Court Opinion

ID: 2962552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:59:06.444921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:38.755626
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          April 29, 1994        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 93-2331                                        ALDALBERTO CALDERON DE JESUS,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                           ESB GENERAL BATTERY CORPORATION,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                  __________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                  [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]                                               ___________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                             Torruella, Selya and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ___________________               Fernado   L.  Gallardo  and  Woods  &  Woods  on  brief  for               ______________________       _______________          appellant.               Goldman Antonetti  Gordova & Axtmayer,  Vicente J. Antonetti               _____________________________________   ____________________          and Roberto A. Fernandez, on brief for appellee.              ____________________                                  __________________                                  __________________                      Per Curiam.    Plaintiff claimed that his discharge                      __________            violated 1) 42 U.S.C.     1981, 2) 42 U.S.C.   1983, 3) Title            VII, and  4) 29 L.P.R.A.    146.  Defendant moved  to dismiss            the first two claims.  The district court granted the motion,            but dismissed the  entire action.  On  appeal, plaintiff does            not challenge the dismissal of the    1981 and   1983 claims,            and  defendant   concedes  that  the  Title   VII  claim  was            improperly dismissed.  Seeing no  basis for the dismissal  of            the  Title VII claim,  we affirm the dismissal  of the   1981            and    1983  claims, but  vacate the  dismissal of  the other            claims  and  remand  for  further  proceedings,  including  a            determination  by the  district  court  whether  to  exercise            pendent jurisdiction over the state law claim.                      Affirmed in part; vacated  and remanded in part; no            costs.                                         -2-