Opinion ID: 615207
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Withholding of Paychecks

Text: Colón submits that the Municipality, in retaliation for her accommodation request, withheld her paychecks for four pay periods, including the months of July and August 2007. Colón does not provide specific dates for when her re-deposited or refunded checks were issued, or when she actually received her reimbursed or refunded payments; she instead asserts generally that she was not paid in July or August 2007. In contrast, the Municipality provided evidenceconsisting of letters between the Municipality and Colón, letters between the human resources and executive departments, letters between the various finance offices, data processing sheets, and various refund noticessupporting each instance when Colón's paychecks were delayed, withheld, docked, or otherwise irregular. The Municipality also proffered an email communication in which Colón contacted Municipal Secretary Alicea on August 29, 2007, stating she had not received any payroll payment since July 20, 2007; Alicea forwarded Colón's email that same day to Human Resources Director Antonio Alvarez Torres stating, I request your help in processing this case promptly; that same day, the Municipality issued a check to Colón for $328.51. The record additionally shows that the Municipality issued fourteen payroll checks to Colón between May 31, 2007 and December 21, 2007, all of which were signed and cashed. Thus, although Colón contests the Municipality's position that any withheld, docked, or delayed paychecks were paid and/or justifiably attributable to days owed or insufficient remaining sick or annual leave, the evidence clearly shows otherwise. Colón raises additional arguments. Colón claims the district court failed to consider evidence showing that other employees who previously owed days or exhausted their leave balance still have received their paycheck or not suffered as long a delay in receiving their reimbursement, all of which she asserts is indicative of the Municipality's retaliatory intent in withholding or delaying her paychecks. The record shows the district court did in fact consider such evidence, specifically, the testimony of employee Adela Otero, an Administrative Officer II for the Municipality, who testified that other employees with no remaining leave balance received refund checks whereas Colón allegedly did not. Colon-Fontanez, 671 F.Supp.2d at 321. Further, the record does not support the contention that Colón failed to receive payment, whether in the form of refund checks or otherwise. Thus, we do not find this testimony to be sufficient for purposes of establishing a genuine issue of material fact as to retaliation. Colón also asserts that the Municipality's decision to withhold plaintiff's paycheck was discriminatory and in retaliation for Colón's decision to request reasonable accommodation. We have two responses. First, Colón offers no evidence showing retaliatory intent associated with the delay in payment, or evidence establishing that the delay exceeded that attributable to general workplace bureaucracy or administrative processing. Carmona-Rivera, 464 F.3d at 20. At most, Colón asserts that she was the only employee who suffered such delays. In testimony, however, Colón conceded that other co-workers also had checks withheld for at least a week's period, thus weakening any alleged retaliatory intent. Second, Colón offers no evidence linking the withheld 2007 payments to her 2006 parking spot request. Randlett, 118 F.3d at 862 (To make out a retaliation claim requires not only an adverse employment action and previously protected conduct, but also a colorable showing that `a causal connection existed between the protected conduct and the adverse action.' (quoting Fennell v. First Step Designs, Ltd., 83 F.3d 526, 535 (1st Cir.1996))). The most she offers is the unsupported assertion that in all years prior to her 2006 parking spot request, she never went several pay periods without payment, whereas months after her accommodation request, she did. The record shows the Municipality customarily docked her pay, or sent letters indicating a reduction in a subsequent paycheck, well before Colón's 2006 parking request. Furthermore, the contested withheld payments date from summer 2007, well over seven months after Colón's accommodation request; this is insufficient for purposes of establishing causality. See Calero-Cerezo, 355 F.3d at 25 (noting that [t]hree and four month periods have been held insufficient to establish a causal connection based on temporal proximity). Because there is no evidence in the record from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude the alleged payment delays resulted from either intentional discrimination or retaliatory behavior, Colón's claim as to this alleged retaliatory act fails.