Opinion ID: 615207
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Negative Memorandum Against Colón

Text: Colón contends the district court failed to properly consider her next alleged retaliatory act, a requested disciplinary memorandum. In a sworn statement, Colón's co-worker Ruth Carmona stated that Rodríguez asked for my advise [sic] in order to issue a disciplinary memo against Nitza Colón but I refused. The district court noted that Carmona's sworn statement was undated. Colon-Fontanez, 671 F.Supp.2d at 333. It further noted a lack of specificity in Carmona's testimony as to when Rodríguez allegedly requested the disciplinary memorandum of Carmona. Id. Colón asserts that specificity, at least as to Rodríguez's alleged instruction, was established from Carmona's statement that the work environment towards Colón became hostile [a]fter Nitza Colón requested a reasonable accommodation, and that [i]n [sic] one occasion, the Director asked me to issue a disciplinary memorandum. We agree with the district court that these broadly phrased time estimates are far too general for purposes of determining when the alleged adverse employment action occurred. Moreover, even if we were to determine that causality is met because the alleged memorandum request occurred close in time to Colón's accommodation request, see Wyatt, 35 F.3d at 16, Colón offers no evidence showing that she suffered material harm from Rodríguez's instruction. See Burlington Northern, 548 U.S. at 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405. Indeed, the record indicates otherwise as no disciplinary memorandum ever was issued.