Opinion ID: 615207
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Reassignment of Colón's Duties in the Women's Affairs Department

Text: Colón asserts as her next retaliatory act Rodríguez's alleged elimination of her work duties for the Department of Women's Affairs. [19] Alemán testified that in 2007 Rodríguez held a personnel meeting in which it was declared that Colón would no longer be in charge of the Department for Women's Integral Development, and that her work would be reassigned to someone else in the department. In a sworn statement, Rodríguez asserted, first, that she regularly did reassignments in the Auction Department to get things moving. These reassignments are done from time to time, in order to meet manpower gaps that the Auction Department has. Rodríguez noted that the purpose of such reassignments was to prevent backlogs and ensure that all matters remained current, although she also acknowledged that the Department of Women's Affairs seldom required attention. Second, Rodríguez stated that her reassignment of Colón's work in this department was not on account of her health condition; rather, it was to assist Nitza Colón in meeting her work levels requirements . . . [and] to give Nitza Colón breathing space so that she could otherwise manage her absenteeism situation. Colón's argument as to reassignment parallels her argument as to the alleged elimination of her supervisory duties, i.e., Rodríguez eliminated certain work responsibilities of Colón's following her accommodation request and this constituted retaliation. Colón's argument holds little water. Colón herself in testimony estimated that the alleged reassignment of her departmental duties occurred in November 2007, approximately one year after her parking space request. As previously set forth, a near twelve month passage of time between the asserted protected conduct and alleged adverse action weighs against a finding of causality. See Calero-Cerezo, 355 F.3d at 25 (stating that three and four month periods have been held insufficient for purposes of establishing causality based on temporal proximity). Moreover, even assuming causality can be established, Colón articulates no facts showing how the alleged reassignment caused her significant harm or substantially altered her job responsibilities. See Blackie, 75 F.3d at 725-26; Simas, 170 F.3d at 50. Indeed, even though Colón acknowledges Rodríguez's assertion that the Department of Women's Affairs rarely produces work for the Auction Department [and it] does [not] require significant attention, Colón does not counter it. This weighs against a finding that any loss or reassignment of duties in this area caused Colón significant harm or materially altered her job responsibilities. [20]