Navarro Pomares v. Pfizer Corp.

97 F. Supp. 2d 208
CourtDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico
DecidedMay 11, 2000
DocketCiv. 98-2110(JP)
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 97 F. Supp. 2d 208 (Navarro Pomares v. Pfizer Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Navarro Pomares v. Pfizer Corp., 97 F. Supp. 2d 208 (prd 2000).

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

PIERAS, Senior District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Court has before it Defendant Pfizer Corporation’s (“Pfizer”) Motion for Summary Judgment (docket No. 12) and Plaintiffs’ Opposition thereto (docket No. 17). Plaintiffs Gladys Navarro Pomares (“Navarro”), Antonio Hernández, and the conjugal partnership constituted between them bring this action under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 - 2654. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated section 2615(a)(1) by unlawfully denying Navarro benefits to which she was entitled under the FMLA, and that Defendants also breached section 2615(a)(2) by retaliating against Navarro for exercising her rights under the FMLA. In addition, Plaintiffs invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction to assert a claim under Article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, P.R.Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5141, for emotional and mental distress.

II. UNCONTESTED FACTS

The following facts are uncontested:

Pfizer is an employer subject to the provisions of the FMLA. l.
Navarro was an employee within the meaning of the FMLA, having worked for Pfizer more than 1,250 hours during the previous 12 months. 2.
3. Navarro worked for Pfizer from August 1, 1994 until November 11, 1997.
4. Navarro occupied the position of Secretary.
5. On October 14, 1997, Navarro requested a leave of absence until January 5, 1998 to care for her pregnant daughter and her daughter’s two children in Germany.
6. Navarro provided Pfizer with a certificate from her daughter’s physician wherein he certified that Navarro’s daughter was in her 36th week of pregnancy, was suffering from high blood pressure, and had been placed on bed rest so that she could bring her baby to term, which made her unable to care for her two young children.
7. Said leave of absence was expressly denied by Pfizer, verbally and in writing, on the grounds that the reason provided by Navarro in seeking the leave of absence did not fall within the terms of the FMLA. Notwithstanding, Navarro took a leave of absence and departed to Germany.
8. On November 6, 1997, Navarro received a letter from Pfizer’s Human Resources Manager, Lizette Pérez, warning her that if she left for Germany the same would be considered an act of insubordination and/or abandonment of her job, and ordering her to report to work on Monday, November 9,1997.
9. On November 11, 1997, Pfizer notified Navarro in writing that her employment had been terminated because she failed to report to work as *210 ordered by the Human Resources Department.

III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the entry of summary judgment where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a- matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Pagano v. Frank, 983 F.2d 343, 347 (1st Cir.1993); Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico, 864 F.2d 881, 894 (1st Cir.1988). Summary judgment is appropriate where, after drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact .for trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A fact is material if, based on the substantive law at issue, it might affect the outcome of the case. Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Mack v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., Inc., 871 F.2d 179, 181 (1st Cir.1989). A material issue is “genuine” if there is sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable trier of fact to resolve the issue in the non-moving party’s favor. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Boston Athletic Ass’n v. Sullivan, 867 F.2d 22, 24 (1st Cir.1989).

The party filing a motion for summary judgment bears the initial burden of proof to show “that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s ease.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The burden then shifts to the non-movant' to show that “sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute [exists] to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions of truth at trial.” See First -Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 1592-93, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968). The party opposing summary judgment may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of the pleadings, but must affirmatively show, through filing of supporting affidavits or otherwise, that there is a genuine issue for trial. See id.; Goldman v. First Nat’l Bank of Boston, 985 F.2d 1113, 1116 (1st Cir.1993). On issues where the non-movant bears the ultimate burden of proof, she must present definite, competent evidence to rebut the motion. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256-57, 106 S.Ct. at 2514-15.

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Claim for Leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA)

Under the FMLA, an eligible employee is entitled to twelve workweeks of leave over any period of twelve months because of (A) the birth or care of the employee’s newborn child; (B) the placement of a child with the employee for foster care or adoption; (C) the care of an employee’s son, daughter, spouse or parent having a serious health condition; or (D) the employee’s serious health condition that leaves the employee unable to perform the requirements of her job. 1 See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1) (emphasis added).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Spees v. James Marine, Inc.
617 F.3d 380 (Sixth Circuit, 2010)
Walker v. Fred Nesbit Distributing, Co.
331 F. Supp. 2d 780 (S.D. Iowa, 2004)
Gorman v. Wells Manufacturing Corp.
209 F. Supp. 2d 970 (S.D. Iowa, 2002)
Morehardt v. Spirit Airlines, Inc.
174 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (M.D. Florida, 2001)
Navarro Pomares v. Pfizer Corporation
261 F.3d 90 (First Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 F. Supp. 2d 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/navarro-pomares-v-pfizer-corp-prd-2000.