Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
No. 22-1156
SANDY CARRERAS MORALES,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
SILGAN CONTAINERS MANUFACTURING PUERTO RICO, LLC,
Defendant, Appellee,
OKAYA (USA) INC., TALENT PARTNERS, INC.,
Defendants.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Silvia Carreño-Coll, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Kayatta, Lipez, Thompson, Circuit Judges.
Juan Rafael González-Muñoz, with whom González Muñoz Law Offices, PSC, was on brief, for appellant. Pedro J. Torres-Díaz, with whom Ana B. Rosado-Frontanés and Jackson Lewis LLC were on brief, for appellee.
February 8, 2024 KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. This appeal concerns a claim of
age discrimination brought by Sandy Carreras Morales ("Carreras")
against his prospective employer, Silgan Containers Manufacturing
Puerto Rico, LLC ("Silgan"). Carreras asserts claims under the
federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C.
§ 621 et seq., and its Puerto Rico analogue, P.R. Law No. 100,
arising out of Silgan's refusal to hire Carreras for a plant-
manager position at its Las Piedras, Puerto Rico factory. The
district court granted summary judgment in favor of Silgan,
finding, among other things, that Carreras failed to show that
Silgan knew his age when it rejected his application. Carreras
appeals, arguing that notwithstanding this fact, there is direct
evidence of Silgan's age discrimination that warrants a jury trial.
Finding this evidence inapt, we affirm.
I.
A.
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment
de novo, construing the record in the light most favorable to the
nonmovant -- here, Carreras -- and resolving all reasonable
inferences in that party's favor. Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-
Burset, 777 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2015).
Summary judgment is appropriate only when "there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). But we
- 2 - may affirm a grant of summary judgment "on any ground revealed by
the record." Robinson v. Town of Marshfield, 950 F.3d 21, 24 (1st
Cir. 2020) (quoting Houlton Citizens' Coal. v. Town of Houlton,
175 F.3d 178, 184 (1st Cir. 1999)).
B.
Silgan is a food-packaging manufacturer with a factory
in Las Piedras, Puerto Rico. When the plant-manager position
became available in late 2017, Silgan sought to hire someone local
because of a recurring retention problem: More than one prior
manager had only held the position for a few years before returning
to the contiguous United States. So, according to Silgan
Manufacturing Director Dean LaClair, the company wanted to hire
someone with more "longevity" to address this retention problem.
In 2014, Silgan contracted with Talent Partners, Inc.
("TPI") for employee-recruitment services, which TPI provided on
a recurrent basis. In January 2018, Silgan asked TPI's president,
Joann Cox ("Cox"), to recruit candidates for its open plant-manager
position. Meanwhile, TPI had a cooperative placement agreement
with another agency, Okaya, Inc. ("Okaya"), under which TPI and
Okaya worked together to recruit candidates.
In late January 2018, Okaya contacted Carreras, who was
60 years old at the time, about the Silgan plant-manager position.
Okaya asked for Carreras's resume, which does not include his date
of birth or dates related to his education. It shows an employment
- 3 - history beginning in 1989. In early February, TPI provided
Carreras with more information about the Silgan position and asked
him to complete an application. Neither TPI nor Silgan asked for
Carreras's age or when he planned to retire, and Carreras did not
disclose any such information.
Silgan's hiring process required all managerial
candidates to complete a two-stage employment test, which was
conducted by a third-party exam service provider. In mid-February
2018, Carreras passed the test's first stage but received a
"review" score on the second stage. Silgan considers a "review"
score a failure and therefore generally disqualifies candidates
receiving such a score.
After receiving Carreras's test results, Silgan
Operations Coordinator Sue Thiele ("Thiele") recommended that
Bruce Whittier, one of Silgan's manufacturing directors, not move
forward with Carreras's application. Thiele then made the same
recommendation to Tami Potkay ("Potkay"), Silgan's Regional Human
Resources Manager. Potkay then emailed Cox at TPI, informing her
that Silgan had declined Carreras. TPI then informed Okaya that
Silgan rejected Carreras's application because of his test score.
It does not appear that the manufacturing director --
who had final say in filling the position -- ever weighed in on
the decision. In any event, it is undisputed that Carreras was
deemed disqualified in February of 2018. To be sure, two months
- 4 - later, in April of 2018, Okaya asked Carreras for his age because
it said its client, Silgan, was only considering candidates less
than 58 years old. But it is undisputed that Silgan did not know
that the sixty-year-old Carreras was 58 or older when it
disqualified him based on his low test score.
In discovery, Carreras developed evidence that he says
would have supported a finding that Silgan did not want to hire
someone over the age of 58. Both in the district court and on
appeal, Carreras argues that this evidence should have been
sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.
II.
The ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer "to fail or
refuse to hire" an individual "because of such individual's age."
29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). To prevail under the ADEA, the plaintiff
therefore bears the burden to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that "age was the 'but-for' cause" of the prohibited act.
Babb v. Wilkie, 140 S.Ct. 1168, 1176 (2020) (quoting Gross v. FBL
Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 177 (2009)). And as night follows
day, an applicant's actual age could not be the but-for cause of
an employment decision if the decision-maker did not know that the
plaintiff was not the preferred age. See, e.g., Woodman v. WWOR-
TV, Inc., 411 F.3d 69, 83–84 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding that the
plaintiff's ADEA claim failed because the plaintiff did not adduce
- 5 - sufficient evidence indicating defendants' knowledge of her age
relative to that of her younger replacement).
Consequently, we find that the district court was
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
No. 22-1156
SANDY CARRERAS MORALES,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
SILGAN CONTAINERS MANUFACTURING PUERTO RICO, LLC,
Defendant, Appellee,
OKAYA (USA) INC., TALENT PARTNERS, INC.,
Defendants.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Silvia Carreño-Coll, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Kayatta, Lipez, Thompson, Circuit Judges.
Juan Rafael González-Muñoz, with whom González Muñoz Law Offices, PSC, was on brief, for appellant. Pedro J. Torres-Díaz, with whom Ana B. Rosado-Frontanés and Jackson Lewis LLC were on brief, for appellee.
February 8, 2024 KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. This appeal concerns a claim of
age discrimination brought by Sandy Carreras Morales ("Carreras")
against his prospective employer, Silgan Containers Manufacturing
Puerto Rico, LLC ("Silgan"). Carreras asserts claims under the
federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C.
§ 621 et seq., and its Puerto Rico analogue, P.R. Law No. 100,
arising out of Silgan's refusal to hire Carreras for a plant-
manager position at its Las Piedras, Puerto Rico factory. The
district court granted summary judgment in favor of Silgan,
finding, among other things, that Carreras failed to show that
Silgan knew his age when it rejected his application. Carreras
appeals, arguing that notwithstanding this fact, there is direct
evidence of Silgan's age discrimination that warrants a jury trial.
Finding this evidence inapt, we affirm.
I.
A.
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment
de novo, construing the record in the light most favorable to the
nonmovant -- here, Carreras -- and resolving all reasonable
inferences in that party's favor. Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-
Burset, 777 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2015).
Summary judgment is appropriate only when "there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). But we
- 2 - may affirm a grant of summary judgment "on any ground revealed by
the record." Robinson v. Town of Marshfield, 950 F.3d 21, 24 (1st
Cir. 2020) (quoting Houlton Citizens' Coal. v. Town of Houlton,
175 F.3d 178, 184 (1st Cir. 1999)).
B.
Silgan is a food-packaging manufacturer with a factory
in Las Piedras, Puerto Rico. When the plant-manager position
became available in late 2017, Silgan sought to hire someone local
because of a recurring retention problem: More than one prior
manager had only held the position for a few years before returning
to the contiguous United States. So, according to Silgan
Manufacturing Director Dean LaClair, the company wanted to hire
someone with more "longevity" to address this retention problem.
In 2014, Silgan contracted with Talent Partners, Inc.
("TPI") for employee-recruitment services, which TPI provided on
a recurrent basis. In January 2018, Silgan asked TPI's president,
Joann Cox ("Cox"), to recruit candidates for its open plant-manager
position. Meanwhile, TPI had a cooperative placement agreement
with another agency, Okaya, Inc. ("Okaya"), under which TPI and
Okaya worked together to recruit candidates.
In late January 2018, Okaya contacted Carreras, who was
60 years old at the time, about the Silgan plant-manager position.
Okaya asked for Carreras's resume, which does not include his date
of birth or dates related to his education. It shows an employment
- 3 - history beginning in 1989. In early February, TPI provided
Carreras with more information about the Silgan position and asked
him to complete an application. Neither TPI nor Silgan asked for
Carreras's age or when he planned to retire, and Carreras did not
disclose any such information.
Silgan's hiring process required all managerial
candidates to complete a two-stage employment test, which was
conducted by a third-party exam service provider. In mid-February
2018, Carreras passed the test's first stage but received a
"review" score on the second stage. Silgan considers a "review"
score a failure and therefore generally disqualifies candidates
receiving such a score.
After receiving Carreras's test results, Silgan
Operations Coordinator Sue Thiele ("Thiele") recommended that
Bruce Whittier, one of Silgan's manufacturing directors, not move
forward with Carreras's application. Thiele then made the same
recommendation to Tami Potkay ("Potkay"), Silgan's Regional Human
Resources Manager. Potkay then emailed Cox at TPI, informing her
that Silgan had declined Carreras. TPI then informed Okaya that
Silgan rejected Carreras's application because of his test score.
It does not appear that the manufacturing director --
who had final say in filling the position -- ever weighed in on
the decision. In any event, it is undisputed that Carreras was
deemed disqualified in February of 2018. To be sure, two months
- 4 - later, in April of 2018, Okaya asked Carreras for his age because
it said its client, Silgan, was only considering candidates less
than 58 years old. But it is undisputed that Silgan did not know
that the sixty-year-old Carreras was 58 or older when it
disqualified him based on his low test score.
In discovery, Carreras developed evidence that he says
would have supported a finding that Silgan did not want to hire
someone over the age of 58. Both in the district court and on
appeal, Carreras argues that this evidence should have been
sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.
II.
The ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer "to fail or
refuse to hire" an individual "because of such individual's age."
29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). To prevail under the ADEA, the plaintiff
therefore bears the burden to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that "age was the 'but-for' cause" of the prohibited act.
Babb v. Wilkie, 140 S.Ct. 1168, 1176 (2020) (quoting Gross v. FBL
Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 177 (2009)). And as night follows
day, an applicant's actual age could not be the but-for cause of
an employment decision if the decision-maker did not know that the
plaintiff was not the preferred age. See, e.g., Woodman v. WWOR-
TV, Inc., 411 F.3d 69, 83–84 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding that the
plaintiff's ADEA claim failed because the plaintiff did not adduce
- 5 - sufficient evidence indicating defendants' knowledge of her age
relative to that of her younger replacement).
Consequently, we find that the district court was
correct to grant summary judgment to Silgan on Carreras's ADEA
claim. Simply put, even assuming that Silgan was biased against
applicants over the age of 58, the complete lack of any evidence
that Silgan believed that Carreras was older than 58 means that
its decision not to hire him was not "because of" his age.1 We
turn next to his analogous age-discrimination claim under Puerto
Rico Law 100.
III.
Puerto Rico Law 100, like the ADEA, provides a cause of
action for victims of age-based employment discrimination.
Zampierollo-Rheinfeldt v. Ingersoll-Rand de Puerto Rico, Inc., 999
F.3d 37, 58 (1st Cir. 2021). Carreras does not explain why the
lack of any causal nexus between his age and the challenged
employment decision is not also fatal to his discrimination claim
under Law 100. Nor is any relevant reason apparent. See Dávila
v. Corporación De Puerto Rico Para La Difusión Pública, 498 F.3d
9, 18 (1st Cir. 2007) (noting that "[o]n the merits, age
discrimination claims asserted under the ADEA and under Law 100
1 Given our conclusion, we need not reach Carreras's argument that the district court abused its discretion when it excluded evidence that, Carreras contends, showed that Silgan and/or its agents were biased against applicants over the age of 58.
- 6 - are coterminous"). Consequently, we find that the district court
was correct to grant summary judgment to Silgan on Carreras's
Law 100 claim as well.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district
court's order granting summary judgment to Silgan on Carreras's
age-discrimination claims under the ADEA and Puerto Rico Law 100.
- 7 -