As recently as June 24, 2004, the District Court held that an employer had met its burden of overcoming the presumption of discrimination by proffering evidence that its decision to terminate the employee was based on the female employees’ complaints and the findings from the ensuing investigation that the employee had violated the employer’s rules of conduct and sexual harassment policy. The Court went on to hold that the employee presented no evidence that the reason was pretextual and instead merely attacked the veracity of the allegations made against him. Thus, the Court granted the employer’s summary judgment motion.

Alvarez v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 319 F. Supp. 2d 240 (D.P.R. 2004)

In this case, the employee failed to file charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Puerto Rico Department of Labor, Anti-discrimination Unit, until more than a year after he was suspended. The court granted the employer's motion, holding that the employee's claims were time-barred since Title VII required an employee to file his claim within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. A continuing violation could cover otherwise time-barred acts, but this doctrine requires the occurrence of at least one event within the 300-day period. However, because the employee always understood that his co-workers' behavior constituted sexual harassment, this knowledge and the fact that there were no unlawful acts within the filing period precluded a continuing violation.

Morales-Pabón v. Morovis Cmty. Health Ctr., Inc., 310 F. Supp. 2d 411 (D.P.R. 2004)

The employee alleged that he was demoted, then suffered rude remarks and mistreatment before finally being terminated, causing him to suffer anxiety and depression. In essence, he stated that his Diabetes caused him temporary problems. The court noted that an essential aspect of a claim under the ADA is that the employee's "disability" or "handicap" be permanent or long-term in nature. The employee had not specified which of his major life activities had been substantially limited or affected for an extended period of time. Because it was obvious from the complaint that the employee could not prevail on the facts alleged, the court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss.

Quiñones v. P.R. Hosp. Supply, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 2d 352 (D.P.R. 2004)

Quiñones alleged he was the object of sexual innuendos, proposals, advances, and receiving an e-mail that contained a sexually suggestive joke. He alleged that in several lunches with his female supervisors they engaged in sexually charged conversations. The Court held that Quiñones chose to go to lunch with the supervisors. Nothing suggested a hostile work environment. The indignities were episodic and ambiguous and thus not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment.

Summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in pregnancy and gender discrimination case; a reasonable fact finder could only conclude that plaintiff was an independent contractor and thus not covered by Title VII or the Puerto Rico anti-discrimination laws. The use of set length contracts, the lack of benefits, the method of payment, and the parties' own description of their relationship in tax documents all indicate independent contractor status.

E.C. Waste, Inc. v. NLRB, 359 F. 3d 36 (1st Cir. 2004)

Substantial evidence supports defendant’s finding that plaintiff discharged worker in order to prevent her from voting for the Union in the upcoming election, in violation of section 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.

The U.S Supreme Court overturned a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that reinstated an ADEA lawsuit by approximately 200 workers who did not qualify for retiree health benefits under a collective bargaining agreement the company had entered into with the United Auto Workers Union. The agreement granted retiree health benefits only to workers who reached age 50 by July 1, 1997. The workers who brought the lawsuit were between the ages of 40 to 49 on that date. The ADEA protects employees who are 40 or older. By overturning the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not bar employers from favoring older workers over younger, protected-age workers.

Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 124 S. Ct. 2342 (2004)

Suders worked at the Pennsylvania Police Department. Her supervisors harassed her and created a hostile working environment. Suders resigned and filed suit alleging sexual harassment and constructive discharge. The Supreme Court held that to establish "constructive discharge," plaintiff must prove a work environment so hostile as to merit resignation as a fitting response. Defendants may assert affirmative defenses in a case alleging constructive discharge, unless plaintiff quit in response to an official change in her employment status.

ADA application to crewship employees

The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted to decide whether ADA applies to crewship employers.