Opinion ID: 6324062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Discrimination Complaint

Text: On March 27, 2018, Lahens filed a complaint with the Antidiscrimination Unit of the Puerto Rico Department of Labor and Human Resources (ADU) alleging that AT&T discriminated against him due to his age and disability. Lahens thereafter received a right to sue letter on October 2, 2019, and filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on October 16, 2018. In the complaint Lahens alleged disability discrimination under the ADA and age discrimination under the ADEA.3 3 Lahens also proceeded with a retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and with alleged violations of 1 L.P.R.A. § 501 (Law 44); 29 L.P.R.A. § 146 (Law 100); 29 L.P.R.A. - 11 - On September 8, 2020, the district court4 granted summary judgment in favor of AT&T and dismissed the complaint. Lahens v. AT&T Mobility P.R., Inc., No. 18-1776(MEL), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163861 (D.P.R. Sept. 8, 2020). The district court concluded that all allegedly discriminatory acts predating May 31, 2017, were time-barred.5 Id. at -33. The district court thereafter concluded that Lahens failed to make out prima facie cases of discrimination under either the ADA or ADEA and failed to show that AT&T's stated reason for his termination was pretextual. Id. at -59. The district court dismissed with prejudice Lahens' federal claims (ADA, ADEA, and Title VII retaliation) and their respective state counterparts (Puerto Rico Laws 44, 100, and 115). Id. at , 59-60, 62-63, 65. The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Puerto Rico Article 1802 and Law 80 claims and dismissed them without prejudice. Id. at 66. § 185a (Law 80); 28 L.P.R.A. § 194 (Law 115); and Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code. 4 On March 13, 2019, the parties filed a consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 5 The district court found that Lahens filed an administrative charge with the ADU on March 27, 2018, and that the 300-day period under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) allowed the capture of events from May 31, 2017, onward. Id. at 31-32 In addition, the district court also found there was [n]o evidence or argument . . . proffered to demonstrate that the continuing violation doctrine applie[d] to this case. Id. at -36. Lahens has not challenged on appeal this part of the district court's ruling. - 12 - On September 25, 2020, AT&T filed a motion for reconsideration requesting that the district court dismiss all claims with prejudice. On December 17, 2020, the district court granted AT&T's motion for reconsideration and dismissed with prejudice the Puerto Rico Article 1802 and Law 80 claims. Lahens v. AT&T Mobility P.R., Inc., No. 18-1776(MEL), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238974 (D.P.R. Dec. 17, 2020). Lahens appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment, and district court's grant of AT&T's motion for reconsideration on Lahens' Law 80 and Article 1802 claims.