Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca1-08-02435/USCOURTS-ca1-08-02435-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 08-2435

JUAN GALERA,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

MIKE JOHANNS,

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Camille L. Vélez-Rivé, U.S. Magistrate Judge]

Before

Torruella, Lipez, and Howard,

Circuit Judges.

Bámily López-Ortiz, with whom López Toro Estudio de Derecho y

Notaría, was on brief for appellant.

Lisa E. Bhatia-Gautier, Assistant United States Attorney, with

whom Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, Nelson

Pérez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate

Division, and Thomas F. Klumper, Assistant United States Attorney,

were on brief for appellee.

July 14, 2010

Case: 08-2435 Document: 00116086248 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2010 Entry ID: 5462959
 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) provides, in relevant part: 1

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an

employer to discriminate against any of his employees or

applicants for employment . . . because he has opposed

any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this

subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified,

assisted, or participated in any manner in an

investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this

subchapter.

 "The facts are drawn from the parties' statements of material 2

uncontested facts and the exhibits submitted by the parties at the

summary judgment stage. Because this is an appeal from a grant of

summary judgment, we recite the facts in the light most favorable

-2-

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Juan R. Galera ("Galera")

seeks review of the decision of the U.S. District Court for the

District of Puerto Rico granting motions for summary judgment in

favor of appellee, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. That

decision concerned Galera's claims under the retaliation provision

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e3(a).1

Galera appeals the decision on two grounds. First, he

contends that the district court erred in finding that a settlement

agreement entered into by the parties barred his claims. Second,

he argues that the district court erred in concluding that he

failed to prove that the purported legitimate non-discriminatory

reason for the adverse employment action taken against him was

pretextual. After careful consideration, we affirm.

I. Background

A. Facts2

Case: 08-2435 Document: 00116086248 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2010 Entry ID: 5462959
to plaintiff-appellant, [Galera]." Martínez-Rodríguez v. Guevara,

597 F.3d 414, 416 n.1 (1st Cir. 2010).

 Galera's 2000 complaint of discrimination is not at issue in 3

this case.

-3-

Galera began working in 1995 for the U.S. Department of

Agriculture ("USDA"). At that time, he served as the Supervisory

Plant Protection and Quarantine Officer (commonly referred to as

"Port Director") of Work Unit I (airport operations) of the Plant

Protection and Quarantine division ("PPQ") of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service ("APHIS"). After an administrative

rotation, effective January 21, 2001, Galera became the Port

Director for Work Unit II (maritime operations), and Leyinski

Wiscovitch-Iglesias ("Wiscovitch"), then-Port Director for Work

Unit II, became the Port Director for Work Unit I.

In early 2001, Gary Greene, then the USDA State Plant

Health Director ("SPHD") for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin

Islands, resigned from his position. Galera applied for the

position, but was not selected. As a result, on November 1, 2001,

Galera filed a formal Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO")

complaint ("the November 2001 complaint") alleging discrimination

based on his Puerto Rican national origin and, because he had filed

a formal complaint of discrimination against Greene in 2000,3

reprisal.

Between Greene's resignation in 2001 and October 2002,

the SPHD position was filled temporarily and then was again

Case: 08-2435 Document: 00116086248 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/14/2010 Entry ID: 5462959
The record does not disclose who submitted the slate of 4

candidates to Wiscovitch.

-4-

vacated. By October 2002, Wiscovitch had applied for and been

promoted to the SPHD position, thus leaving the Port Director

position for Work Unit I vacant.

In March 2003, PPQ was reorganized pursuant to the

Homeland Security Act such that certain functions, including those

of Work Unit II, shifted to the Department of Homeland Security

("DHS"). Consequently, many of the staff employed in this work

unit, including Galera, were transferred to DHS. On March 9, 2003,

DHS acquired Galera's Port Director position.

A vacancy announcement for the Port Director position for

Work Unit I, which had remained vacant since October 2002 due to

budget uncertainty, was then posted from May 12 until May 19, 2003.

Galera applied for the advertised vacancy. 

Wiscovitch, the selecting official, received a slate of

seven candidates, including Galera, who were considered the best

qualified for the position. Appellee contends that, based on the 4

results of two review panels, Wiscovitch selected another employee

for the Port Director position.

On December 11, 2003, Galera contacted an EEO Counselor

at the Alternate Dispute Resolution Center ("the Center") of

APHIS's Civil Rights Enforcement and Compliance office. According

to the EEO Counselor's report, "Galera filed an allegation of

Case: 08-2435 Document: 00116086248 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/14/2010 Entry ID: 5462959
 According to the EEO Counselor's report, "Galera stated that he 5

previously filed an EEO complaint in March 2003 against [USDA] for

being transferred to DHS in which Mr. Harabin was named as the

Responding Official." Other than this report, there is no

reference in the record to Galera's March 2003 EEO complaint.

Regardless of whether a complaint was filed in November 2001 or

March 2003 (or both), the fact that Galera had previously filed at

least one EEO complaint is undisputed.

 The Agreement provided, in relevant, part: 6

This [Agreement] made by and between [Galera] and [USDA]

constitutes a full, complete, and voluntary final

settlement and release of any and all alleged employment

concerns raised in [Galera's] formal EEO complaint dated

November 1, 2001 . . . , as well as in any other

grievances, appeals, civil actions, or complaints filed

with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (hereinafter "EEOC") . . . or any other

Federal agency, administrative tribunal, or court

concerning [Galera's] employment with [USDA] through the

date that the last signatory below signs and dates this

Agreement (hereinafter "the effective date of this

Agreement"). There are no other terms, written or oral,

that are not included in the text of this Agreement. 

As part of the Agreement, Galera agreed:

A. To withdraw, with prejudice, EEO complaint dated

November 1, 2001 . . . and any other EEO complaints

(formal or informal) brought against [USDA] . . .

concerning or arising out of [Galera's] employment with

[USDA] arising prior to the effective date of this

-5-

discrimination based on [r]eprisal," to which the Center assigned

an informal case number. Galera alleged that he had previously

filed an EEO complaint and that, in 2003, Wiscovitch and Harabin 5

retaliated against Galera by not selecting him for the Work Unit I

Port Director position.

On June 28, 2004, Michael A. Lidsky, Resolving Official

for USDA, signed a Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") related 6

Case: 08-2435 Document: 00116086248 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/14/2010 Entry ID: 5462959
Agreement. . . . [Galera] further agrees not to raise

any new grievances, appeals, civil actions or complaints

of any nature with the EEOC . . . or any other Federal

agency, administrative tribunal or court regarding any

aspect of his employment with [USDA] or any of the issues

outlined in his November 1, 2001, EEO complaint arising

prior to the effective date of this Agreement;

B. To release, waive, and withdraw any and all other

complaints, grievances, appeals, or civil actions which

have been filed with the EEOC . . . or any other Federal

agency, administrative tribunal or court against [USDA]

. . . for any concerns arising out of Complainant's

employment with [USDA] prior to the effective date of

this Agreement. This Agreement in no way prevents

[Galera] from exercising his rights in accordance with 29

C.F.R. § 1614, in any other matter that arises after the

effective date of this Agreement.

C. To voluntarily waive, release, and forever discharge

[USDA], its employees, representatives and agents from

any claims, demands, or causes of action which he has, or

may have, arising from the identified complaint of

discrimination or any other claim or alleged claim of

employment discrimination against [USDA] arising prior to

the effective date of the Agreement. This release

includes, but is not limited to, a release of any right

to administrative, judicial, congressional, or any other

kind of relief, or of any claim to back pay or other

forms of compensation, as to allegations raised in EEO

complaint dated November 1, 2001 . . . or any other claim

or alleged claim of employment discrimination against

[USDA] regarding any aspect of his employment with [USDA]

arising prior to the effective date of this Agreement,

except as found in this Agreement . . . .

 Given that Galera had been transferred from USDA to DHS, 7

officials representing each agency signed the Agreement, which

spanned his employment at both agencies.

-6-

to Galera's 2001 formal complaint of discrimination. On July 6,

2004, Galera and his counsel signed the Agreement. Eight days

later, a DHS official affixed the last signature, making the

Agreement effective.7

Case: 08-2435 Document: 00116086248 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/14/2010 Entry ID: 5462959
-7-

B. Procedural History

On August 11, 2004, Galera filed a formal EEO complaint

of discrimination based on retaliation against APHIS with the

Employment Complaints Division of USDA's Office of Civil Rights.

On December 14, 2004, Galera submitted a letter to the Office of

Civil Rights, requesting a final agency decision on the complaint.

On March 9, 2006, the Office of Civil Rights issued a "Final Agency

Decision" finding that "no relief or corrective action [wa]s

warranted or ordered in this matter." The Office of Civil Rights

determined that there was "sufficient evidence to establish that

[Galera] engaged in protected activity [by filing a discrimination

complaint], and that he was subsequently disadvantaged when he was

not selected to the Port Director position," but "the activity was

not within sufficient proximity to the employment actions

challenged in this complaint to support an inference of causation."

The Office of Civil Rights also determined that "[e]ven, assuming

arguendo, that [Galera] can prove a prima facie case,

[APHIS] . . . articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason

for its selection decision." The Office of Civil Rights found

"that [Galera] . . . failed to demonstrate that [APHIS's]

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were a pretext for

discrimination," or that "his qualifications were 'plainly

superior' to that of the Selectee." 

Case: 08-2435 Document: 00116086248 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/14/2010 Entry ID: 5462959
-8-

On June 22, 2006, Galera brought this action in the U.S.

District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. On July 19, 2006,

he filed an Amended Complaint against USDA alleging "reprisals

taken against [him] for engaging in prior [EEO] activity consisting

in the filing of a formal complaint of discrimination based on

national origin." He claimed that USDA had "engag[ed] in

discriminatory employment and recruitment practices at [PPQ]

against him in retaliation for having engaged in protected

activity," in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Galera sought

compensatory damages totaling approximately $300,000, back pay,

attorney's fees, and reimbursement of the costs incurred in

litigation. He also requested reinstatement to his former position

as Port Director of PPQ's Work Unit I or, alternatively, front pay.

On May 30, 2008 and June 13, 2008, Appellee filed two

separate motions for summary judgment. In an opinion and order

issued on September 10, 2008, the district court, granting both

motions, held: (1) that the Agreement barred the instant action

because Galera had agreed to waive any complaints presented against

USDA prior to the effective date of the Agreement (July 14, 2004);

and (2) that Galera failed to establish pretext. Galera

subsequently filed this appeal. Because we find that the Agreement

covered the time frame of the alleged retaliatory conduct and

complied with the relevant regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.603, we

Case: 08-2435 Document: 00116086248 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/14/2010 Entry ID: 5462959
 Galera also suggested for the first time at oral argument that 8

the Agreement could not preclude his claims of retaliation, for

which a formal complaint had not yet been filed by the time the

Agreement had been signed, because a Title VII cause of action does

not begin to accrue until a formal complaint of discrimination has

been filed. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed, however, that "the

time for filing a charge of employment discrimination with the

[EEOC] begins when the discriminatory act occurs," and that "this

rule applies to any discrete act of discrimination, including

-9-

affirm the district court's decision without addressing the merits

of Galera's retaliation claim.

II. Discussion

A. Standard and Scope of Review

"We review the district court's grant of summary judgment

de novo." Foley v. Town of Randolph, 598 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.

2010). Summary judgment is only appropriate where "the pleadings,

the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id.

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2)) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

B. Analysis

Galera contends that the district court erroneously

concluded that the Agreement barred his claims of discrimination

based on retaliation. He asserts that the Agreement only

identifies the formal complaint dated November 1, 2001 and, as a

result, the Agreement should not be interpreted as precluding his

subsequent claims of retaliation. He also argues that the 8

Case: 08-2435 Document: 00116086248 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/14/2010 Entry ID: 5462959
termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, and refusal to

hire." Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618, 621

(2007) (superceded on other grounds by Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-2, 123 Stat. 5) (citation and internal

quotations marks omitted) (emphasis added). In any case, "because

[Galera] raised this argument for the first time at oral argument,

we refuse to consider it." Pleasures of San Patricio, Inc. v.

Méndez-Torres, 596 F.3d 1, 7 n.2 (1st Cir. 2010).

 "[C]ourts should refrain from resorting to extrinsic evidence 9

where a contract is utterly unambiguous . . . ." Southex

Exhibitions, Inc. v. R.I. Builder's Ass'n, 279 F.3d 94, 102 (1st

Cir. 2002). Although "the term 'extrinsic evidence' is imprecise,"

it includes the "post-contract conduct" of the parties. Nat'l Tax

Inst., Inc. v. Topnotch at Stowe Resort & Spa, 388 F.3d 15, 19-20

(1st Cir. 2004). Because we find that the Agreement here is

unambiguous, we need not address this issue in our decision.

-10-

district court, in reaching its conclusion, failed to consider the

actions taken by the parties after the Agreement was signed as

evidence of their intent, namely, to settle exclusively the

November 2001 complaint. USDA maintains, however, that it is 9

entitled to summary judgment because Galera waived all claims,

formal and informal, against USDA prior to July 14, 2004, when the

Agreement he signed came into effect. 

The district court rejected Galera's arguments, noting

that "the conduct plaintiff Galera is complaining [of] in the

instant Amended Complaint took place prior to the effective date of

the Agreement and should be considered as covered by the same," and

thus "the Agreement covered and waived the instant Amended

Complaint." Galera v. Johanns, No. 06-1625, slip op. at 13 (D.P.R.

Sept. 10, 2008). We agree.

Case: 08-2435 Document: 00116086248 Page: 10 Date Filed: 07/14/2010 Entry ID: 5462959
-11-

We have previously found that "our precedent leaves

little room for doubt that [an employee's release of Title VII

rights], like a release of other federal statutorily-created

rights, must be knowing and voluntary, as evidenced by the totality

of the circumstances, and that, if it is, the terms of the release

will ordinarily be given their legal effect." Melanson v.

Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 281 F.3d 272, 274 (1st Cir. 2002)

(citation omitted). Galera does not contend that he unknowingly or

involuntarily released his claims against USDA, and thus our

inquiry is limited to the terms of the Agreement's release.

As per 29 C.F.R. § 1614.603, "[a]ny settlement [of

complaints of discrimination] reached shall be in writing and

signed by both parties and shall identify the claims resolved."

The Agreement here, which was in writing and signed by both

parties, provided a general waiver that covered all claims within

the applicable time period, thus complying with the regulation.

Contrary to Galera's assertions, the Agreement did not limit its

scope to the November 2001 complaint. Instead, the Agreement

referred to the November 2001 complaint and "any other grievances,

appeals, civil actions, or complaints filed with the [EEOC] . . .

or any other Federal agency, administrative tribunal, or court

concerning [Galera's] employment with [USDA] through [the effective

date of this Agreement]." In signing the Agreement, Galera agreed

to withdraw the November 2001 complaint and "any other EEO

Case: 08-2435 Document: 00116086248 Page: 11 Date Filed: 07/14/2010 Entry ID: 5462959
-12-

complaints (formal or informal) brought against [USDA] . . .

arising prior to the effective date." Galera further agreed "not

to raise any new grievances, appeals, civil actions or complaints

of any nature with the EEOC . . . or any other Federal agency,

administrative tribunal or court regarding any aspect of his

employment with [USDA] . . . arising prior to the effective date."

General waivers of this nature which are, as here, knowing and

voluntary, have previously been found valid. See, e.g.,

Rivera-Olmo v. State Ins. Fund Corp., 250 F. App'x 365, 366 (1st

Cir. 2007) (finding that an employee waived her right to sue under

a federal employment statute where the settlement agreement,

entered into knowingly and voluntarily, provided that the employee

"releas[ed] and forever discharg[ed] [employer] for any and all

claims [arising out of her complaint] without limitation . . .

including . . . a release and discharge for any potential and/or

actual liability for causes of action [under]" various laws,

including a federal employment statute)(quotation marks omitted);

Melanson, 281 F.3d at 275 (concluding that a knowing and voluntary

release, under which employee "release[d] and discharge[d] forever

[employer] from any and all . .. claims, demands, actions, and

causes of action . . . arising out of or related in any way to the

employee's employment . . .," including under Title VII, was

enforceable).

Case: 08-2435 Document: 00116086248 Page: 12 Date Filed: 07/14/2010 Entry ID: 5462959
-13-

The alleged retaliatory conduct in the instant case

extended until November 19, 2003, when Galera was not selected for

Work Unit I's Port Director position. Because this conduct

occurred prior to the effective date of the Agreement, July 14,

2004, and the Agreement complied with the relevant regulation, we

find that Galera's claims are barred.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's

judgment.

Affirmed.

Case: 08-2435 Document: 00116086248 Page: 13 Date Filed: 07/14/2010 Entry ID: 5462959