Court Opinion

ID: 2964686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:29:43.368323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:59.066229
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] 

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

          No. 96-1899

                               ISABELO VALLEJO-SERRANO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                             CIGNA INSURANCE CO., ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________
                            Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                              and Selya, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

               Zuleika Llovet-Zurinaga for appellant.
               _______________________
               Pedro J.  Manzano-Yates with whom Jose  A. Silva-Cofresi was
               _______________________           ______________________
          on brief for appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                     May 23, 1997
                                 ___________________

               Per Curiam.  Appellant Vallejo-Serrano filed this employment
               __________

          discrimination lawsuit  against Cigna  Insurance Co.  and several

          supervisors claiming  that he  was transferred to  an undesirable

          position, and later refused  reinstatement after a medical leave,

          because  of his age and  disability.  The  district court granted

          summary judgment for defendants.   It concluded that Vallejo  had

          failed  to  establish  a  prima  facie  case  of  either  age  or

          disability  discrimination, and that  he had failed  to show that

          the company's proffered reasons  for its actions were pretextual.

          We conclude that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case

          on  the  disability  claim,  and  that  the  evidence  is  wholly

          inadequate to support an age discrimination claim.   We therefore

          affirm.  

               The  parties  both  maintain  that  the  appropriateness  of

          summary  judgment  turns  on  whether Vallejo  made  an  adequate

          showing under the fourth  prong of the McDonnell  Douglas burden-
                                                 __________________

          shifting paradigm, the first  three prongs concededly having been

          satisfied.  See McDonnell  Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411  U.S. 792,
                      ___ ________________________    _____

          802-05  (1973).   They  further  agree that,  for  the disability

          discrimination   claim,   this   model   required   appellant  to

          demonstrate  that  he  was  replaced by  a  non-disabled  person.

          Although  appellant  asserts that  there  is at  least  a factual

          dispute concerning  whether he was "replaced"  by Felix Vazquez,1

                              
          ____________________

               1  Although Vallejo's  complaint  also asserts  that he  was
          replaced  by Josefina  Bermudez and  her temporary  assistant, he
          does  not press this position on appeal, apparently because their
          duties were quite distinct.

                                         -2-

          the evidence does not  support his contention.  It  is undisputed

          that Vazquez already held a position equivalent to appellant's in

          the Accounting Department, and  that appellant was the accounting

          clerk  with the least seniority.   The fact  that Vazquez assumed

          most  of  appellant's  tasks,   along  with  his  own  diminished

          workload,   is  insufficient  to  establish  that  appellant  was

          "replaced."   See LeBlanc v. Great American Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 836,
                        ___ _______    _______________________

          846 (1st Cir. 1993) ("A discharged employee `is not replaced when

          another employee is assigned to perform the plaintiff's duties in

          addition to other duties, or when the work is redistributed among

          other    existing    employees    already   performing    related

          work.'"(citation omitted)).

               As  for  the age  discrimination  claim,  which involves  an

          alleged   reduction  in  force,   the  burden-shifting  framework

          required  appellant to show either  that Cigna did  not treat age

          neutrally  or  that  it  retained  younger persons  in  the  same

          position.    Arguably, Vallejo's  evidence  satisfied  the fourth

          prong  because  it  showed  that   the  others  retained  in  the

          accounting clerk positions were younger than him.  The  company's

          rationale,  however, was that he  was the least  senior person in

          that position -- a fact he does not dispute.  Under the McDonnell
                                                                  _________

          Douglas framework,  Vallejo needs to respond  to that explanation
          _______

          by  demonstrating that it  is a  pretext for  age discrimination.

          The record,  however, makes  reference to  only  a single  remark

          concerning age allegedly made by appellant's supervisor more than

          a  year before his transfer from the Accounting Department.  This

                                         -3-

          is  insufficient to go to the jury.2   See LeBlanc, 6 F.3d at 843
                                                 ___ _______

          ("[T]he plaintiff cannot avert summary  judgment if the record is

          devoid  of  adequate   direct  or   circumstantial  evidence   of

          discriminatory animus on the part of the employer.").3

               The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.4

                              
          ____________________

               2 Indeed, plaintiff did not make reference to this remark in
          his  memorandum in  support  of  his  opposition to  the  summary
          judgment motion.

               3 Although the district court's opinion in certain instances
          uses language that suggests factfinding, see, e.g., Opinion at 13
                                                   ___  ____
          ("We  believe that plaintiff's age or disability was not a factor
          when Cigna decided to eliminate Mr. Vallejo's position, and later
          deny him reinstatement"; "Cigna eliminated Mr. Vallejo's position
          because  the  Accounting  Department  could  operate  efficiently
          without  the  extra  accounting  clerk  position.");  id.  at  15
                                                                ___
          ("Cigna's refusal  to reinstate plaintiff after  his release from
          the SIF  was not of a discriminatory  animus."), it is clear from
          the opinion as a  whole that the court  found as a matter of  law
                                                        ___________________
          that Vallejo had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to send the
          case  to a factfinder.   We note  that the court's  task was made
          more difficult by  the plaintiff's failure  to file the  required
          separate statement of contested facts.

               4 Vallejo  also alleged  a  retaliation claim  based on  his
          having filed a complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Unit of the
          Labor Department  following his  transfer in September  1993, and
          the company's  subsequent refusal  to reinstate him  in September
          1994.   The  decision not  to reinstate  him was  consistent with
          Commonwealth  law, however, and there is no support in the record
          for a finding that it was motivated by retaliatory animus.

                                         -4-