUSION
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Dockets No. 34, 53) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. This Court finds that Molina, García and Bidot’s Title VII retaliation claim is time-barred, and thus, it is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. However, this Court finds that Intervenor Plaintiffs Molina, García and Bidot’s intervention in the Title VII sex-based discrimination claim filed by the EEOC was timely. Consequently, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction of Intervenor Plaintiffs’ state law claims. Finally, there being no individual liability under Title VII, Intervenor Plaintiffs’ Title VII claims against Colón and Rey are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Remaining against the two (2) individual Intervenor Defendants, Rey and Colón, are the discrimination and retaliation claims pursuant to Puerto Rico Laws No. 100, 69 and 115.
SO ORDERED.
	  

5

 
 Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 74 Filed 09/10/07 Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RIco
-j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 06-cv-1302 (PG)

LAURA MOLINA RODRiGUEZ, MADELINE GARCiA GONzALEZ, IRIS BIDOT FIGUEROA, AND RAFAEL MIRANDA VAZQUEZ,

Piaintiffsiintervenors,

v.

MUNICIPIO DE VEGA ALTA,

Defendant,

JOSE M. COLON GARCiA AND ViCTOR REy DE LA

CRUZ,

o

Individual Defendants.

CONSENT DECREE This matter is before the Court for entry of this judgment by consent ofthe parties to effectuate a compromise and settlement of all claims. After review and consideration, the Court believes that entry of this judgment is in the interest ofjustice. I. Plaintiff the United States commenced the ahove entitled action to enforce the
provisions of Title vn of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
("Title VII"). In its Complaint, the United States alleges that Defendant Municipio de Vega Alta ("Municipality"), by and through its agency, Policia Municipal de Vega Alta ("Municipal Police"), subjected Plaintiffslintervenors Laura Molina Rodriguez ("Molina"), Madeleine Garcia Gonzalez ("Garcia"), Iris Bidot Figueroa ("Bidot"), and similarlY situated female municipal

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 74 Filed 09/10/07 Page 2 of 14
police officers to discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), and subjected Plaintifflintervenor (and former municipal police officer) Rafael Miranda Vazquez ("Miranda") to retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).
2. Plaintiffs/intervenors Molina, Garcia, Bidot and Miranda filed an Intervenor Complaint alleging that Defendant the Municipality, by and through its agency, the Municipal Police, and Individual Defendants Jose M. Colon Garcia ("Colon") and Victor M. Rey de la Cruz ("Rey"), subjected the three female Plaintiffs/intervenors to discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VI! and Puerto Rico Acts Nos. 69 and 100, and subjected PlaintiIDintervenor Miranda to retaliation in violation of Title VI! and Puerto Rico Act No. 115. Both complaints shall be referred to jointly herein as the "Action."
3. As a result of settlement discussions, the parties' have resolved their differences and have agreed that this Action should be settled by entry of this Consent Decree. It is the intent of the parties that this Consent Decree be a final and binding settlement in full disposition of all claims against Defendant the Municipality alleged in the Complaint and the Intervenor Complaint filed in this case. I. PARTIES AND DEFINITIONS
4. The parties to this Consent Decree are Plaintiff the United States, Plaintiffs/intervenors Molina, Garcia, Bidot and Miranda, and Defendant the Municipality.
5. Defendant the Municipality, its current, former and future agents, employees, officials, designees and successors in interests are referred to hereinafter as the "Municipality."
6. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is referred to hereinafter as the
1 Individual Defendants Colon and Rey are not parties to this Consent Decree. -2-

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 74 Filed 09/10/07 Page 3 of 14

"EEOC," 7.

Title vn of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.s.c. § 2000e, et seq.,

is referred to hereinafter as "Title VII."

8. "Retaliation" is any act that would be prohibited under Title VII's prohibitions

against retaliation such as taking an adverse employment action against an employee because the

employee has opposed any practice he or she reasonably believes violates Title VII, or has made

a formal or informal complaint or charge, or testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in a

formal or informal investigation, proceeding or hearing relating to a practice alleged to violate

Title VII.

II. STIPULATED FACTS

9. The parties acknowledge the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for

the District of Puerto Rico over the subject matter of this Action and of the parties for the

purpose of entering this Consent Decree and, if necessary, enforcing this Consent Decree.

10. Venue is proper in this district for purposes of this Consent Decree and any

proceedings related to this Consent Decree only. Defendant the Municipality agrees that all

statutory conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

III. FINDINGS:

II. Having examined the terms and provisions of the Consent Decree and based on

the pleadings, records, and stipulations of the parties, the Court finds the following;

a. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and the

parties.

b. The terms and provisions of this Consent Decree are fair, reasonable, and

-3-

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 74 Filed 09/10/07 Page 4 of 14

just.

c. This Consent Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

Title VIT, and Puerto Rico Acts 69, 100 and 115, and is not in derogation

of the rights and privileges of any person. The entry of this Consent

Decree will further the objectives of the Title VIT and other applicable law,

and will be in the best interests of the parties.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED

AS FOLLOWS:

NON-ADMISSION

12. This Consent Decree, being entered with the consent of the parties, shall not

constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case and shall not be construed as an

admission by Defendant the Municipality of any violations of Title VII, or any other law, rule or

regulation dealing with or in connection with equal employment opportunities. Defendant the

Municipality denies any wrongdoing.

SPECIFIC RELIEF

13. Without admitting the allegations of Plaintiff the United States and

Plaintiffs/intervenors Molina, Garcia, Bidot and Miranda, and in settlement ofthe United States'

claims for individual relief, as well as in settlement of the claims of Plaintiffs/intervenors

Molina, Garcia, Bidot and Miranda with respect to Defendant the Municipality, Defendant the

Municipality agrees to do the following:

a.

Laura Molina Rodriguez

The Municipality shall offer Officer Molina:

-4-

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 74 Filed 09/10/07 Page 5 of 14

(I) a total monetary award (inclusive of attorney's fees') of $70,000 hich

shall be considered compensatory damages; and

(2) to expunge from Officer Molina's personnel files, as well as frot any

other files maintained by the Municipality, including the Municipal tOlice,

all documents (issued or dated between Jnne I, 2003, and January 9,12005)

that contain negative references about Officer Molina's work perfotance.

b. Madeleine Garcia Gonzalez

The Municipality shall offer Sergeant Garcia:

1

(I) a total monetary award (inclusive of attorney's fees) of$70,000 rhiCh

shall be considered compensatory damages; and

I

(2) to expunge from Sergeant Garcia's personnel files, as well as fr many

other files maintained by the Municipality, including the Municipal olice,

all documents (issued or dated between June 1,2003, and January 9 2005)

that contain negative references about Sergeant Garcia's work

performance.

c. Iris Bidot Figueroa

The Municipality shall offer Officer Bidot:

(1) a total monetary award (inclusive of attorney's fees) of $50,000 which

shall be considered compensatory damages; and

(2) to expunge from Officer Bidot's personnel files, as well as frorr1 any
I
other files maintained by the Municipality, including the Municipal rolice,

---'-A-t-to-rn-eY-'-S-f'-e-eS-w-i-nbe 25% of the monetary award paid to each PlaintifflinterveJor.

-5-

I

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 74 Filed 09/10/07 Page 6 of 14

all documents (issued or dated between June I, 2003, and January 9'12005)

that contain negative references about Officer Bidot's work performrce.

d. Rafael Miranda Vazquez

The Municipality shall offer former Officer Miranda:

(I) a total monetary award (inclusive of attorney's fees) of$35,000 hich

shall be considered compensatory damages;

(2) to expunge from former Officer Miranda's personnel files, as w

from any other files maintained by the Municipality, including the I
Municipal Police, all documents (issued or dated between June I, 2~03,
and July IS, 2004) that contain negative references about former Of~cer

Miranda's work performance; and

I

(3) to not provide negative employment references for Officer Mirahda to
emplo~ent any future prospective employer that inquires about his past

in the Municipal Police, and to not refer in any way to Officer MirJda's
communicati~g filing of a charge of retaliation or to this lawsuit when

with prospective employers seeking a reference for Officer Mirandl If a

reference is requested by a prospective employer, the Municipality I ill

only confirm the length of Officer Miranda's employment, his past salary
I
history, the fact that he received satisfactory ratings, and that he is eligible
for rehire. The Municipality also agrees that should Officer Mirand~ apply !
for re-employment with the Municipality in the future - in the MuriciPal

Police or in another department - his application will be given faifl

-6-

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 74 Filed 09/10/07 Page 7 of 14

14. Defendant the Municipality shall pay the full amount of the monetary awar

specified for each individual in paragraph 13 of this Consent Decree, in care of counsel for the

recei~e Plaintiffs/intervenors, on or by September 30, 2007. Plaintiff/intervenor Molina shall

a

check for $52,500; Plaintiff/intervenor Garcia shall receive a check for $52,500;

Plaintiff/intervenor Bidot shall receive a check for $37,500; Plaintiff/intervenor Miranda s all

receive a check for $26,250, and counsel for Plaintiffs/intervenors shall receive a check fo

$56,250.

15. Plaintiffs/intervenors agree that they will be responsible for payment of anyiand

all taxes that may be required of them by the appropriate authorities. Plaintiffslintervenors! agree

and acknowledge that the Municipality is not responsible for the decisions made by any

governmental entity in relation to the fiscal treatment that may be given to the payments to be

made under this Consent Decree.

16. The Municipality shall notify the United States as soon as payment to

I

I

Plaintiffs/intervenors Molina, Garcia, Bidot and Miranda has been made. The Municipality shall

promptly forward to the United States a copy of the check(s) or other appropriate docume~tation

indicating that payment has been made.

17. In consideration for accepting the relief being offered them pursuant to pararaPhs

13 and 14 of this Consent Decree, Plaintiffs/intervenors, individually and in all other caparities,
and for their heirs, next of kin, beneficiaries, agents, personal representatives, successors, I
assignees, administrators, executors, devisees and legatees, hereby release, discharge forc~er,

agree not to sue, indemnify and hold harmless the Municipality, including its agents, emplbyees,

I
-7-

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 74 Filed 09/10/07 Page 8 of 14

directors, officers, and all other representatives, known or unknown, from any and all right~,

claims, demands, damages, debts, indemnification, contribution, causes of action, or suits Jt law

or in equity, of whatever kind or nature, that they ever had, now have, or may have in the Jture
I
arising from or relating to discrimination on the basis of sex, retaliation, or any of the othe1
allegations, facts, circumstances or injuries alleged in the Action. Plaintiffs/intervenors a~ee
an~ that the consideration that they will receive pursuant to this Consent Decree is provided

accepted in full settlement of all past, present and future injuries and damages, whether pr sently

known or unknown, regarding the facts as alleged in the Action, including but not limited 0

damages for pain and suffering, medical expenses, liens for medical and/or other services,
othe~ emotional distress, punitive damages, attorney's fees, interests, costs, and any and all

pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.'

I

GENERAL RELIEF
18. The Municipality agrees not to engage in any act or practice that has the pu~ose

or effect of unlawfully discriminating against any employee ofthe Municipality in that

employee's compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of such

employee's sex.

19. The Municipality agrees not to retaliate against any person because that per on

has opposed allegedly discriminatory policies or practices; filed a complaint, either formal or

informal, with the Municipality; filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC; or particrated

in or cooperated with the initiation, investigation, litigation or administration of this case 9r this
,
3 The release in paragraph 17 does not encompass the claims in the InterVenor Complaint against Individual Defendants Colon, former Mayor of the Municipality, and Rey, former Commissioner of the Municipal Police.
-8-

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 74 Filed 09/10/07 Page 9 of 14

Consent Decree.

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

20. Within sixty (60) days after the date of entry of this Consent Decree, the I
t Municipality shall implement policies and procedures in its Municipal Police that shall, at

minimum, include the following:

I

a. A clear re-statement of the Municipality's commitment to equal
I
employment opportunity and non-discrimination on the basis of sex or retalIation;
diSCrimi~tion b. An assurance that employees who make complaints of sex

or provide information related to such complaints will be protected against I

retaliation;

c. A clearly described complaint process that provides multiple and
accessible avenues by which an employee may make a written or verbal co~plaint

of sex discrimination or retaliation;

I

I
d. An assurance that the Municipality will protect the confidentiality of

I
complaints of sex discrimination or retaliation to the fullest extent possiblej

e. A process that provides a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigalion of

complaints of sex discrimination or retaliation; and

!

f.

An assurance that the Municipality will take immediate and appropiliate

corrective action when it determines that sex discrimination or retaliation h~s
i
occurred.

21. Within thirty (30) days after the date of entry ofthis Consent Decree, the

Municipality shall submit the policies and procedures described in paragraph 20 to the UnIted

-9-

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 74 Filed 09/10/07 Page 10 of 14

States for review, comment and approval. The United States' approval will not be umeasohably I

withheld.

I

22. Within ten (10) days after the date on which the Municipality implements Je
~f policies and procedures described in paragraph 20, the Municipality shall distribute copies

such policies and procedures to all employees in its Municipal Police, and post such policirs and

procedures in all buildings and facilities used for posting general infonnation to Municipal Police

employees.

23. The Municipality shall ensure that each new employee in the Municipal Pol ce

receives a copy of the policies and procedures implemented pursuant to paragraph 20 at tht time

of the new employee's hire. Each new employee in the Municipal Police shall sign an I I I
acknowledgment that he or she has read and understood such policies and procedures, and Ithe

signed acknowledgment shall be placed in each new employee's personnel file.

I

TRAINING

I

24. No later than ninety (90) days after the date of entry ofthis Consent Decree! all

supervisors in the Municipal Police, including the Police Chief, shall be provided with trairing

by the Municipality on the law of equal employment opportunity, including discriminationl based
on sex and retaliation, lasting at least three (3) hours. The training will include an explana~ion of

the Municipality's policies and procedures, as described in paragraph 20, regarding initiatibn and

investigation of a complaint of discrimination or retaliation. The Municipality will select,lwith

the concurrence of the United States, a qualified individual or group of individuals to con1uct the

training outlined in this paragraph. The United States' concurrence will not be umeasona~ly withheld. The United States will review and approve any proposed training program prio~ to its

I
-10-
I I I I

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 74 Filed 09/10/07 Page 11 of 14
administration.
25. All persons who attend training shall sign and date an acknowledgment of I
attendance for the training described in paragraph 24. The Municipality shall provide the nited States with copies ofthese acknowledgments within ten (10) days of their execution. The Municipality will keep on file all original signed and dated acknowledgments for the dural' on of this Consent Decree.
COMPLIANCE MONITORING 26. The United States may review compliance with this Consent Decree at any jime. The Municipality shall, upon request, provide copies of any documents relevant to the I
Municipality's compliance with this Consent Decree to the United States. The Municipali~ shall
p~ose also provide to the United States' counsel access to any and all of its employees for the
thi~ of conducting interviews or depositions to evaluate the Municipality's compliance with
Consent Decree.
;
27. The Municipality shall, upon request, provide the United States with complIance reports documenting all steps taken by the Municipality to comply with the Consent Decreb.
!
28. Within thirty (30) days of receiving a [annal or infonnal complaint of sex ~
discrimination or retaliation from a Municipal Police Department emp.loyee, the Municipa!tty shall:
a. advise the United States ofthe complaint and of all actions taken tOI
;
,
investigate the complaint; and b. provide the United States with copies of all documents relevant to tJ!>e complaint.
-11-

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 74 Filed 09/10/07 Page 12 of 14
29. The Municipality shall retain during the tenn of this Consent Decree all
documents, in paper or electronic fonn (including electronic mail), that come into its POssjsion
that are relevant to this Consent Decree including but not limited to: (a) documents related Ito
;
complaints of sex discrimination or retaliation (fonnal or infonnal) made by Municipal Po ice
Department employees; and (b) documents related to the training required by this Consent
Decree.
NOTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES
30. All documents required to be delivered under this Consent Decree to the urted
States shall be sent to the attention of, ifby u.s. mail:
Chief Employment Litigation Section United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW PHB - Room 4040 Washington, DC 20530
or ifby ovemight delivery service to:
Chief Employment Litigation Section United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section 601 D Street, NW, Room 4040 Washington, DC 20004
31. All documents required to be delivered under this Consent Decree to the
Municipality shall be sent to the attention of:
Francis A. Marquez San Martin, ESQ. Nachman & Guillemard
-12-

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 74 Filed 09/10/07 Page 13 of 14

P.O. Box 9949 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00908

and

Mario Carrillo, Esq. Asesor Legal Municipio de Vega Alta Centro Gubernamental Apartado 1390 Vega Alta, Puerto Rico 00692-1390

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

32. The Court shall maintain jurisdiction of the matters covered by this Consent
d1a~e Decree for a period of three (3) years from the date of entry of this Consent Decree. This I
Consent Decree shall expire without further order of this Court three (3) years from the of
entry. 33. If a dispute arises concerning compliance with this Consent Decree, the p i e s

shall engage in good faith efforts to resolve the issue before seeking action by the Court. I the

parties are unable expeditiously to resolve the issue, any party may move the Court for

resolution, provided that written notice is first provided to the other party at least fourteen 14)

days in advance of any intended filing with the Court.

34. Failure by the United States to enforce this Consent Decree or any PfOViSioj

tA tAhPerPeRofOsVhaEllDnoant dbeOcRonDsEtrRueEdDasthaisw~ aiver ofditasyr0igh~Lt nt2o~0d.o0tso7J. f.A

I

-13-

Case 3:06-cv-01302-PG Document 74 Filed 09/10/07 Page 14 of 14

AGREED AND CONSENTED TO:
On behalfofPlaintiffthe United States
WANJ.KIM Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division DAVIDJ.P MER Section Chie WILLIAM . FENTON DeputyS
MARiA HORTENSIA Rio
USDC-PR No. 205602 Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530

Dated: AOLA.St '21-, 1.0:FI.

«1 Dated: (Vii] /01-.
OZ,ESQ.,
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-2404 On behalfofDe endant the Municipality of Vega Alta
ARTIN, ESQ. D a t e d : ¥ 3'0 \ ~o7 Nachman & Guillemard P.O. Box 9949 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00908

-14-

 
 Case: 3:06-cv-1302 As of: 07/21/2014 09:47 AM AST 1 of 8
FRC
United States District Court District of Puerto Rico (San Juan) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06−cv−01302−PG

United States of America v. Municipio de Vega Alta Assigned to: Judge Juan M. Perez−Gimenez Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/21/2006 Date Terminated: 09/10/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

United States of America

represented by Isabel Munoz−Acosta United States Attorneys Office District of Puerto Rico Torre Chardon Suite 1201 350 Chardon Ave San Juan, PR 00918 787−766−5656 Fax: 787−766−6219 Email: isabel.munoz@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Maria H. Rios−Gandara U. S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW PHB Room 4914 Washington, DC 20530 202−616−9750 Fax: 202−514−1005 Email: maria.rios@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Municipio de Vega Alta

represented by Andres Guillemard−Noble Nachman &Guillemard, PSC P. O. Box 9949 San Juan, PR 00908 787−724−1212 Fax: 787−725−1339 Email: aguillemard@guillemardlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Guillemard−Noble Nachman &Guillemard, PSC P. O. Box 9949 San Juan, PR 00908 787−724−1212 Fax: 787−725−1339 Email: mguillemard@guillemardlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Francis A. Marquez−San Martin ZIGLAW 4500 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33137

Case: 3:06-cv-1302 As of: 07/21/2014 09:47 AM AST 2 of 8

305−604−9944 Fax: 305−397−1898 Email: fmarquez@guillemardlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Iris M. Bidot

represented by Juan R. Gonzalez−Munoz Gonzalez Munoz Law Offices, P.S.C. P.O. Box 9024055 San Juan, PR 00902−4055 787−766−5052 Fax: 787−766−5551 Email: polonorteprlaw@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vanesa Vicens Indiano &Williams, PSC 207 Del Parque Street Third Floor San Juan, PR 00912 787−641−4545 Fax: 787−641−4544 Email: vanesa.vicens@indianowilliams.com TERMINATED: 08/21/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Madeline Garcia

represented by Juan R. Gonzalez−Munoz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vanesa Vicens (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Rafael Miranda

represented by Juan R. Gonzalez−Munoz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vanesa Vicens (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Laura Molina

represented by Juan R. Gonzalez−Munoz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vanesa Vicens (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/21/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Case: 3:06-cv-1302 As of: 07/21/2014 09:47 AM AST 3 of 8

Intervenor Defendant Jose M Colon

represented by Anabelle Quinones−Rodriguez Quinones−Rodriguez Law Office 1498 Camino Los Gonzalez Box 31 San Juan, PR 00926 787−593−5464 Fax: 787−753−7655 Email: anabelleq@hotmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant Victor M. Rey−De la Cruz

represented by Anabelle Quinones−Rodriguez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/21/2006 03/21/2006 04/24/2006 04/24/2006
04/26/2006 05/04/2006 05/24/2006
06/13/2006 06/19/2006 07/19/2006
07/24/2006 07/31/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Municipio de Vega Alta (Filing fee $ 250.), filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Munoz−Acosta, Isabel) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
2 Summons Issued as to Municipio de Vega AltaService due by 7/19/2006. (ni, ) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
3 NOTICE of Appearance and Request for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Plead by Andres Guillemard−Noble on behalf of Municipio de Vega Alta (Guillemard−Noble, Andres) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
***SEE IMAGE ON DKT 3 *** MOTION for Extension of Time until 5/24/06 to File Answer to 1 Complaint, byAndres Guillemard−Noble on behalf of Municipio de Vega Alta Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/8/2006 (Related document(s) 1 ) (ni, ) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
4 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon Municipio de Vega Alta served on 4/21/2006. Answer due 5/11/2006. (ni, ) (Entered: 04/27/2006)
5 ORDER granting [] Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Answer deadline due by 5/24/2006. Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on 5/4/06. (ds, ) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
6 MOTION for Extension of Time until 6/13/06 to File Answer to Complaint filed byFrancis A. Marquez−San Martin on behalf of Municipio de Vega Alta Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/6/2006 (Marquez−San Martin, Francis) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
7 Municipality of Vega Alta's ANSWER to Complaint filed by Monique Guillemard−Noble on behalf of Defendant Municipio de Vega Alta.(Guillemard−Noble, Monique) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
8 ORDER finding as moot 6 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer . Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on 6/19/06. (ds, ) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
9 Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by Iris M. Bidot, Madeline Garcia, Rafael Miranda, Laura Molina. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Summons of Municipality of Vega Alta# 2 Exhibit Summons of Hon. Jose M. Colon Garcia# 3 Exhibit Summons of Victor M. Rey De La Cruz)(Vicens, Vanesa) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
10 BY ORDER OF THE COURT, Status Conference set for 8/24/2006 at 09:15 AM before Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez. . Signed by Clerk on
7/24/06. (ja, ) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
11 MOTION to Continue Scheduling Conference filed byMaria H. Rios−Gandara on behalf of United States of America (Rios−Gandara, Maria) (Entered: 07/31/2006)

Case: 3:06-cv-1302 As of: 07/21/2014 09:47 AM AST 4 of 8

08/01/2006 08/08/2006 08/10/2006 08/21/2006 08/23/2006 09/08/2006 09/11/2006 09/12/2006 09/21/2006
09/28/2006 10/02/2006 10/04/2006 10/17/2006

12 MOTION for issuance of Summons filed by Vanesa Vicens on behalf of Iris M. Bidot, Madeline Garcia, Rafael Miranda, Laura Molina (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Summons for the Municipality of Vega Alta)(Vicens, Vanesa) Modified on 8/2/2006 to edit text (cm, ). (Entered: 08/01/2006)
13 Minute resetting Status Conference set for August 24, 2006. Motions terminated: 11 MOTION to Continue Scheduling Conference filed by United States of
America,. Status Conference is reset for 9/11/2006 at 09:15 AM before Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez. (ja, ) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
14 MOTION to Withdraw Legal Representation and Removal from Notification/Mailing List Attorney as to Vanesa Vicens filed byVanesa Vicens on behalf of Iris M. Bidot, Madeline Garcia, Rafael Miranda, Laura Molina (Vicens, Vanesa) (Entered: 08/10/2006)
15 ORDER granting 12 Motion submitting, granting 14 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Clerk shall issue summons forthwith . Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on 08/21/2006. (ds, ) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
16 Summons Issued as to Municipio de Vega AltaService due by 12/21/2006. (ni, ) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
17 Minute: The Court is presently presiding over the case of US v Eddie Rodriguez−Berrios, Cr 04−081−01 (PG) and will be unable to meet with counsel in
this case. Therefore, Status Conference is reset for 9/21/2006 at 09:30 AM before Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez. (ja, ) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
18 MOTION for Leave to Appear on Behalf of Intervening Plaintiffs filed byJuan R. Gonzalez−Munoz on behalf of Iris M. Bidot Suggestions in opposition/response due by 9/25/2006 (Gonzalez−Munoz, Juan) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
19 Summons Issued as to Hon. Jose M. Colon and Victor M. Rey−De la Cruz.Service due by 1/10/2007. (jm, ) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
20 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez : Status Conference held on 9/21/2006. Present were Attys. Maria Rios−Gandara, Jose R. Gonzalez−Munoz, and Francis Marquez. Parties informed the Court as to the status of the case. Initial disclosures, Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents were sent to defendants, who have until October 8, 2006 to answer such. Defendants indicated that by such date they would also submit Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. At the moment no expert witnesses have been announced, nor are anticipated, however, treating Physicians may testify. The only depositions that will take place are that of the four plaintiffs in this case. Parties indicated that since the Police Commissioner has been replaced, perhaps, the only issue left is that of damages. Defendant however reserves the right to file Motion for Summary Judgment after the conclusion of discovery.
Discovery due by 12/8/2006. Further Status Conference set for 12/14/2006 09:00 AM before Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez. (gsr, )
(Entered: 09/21/2006)
21 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon Jose M Colon served on 9/27/2006, answer due 10/17/2006; Municipio de Vega Alta served on 9/27/2006, answer due 10/17/2006. (ni, ) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
22 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon Victor M. Rey−De la Cruz served on 9/29/2006, answer due 10/19/2006. (ni, ) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
23 MOTION requesting Order for Issuance of Additional Summons filed byJuan R. Gonzalez−Munoz on behalf of Iris M. Bidot (Attachments: # 1)(Gonzalez−Munoz, Juan) (Entered: 10/04/2006)
24 MOTION for Extension of Time until November 17, 2006 to File Answer to the Complaint or to Otherwise Plead filed byMonique Guillemard−Noble on behalf of Municipio de Vega Alta Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/30/2006 (Guillemard−Noble, Monique) (Entered: 10/17/2006)

Case: 3:06-cv-1302 As of: 07/21/2014 09:47 AM AST 5 of 8

10/20/2006 10/20/2006 10/23/2006 10/24/2006 10/26/2006 10/30/2006 11/08/2006 11/09/2006 11/10/2006 11/17/2006
11/17/2006 12/06/2006 12/14/2006
12/18/2006 12/18/2006

25 ORDER granting 24 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Answer due by 11/17/2006. Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on 10/20/06. (pma, ) (Entered: 10/20/2006)
26 ORDER granting 23 Motion requesting Order. Clerk shall issue summons forthwith.Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on 10/20/06. (pma, ) s/c Intake on 10/23/2006 (cm, ). (Entered: 10/20/2006)
27 ORDER noted 18 Motion for Leave to Appear. Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on 10/23/06. (pma, ) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
29 Summons Issued as to Jose M ColonService due by 2/21/2007. (ni, ) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
28 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendant filed byMaria H. Rios−Gandara on behalf of United States of America Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/8/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Rios−Gandara, Maria) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
30 SUMMONS Returned Executed upon Jose M. Colon served on 10/27/2006, answer due 11/16/2006. (ni, ) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
31 MOTION for Default Entry as to Victor M. Rey−De la Cruz filed byJuan R. Gonzalez−Munoz on behalf of Iris M. Bidot Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/21/2006 (Gonzalez−Munoz, Juan) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
32 MOTION for Default Entry as to Municipio de Vega Alta filed byJuan R. Gonzalez−Munoz on behalf of Laura Molina Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/22/2006 (Gonzalez−Munoz, Juan) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
33 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion for Default Entry as to Municipio de Vega Alta filed by Municipio de Vega Alta Re: 32 MOTION for Default Entry as to Municipio de Vega Alta filed by Laura Molina, (Marquez−San Martin, Francis) (Entered: 11/10/2006)
34 MOTION to dismiss Intervener Complaint as to Iris M. Bidot, Madeline Garcia, Laura Molina filed byFrancis A. Marquez−San Martin on behalf of Municipio de Vega Alta Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/30/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Right−to−sue Letters)(Marquez−San Martin, Francis) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
35 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to Intervener Complaint filed byFrancis A. Marquez−San Martin on behalf of Municipio de Vega Alta Suggestions in opposition/response due by 11/30/2006 (Marquez−San Martin, Francis) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
36 MOTION for extension of time until December 26, 2006 to Respond to Motion to Dismiss filed byJuan R. Gonzalez−Munoz on behalf of Rafael Miranda Suggestions in opposition/response due by 12/19/2006 (Gonzalez−Munoz, Juan) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
39 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Juan M. Perez−Gimenez : Further Status Conference held on 12/14/2006. 31 MOTION for Default Entry as to Victor M. Rey−De la Cruz is GRANTED. 32 MOTION for Default Entry as to Municipio de Vega Alta is DENIED. 36 MOTION for extension of time until December 26, 2006 to Respond to 34 MOTION to dismiss Intervener Complaint is GRANTED.
Further Status Conference is set for 3/12/2007 at 9:15 AM in PG's Chambers before Judge Juan M. Perez−Gimenez. (jm, )
(Entered: 12/18/2006)
37 ORDER denying 32 Motion for Entry of Default . Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on 12/18/2006. (pma, ) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
38 ORDER granting re 28 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses from Defendant. Defendant Municipality of Vega Alta is hereby ordered to comply with Plaintiff's discovery requests within ten (10) days of entry of this order or face sanctions.
Discovery due by 1/3/2007. Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on
12/18/2006. (pma, ) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

Case: 3:06-cv-1302 As of: 07/21/2014 09:47 AM AST 6 of 8

12/26/2006 12/29/2006 12/29/2006 01/05/2007 01/05/2007
01/09/2007 01/10/2007
01/10/2007 01/10/2007 01/22/2007 01/25/2007 01/29/2007 01/29/2007 02/22/2007

40 MOTION for extension of time until December 29, 2006 to File Response to 34 Motion to Dismiss filed byJuan R. Gonzalez−Munoz on behalf of Iris M. Bidot Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/8/2007 (Gonzalez−Munoz, Juan) Modified on 12/27/2006 to create link to motion (cm, ). (Entered: 12/26/2006)
41 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to Rafael Miranda's Intervener Complaint filed byFrancis A. Marquez−San Martin on behalf of Municipio de Vega Alta Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/11/2007 (Marquez−San Martin, Francis) (Entered: 12/29/2006)
42 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Intervener Complaint filed by Madeline Garcia Re: 34 MOTION to dismiss Intervener Complaint as to Iris M. Bidot, Madeline Garcia, Laura Molina filed by Municipio de Vega Alta, (Gonzalez−Munoz, Juan) (Entered: 12/29/2006)
43 First MOTION for Leave to File Document Reply to Intervener Plaintiffs' Response to Motion to Dismiss filed byFrancis A. Marquez−San Martin on behalf of Municipio de Vega Alta Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/18/2007 (Marquez−San Martin, Francis) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
44 MOTION for Extension of Time until February 6, 2007 to File Answer to the complaint or otherwise plead re: 9 Intervenor Complaint, filed by Madeline Garcia,, Iris M. Bidot,, Laura Molina,, Rafael Miranda,, MOTION to Set Aside Default special appearance as to Victor M. Rey−De la Cruz filed byAnabelle Quinones−Rodriguez on behalf of Victor M. Rey−De la Cruz Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/18/2007 (Related document(s) 9 ) (Quinones−Rodriguez, Anabelle) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
45 USM Return of Deposition of Subpoena Executed as to Victor Rey de la Cruz on 1/3/07. (jms, ) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
46 MOTION for Extension of Time until February 12, 2007 to File Answer to the complaint (Special Appearance) re: 9 Intervenor Complaint, filed by Madeline Garcia,, Iris M. Bidot,, Laura Molina,, Rafael Miranda, filed byAnabelle Quinones−Rodriguez on behalf of Jose M Colon Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/23/2007 (Related document(s) 9 ) (Quinones−Rodriguez, Anabelle) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
47 MOTION to Continue depositions (special appearance) filed byAnabelle Quinones−Rodriguez on behalf of Jose M Colon, Victor M. Rey−De la Cruz (Quinones−Rodriguez, Anabelle) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
48 USM Return of Deposition of Subpoena Executed as to Jose Colon−Garcia on 01/02/07 (jms, ) (Entered: 01/11/2007)
49 Partial ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint (Rafael Miranda) filed by Francis A. Marquez−San Martin on behalf of Defendant Municipio de Vega Alta.(Marquez−San Martin, Francis) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
50 REPLY to Response to Motion to Dismiss Intervener Complaint (Docket No. 42 ) filed by Municipio de Vega Alta Re: 40 MOTION for extension of time until December 29, 2006 to File Response to Motion to Dismiss filed by Iris M. Bidot, (Marquez−San Martin, Francis) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
51 ORDER finding as moot 35 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer, finding as moot 41 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on 01/29/2007. (pma, ) (Entered: 01/29/2007)
52 ORDER finding as moot 40 Motion for extension of time, finding as moot 43 Motion for Leave to File Reply. Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on 01/29/2007. (pma, ) (Entered: 01/29/2007)
53 MOTION for Joinder of codefendant Municipality of Vega Alta's Motion to Dismiss and supplementing same Re: 34 MOTION to dismiss Intervener Complaint as to Iris M. Bidot, Madeline Garcia, Laura Molina filed by Municipio de Vega Alta,, 50 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Municipio de Vega Alta, filed byAnabelle Quinones−Rodriguez on behalf of Jose M Colon, Victor M. Rey−De la Cruz (Related document(s) 34 , 50 ) (Quinones−Rodriguez, Anabelle)

Case: 3:06-cv-1302 As of: 07/21/2014 09:47 AM AST 7 of 8

02/27/2007 02/27/2007 03/12/2007
04/03/2007 04/17/2007 04/18/2007 04/25/2007
05/15/2007 05/15/2007
07/10/2007 07/10/2007 07/11/2007 07/23/2007

(Entered: 02/22/2007)
54 ORDER granting 46 MOTION for Extension of Time. Answer deadline due by 3/6/2007. Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on 02/27/2007. (pma, ) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
55 ORDER granting 44 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to the
complaint or otherwise plead. Answer deadline due by 3/6/2007. No
further extensions will be granted. Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on 02/27/2007. (pma, ) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
56 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez : Further Status Conference held on 3/12/2007. The parties informed that there are four witnesses pending depositions. The parties agreed to conduct such depositions on
April 16−18, 2007. Further Status Conference set for 4/25/2007 09:15 AM in PG's Chambers before Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez. (Court Reporter none. Present on behalf of plaintiff attorneys
Juan Gonzalez−Munoz, Maria Rios−Gandara. On behalf of defendants attorneys Anabelle Quinones−Rodriguez, Francis A. Marquez) (cr, ) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
57 ORDER finding as moot 47 Motion to Continue. Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on 04/03/2007. (pma, ) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
58 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order filed byAnabelle Quinones−Rodriguez on behalf of Jose M Colon, Victor M. Rey−De la Cruz, Municipio de Vega Alta Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/30/2007 (Quinones−Rodriguez, Anabelle) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
59 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion Requesting Protective Order filed by all plaintiffs Re: 58 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order filed by Municipio de Vega Alta,, Victor M. Rey−De la Cruz,, Jose M Colon, (Gonzalez−Munoz, Juan) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
60 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Juan M. Perez−Gimenez : Further Status Conference held on 4/25/2007. Present were: Attys. Juan Gonzalez and Maria Rios, on behalf of the Government; and Atty. Anabelle Quinones, on behalf of Jose Colon and Victor Rey. Parties discussed pending discovery. Depositions of
three witnesses and current mayor will be taken on May 21, 2007. Pretrial Conference set for 7/13/2007 at 09:00 AM before Judge Juan M. Perez−Gimenez. (grf) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
61 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 34 Motion to Dismiss, granting in part and denying in part 53 Motion for Joinder. Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on 05/15/2007. (pma, ) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
62 PARTIAL JUDGMENT DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE Intervenor Plaintiffs Iris Bidot, Madeleine Garcia and Laura Molina's retaliation claims pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e−5; DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE Intervenor Plaintiffs Title VII claims against Intervenor Defendants Jose Colon and Victor Rey. Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on 05/15/2007. (pma, ) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
63 Joint MOTION to Convert Pretrial Conference Into Settlement Conference filed byFrancis A. Marquez−San Martin on behalf of all parties (Marquez−San Martin, Francis) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
64 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint filed by Anabelle Quinones−Rodriguez on behalf of Intervenor Defendants Jose M Colon, Victor M. Rey−De la Cruz.(Quinones−Rodriguez, Anabelle) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
65 Minutes of Resetting: Pretrial Conference scheduled for July 13, 2007 is hereby
vacated and set aside. Settlement Conference set for 8/1/2007 at 09:30 AM before Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez. (ja, ) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
66 ORDER finding as moot 58 Motion for Protective Order, finding as moot 63 Motion to Convert. Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on 07/23/2007.

Case: 3:06-cv-1302 As of: 07/21/2014 09:47 AM AST 8 of 8

08/01/2007
08/17/2007 08/23/2007 08/23/2007 08/27/2007
09/04/2007 09/10/2007 09/10/2007

(pma, ) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
67 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez : Settlement Conference held on 8/1/2007. AUSAs−Isabel Munoz &Maria Rios−Gandara and attorneys Juan Gonzalez Munoz, Monique Guillemard and Annabel Quinones were present. Plaintiffs informed they are close to a settlement in this case; plaintiffs' offer was submitted on July 11, 2007 to the Dept of Justice. Attorney Quinones will recommend the agreement to DOJ and requested fifteen days for the Committee to meet and have a response. The Court granted the Dept of
Justice until August 17, 2007 to respond to plaintiffs' offer.Advise Court of Settlement Deadline due by 8/17/2007. (ja, ) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
68 Motion In Compliance with Order and MOTION for Extension of Time filed byAnabelle Quinones−Rodriguez on behalf of Jose M Colon, Victor M. Rey−De la Cruz (Quinones−Rodriguez, Anabelle) Modified on 8/22/2007 to add text (jms, ). (Entered: 08/17/2007)
69 ORDER granting 68 Motion In Compliance. Follow Up Deadline due by 8/24/2007. Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on 08/23/2007. (pma, )
(Entered: 08/23/2007)
70 INFORMATIVE Motion regarding compliance with Order (Docket no. 69) filed byAnabelle Quinones−Rodriguez on behalf of Jose M Colon, Victor M. Rey−De la Cruz (Quinones−Rodriguez, Anabelle) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
71 ORDER noted 70 INFORMATIVE motion. Parties are to inform the Court by the following deadline of the status of the settlement discussions and the Municipality's
approval of the settlement demand. Follow Up Deadline due by 9/21/2007. Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on 08/27/2007. (pma, )
(Entered: 08/27/2007)
72 MOTION Submitting Consent Decree for Court Approval filed byJuan R. Gonzalez−Munoz on behalf of Madeline Garcia (Attachments: # 1)(Gonzalez−Munoz, Juan) (Entered: 09/04/2007)
73 ORDER noted 72 Motion submitting . Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on 9/6/2007. (cm, ) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
74 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Juan M Perez−Gimenez on 9/6/2007. (cm, ) (Entered: 09/10/2007)