Court Opinion

ID: 2963609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:12:57.874242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:37:21.768022
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

          No. 94-1394

                          LYNETTE SANTIAGO-RAMIREZ, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                                          v.

                          SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                                OF THE U.S.A., ET AL.,

                               Defendants - Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                  [Hon. Juan M. P rez-Gim nez, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                          and Boyle,* Senior District Judge.
                                      _____________________

                                _____________________

               John Ward-Llamb as for appellants.
               __________________
               Isabel Mu oz-Acosta, Assistant  United States Attorney, with
               ___________________
          whom  Guillermo Gil,  United States  Attorney,  was on  brief for
                _____________
          appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                   August 16, 1995
                                 ____________________

                              
          ____________________

          *  Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.

                    BOYLE, Senior District Judge.   The questions presented
                    BOYLE, Senior District Judge.
                           _____________________

          on  appeal in this case  are the following:  whether this Court's

          statement,  in its prior reversal of the district court, that the

          complaint   might  be  read  to  state  a  cause  of  action  for

          intentional infliction of emotional distress constitutes the "law

          of the case"  which binds the district court and, if not, whether

          the district court's subsequent dismissal was proper.  Because we

          find that  this Court did not  previously express its view  as to

          the  law  applicable to  this case  and  that the  district court

          correctly dismissed the case, we affirm.

                                    I.  BACKGROUND
                                    I.  BACKGROUND
                                    ______________

                    We summarize  the facts only  briefly as they  are laid

          out in  detail in  our prior  opinion.   See Santiago Ram rez  v.
                                                   ___ ________________

          Secretary of the  Department of  Defense, 984 F.2d  16 (1st  Cir.
          ________________________________________

          1993).  Because this is a  review of a grant of summary judgment,

          we view  the facts in a  light most favorable to  the non-movant.

          See Coyne  v. Taber Partners,  53 F.3d 454, 457  (1st Cir. 1995).
          ___ _____     ______________

          Appellant, Santiago, worked as a  cashier at Fort Buchanan's Army

          Post  Exchange Store.   The  store's policy  prohibited employees

          from  carrying merchandise through the  front door.   On June 29,

          1990,  Santiago and a  co-employee violated this policy when they

          removed  bags  containing  store merchandise  through  the  front

          entrance.    They  placed these  bags  in the  trunk  of  the co-

          employee's  car.   Unbeknownst  to Santiago,  the bags  contained

          stolen  merchandise.    The   Safety  and  Security  Manager  and

          Santiago's  supervisor questioned her  for a total  of 45 minutes

                                         -2-

          concerning  this breach of store policy.  Santiago told them that

          she did not know that the merchandise was stolen but was aware of

          the store's regulation  that prohibited  employees from  carrying

          merchandise through the front door.  She was later terminated for

          violating  this  regulation.    The District  Court  granted  the

          defendant's motion  to dismiss based on its finding that Santiago

          did  not  give  the defendant  adequate  notice  of  her suit  as

          required by  the Federal Tort Claims  Act.  See 28  U.S.C.   2675
                                                      ___

          (1994).  Santiago appealed.

                    We  found  that  a  letter  Santiago  had  sent  to the

          defendants  satisfied  the  statute's  notice  requirement.   See
                                                                        ___

          Santiago, 984 F.2d  at 19.  Because the  government is not immune
          ________

          from suit based on a claim of intentional infliction of emotional

          distress, we stated that the complaint "might be  read to plead a

          cause  of   action  for   intentional  infliction   of  emotional

          distress."  Id.  at 20.  We, therefore, remanded  to the District
                      ___

          Court  for a  determination  as to  whether Santiago's  complaint

          could  be read  to  state  a  cause  of  action  for  intentional

          infliction of emotional distress.  Santiago, 984 F.2d at 19.  See
                                             ________                   ___

          also, 28 U.S.C.   2680(h) (1994).
          ____

                    The district court again granted the defendant's motion

          to  dismiss, holding that under Puerto Rico law the facts alleged

          in the complaint did not state a claim for intentional infliction

          of  emotional distress and the  action was thus  barred by Puerto

          Rico's  Workmen's Accident  and Compensation  Act.   Santiago has

          again appealed.

                                         -3-

                                   II.  DISCUSSION
                                   II.  DISCUSSION
                                   _______________

                    The Law of the Case
                    The Law of the Case
                    ___________________

                    Santiago asserts  that this  Court held that  her claim

          could  go  forward on  the  theory of  intentional  infliction of

          emotional distress.  She claims that the district court was bound

          by this ruling  and could  not subsequently find  that the  claim

          based on this theory was without merit.  

                    The  doctrine of  the law  of the  case directs  that a

          decision of an appellate court as to a matter of law governs that

          issue during all subsequent stages of litigation.  See Commercial
                                                             ___ __________

          Union  Insurance Co. v. Walbrook Insurance Co. Ltd., 41 F.3d 764,
          ____________________    ___________________________

          769 (1st Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. Rivera-Mart nez, 931
                                      _____________    _______________

          F.2d 148 (1st  Cir.),  cert. denied,  __ U.S. __, 112  S. Ct. 184
                                 _____ ______

          (1991)).  "When the reviewing  court, in its mandate,  prescribes

          that  a court shall proceed in accordance with the opinion of the

          reviewing court,  it incorporates its opinion  into its mandate."

          Id. at  770 (citing Jones v. Lewis, 957 F.2d 260, 262 (6th Cir.),
          ___                 _____    _____

          cert. denied  __ U.S. __, 113 S. Ct. 125 (1992)).
          _____ ______

                    Here, the Court of Appeals has issued no such  mandate.

          Our prior opinion simply stated  that the appellant's claim might
                                                                      _____

          be read to state a cause  of action for intentional or  negligent

          infliction of emotional distress.  See Santiago-Ram rez, 984 F.2d
                                             ___ ________________

          at 18.   We remanded to the district court for a determination of

          this issue.  See  id. at 20, 21.   Moreover, this Court not  only
                       ___  ___

          refused  to  direct  the   district  court  on  this   issue,  it

          specifically stated  that "[t]he present  disposition is  without

                                         -4-

          prejudice  of further motion disposition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56

          once the parties have had an opportunity of addressing the issues

          consistently with this opinion."   Id.  Thus, this Court did  not
                                             ___

          determine that  Santiago's  claim for  intentional infliction  of

          emotional distress had  merit.   The district court  was free  to

          find  that the  complaint  failed to  state  a claim  under  that

          theory.

                    Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim
                    Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim
                    ______________________________________

                    We must  now consider whether the  lower court properly

          dismissed, for  a second time, Santiago's  claims for intentional

          infliction of  emotional distress.   Santiago's claim  is brought

          under the Federal Tort Claims Act  (FTCA).  See 28 U.S.C.   2671,
                                                      ___

          et seq. (1994).  The FTCA prescribes that the government can only
          __ ____

          be held liable "in accordance with the law of the place where the

          act of omission occurred."  28 U.S.C.   1346(b)(1993).  

                    Puerto  Rico has  codified  the law  dealing with  tort

          claims  by employees against  their employers in  the Puerto Rico

          Workmen's Compensation Act (PRWACA).  See P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 11,
                                                ___

            1 et seq.   When an  employer insures his  or her employees  in
              __ ___

          accordance with the PRWACA, the  compensation provided by the act

          becomes the exclusive remedy available to the plaintiff-employee.

          See P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 11,    20.  According to Puerto Rico case
          ___

          law,  however,  intentional  torts   fall  outside  the  PRWACA's

          compensatory  scheme.    See  Pacheco-Pietri v.  Commonwealth  of
                                   ___  ______________     ________________

          Puerto Rico, RE-89-524  Certified. Translation (S.Ct.P.R.  1992);
          ___________

          Odriozola  v.  Superior  Cosmetic  Dist. Corp.,  116  D.P.R.  485
          _________      _______________________________

                                         -5-

          (1985).    Because  intentional   torts  are  excluded,  we  must

          determine whether  Santiago's complaint states a  cause of action

          for  a intentional tort; here the  tort of intentional infliction

          of emotional harm.  

                    Because  there  is  limited  authority  in  Puerto Rico

          concerning the  elements of the tort of intentional infliction of

          emotional harm, we must look to other jurisdictions.  The tort of

          intentional  infliction of emotional harm exists when "one who by

          extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes

          severe emotional  distress to another."   Restatement (Second) of

          Torts   46 (1965).  See also Thorpe v. Mutual of Omaha Ins.  Co.,
                              ________ ______    _________________________

          984  F.2d 541, 545 (1st. Cir. 1993)(conduct must be "extreme and

          outrageous,"   "beyond  all  possible  bounds  of  decency,"  and

          "utterly  intolerable in  a  civilized  community").    Moreover,

          courts  have allowed  employers  some  latitude in  investigating

          possible employee misconduct.  See Starr  v. Pearle Vision, Inc.,
                                         ___ _____     ___________________

          54 F.3d 1548, 1558  (10th Cir. 1995).   In Starr, a 1995  case in
                                                     _____

          the tenth circuit, the court  held that a plaintiff's allegations

          that her  employer yelled at her,  pushed her back down  into her

          chair, touched her arm and blocked her exit from the  room during

          questioning, did not rise to the level of outrageousness required

          to  state  a  cause  of  action  for  intentional  infliction  of

          emotional harm.

                    Here the  complaint is quite fact specific.  It alleges

          that Santiago was "questioned during around (sic) forty-five (45)

          minutes and was shown  a videotape supposedly taken at  the store

                                         -6-

          where she worked."  Complaint at 2.  She was told that if she did

          not  cooperate with the investigation "all of this could be taken

          to  the F.B.I."   See  id.   After  the interview,  she signed  a
                            ___  ___

          statement.   See id.  These  acts as alleged are  well within the
                       ___ ___

          foreseeable consequences of her actions and fall far short of the

          outrageousness  needed   to  support   a  cause  of   action  for

          intentional  infliction  of  emotional  harm.    See  Restatement
                                                           ___

          (Second) of Torts   46 (1965).  See also Thorpe, 984 F.2d at 545;
                                          ________ ______

          Starr, 54 F.3d at 1558.
          _____

                    The  Supreme Court  of Puerto  Rico dealt  with similar

          factual circumstances in Pacheco-Pietri v. Commonwealth of Puerto
                                   ______________    ______________________

          Rico,  RE-89-524 Certified.  Translation  (S.Ct.P.R. 1992).1   In
          ____

          Pacheco-Pietri  the plaintiff was a   corrections officer who was
          ______________

          required to submit to urinalysis.   See id. at 10.   The forensic
                                              ___ ___

          office  mistakenly  mixed the  plaintiff's  sample  with that  of

          another employee which tested positive for  cocaine.  See id.  As
                                                                ___ ___

          a consequence, administrative  procedures were taken against  the

          plaintiff including the requirement  that the plaintiff submit to

          drug-addiction   treatment   at   the   Anti-Addiction   Services

          Department.    See id.   After  the  mistake was  discovered, the
                         ___ ___

          plaintiff filed  a complaint  seeking damages for  negligence and

          emotional distress.  See id. at 12.
                               ___ ___

                    The Supreme  Court of Puerto Rico  upheld that Superior

          Court's  judgment dismissing the complaint.  See  id. at 23.  The
                                                       ___  ___
                              
          ____________________

          1   We  rely on  the certified  translation of  Pacheco-Pietri v.
                                                          _________________
          Commonwealth  of  Puerto Rico  provided    by  the parties  since
          _____________________________
          publication in the official English-language reporter is pending.

                                         -7-

          Supreme  Court, although  not  directly addressing  the issue  of

          whether this  was an  intentional tort,  found that  the incident

          constituted  a labor accident covered by Article 20 of the Puerto

          Rico Workmen's  Accident  Compensation Act  and  not  intentional

          conduct.   See id.  The court determined that the issue turned on
                     ___ ___

          whether the accident occurred  in the course of employment.   See
                                                                        ___

          id. at 19.  It stated that "when the employee suffers an accident
          ___

          in the performance of  a requirement imposed by the  employer for

          the continuity of the employment, the same shall be considered as

          having occurred  in the  course of employment."   Id.   The court
                                                            ___

          found that because the drug testing and subsequent treatment were

          part   of  the   requirements   for  the   plaintiff's  continued

          employment, the  accident and  injuries  stemming therefrom  were

          solely compensable under the PRWACA and thus any civil action was

          barred.  See id. at 23.
                   ___ ___

                    Here, the Fort Buchanan's  Army Post Exchange Store had

          a policy,  similar to the drug-testing  policy in Pacheco-Pietri,
                                                            ______________

          prohibiting  employees from  using  the front  door to  transport

          merchandise.  When Santiago was discovered to have violated  this

          policy,   she was  questioned  by her  superiors as  part of  her

          continued  employment.     There   is  no  allegation   that  the

          questioning  was abusive,  extreme or  outrageously intimidating.

          Plaintiff's  experience is  not  unlike that  experienced by  the

          plaintiff  in  Pacheco-Pietri.    Santiago  claims,  without  any
                         ______________

          suggestion either that the questioning was  abusive or extreme in

          light  of the circumstances,   that the actions  of her employers

                                         -8-

          constituted an intentional infliction  of emotional harm. Because

          this questioning  was a necessary  incident of employment  for an

          employee  who had  broken the  rules, under  Puerto Rican  law it

          cannot be said to be intentionally tortious.   See Pacheco-Pietri
                                                         ___ ______________

          v.  Commonwealth  of  Puerto  Rico,  RE-89-524  Cert. Translation
              ______________________________

          (S.Ct.P.R. 1992), and Odriozola v. Superior Cosmetic Dist. Corp.,
                                _________    _____________________________

          116 D.P.R. 485 (1985).   III.  CONCLUSION
                                   III.  CONCLUSION
                                   ________________

                    The   district   court's  conclusion   that  Santiago's

          complaint does  not state a  claim for intentional  infliction of

          emotional harm is not in error.  We affirm.

                                         -9-