Opinion
CIV. NO. 01-2383 (PG)
December 9, 2002
For plaintiff, Wilma E. Reveron-Collazo, San Juan, PR
For defendant, Kenneth C. Suria-Rivera, San Juan, PR
ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND ORDER
The matter before this Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff (Docket No 30), Jorge Perez-Cordero, bringing to the Court's attention an inadvertent mistake found in the conclusion of an Opinion and Order (Docket No. 27) issued in this case on November 18, 2002. In that Opinion and Order, after finding insufficient support for Defendants' motion to dismiss under FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5), this Court found that their request failed on those grounds. See Docket No. 27 at 3. The conclusion of the opinion however, stated that the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5) was granted as to all Defendants.
Instead it should have read otherwise, and the Court hereby amends such conclusion to read as follows:
CONCLUSION
The presence of a Title VII claim requires that the procedural requirements under that statute must control the development of a case in federal court when a plaintiff wants to bring it under both local anti-discrimination laws and Title VII. The Supreme Court has also maintained that "the first hiatus," of Title VII's "dual-track method of procedure" is designed so that the state or local agencies get a sixty (60) day period during which attempt "to remedy the allegedly unlawful practice prior to any federal action, is designed to give state administrative agencies an opportunity to invoke state rules of law." Yellow Freight System v. Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820, 826 (1990). In contrast, the action by the EEOC "is a predicate for litigation based on the federal statute." Id.
In light of the foregoing, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion to Dismiss under rules 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5) is DENIED as to all Defendants; the Motion to Dismiss under 12(b)(6) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Title VII claims against individual Defendants Santiago and Falcon, which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; Plaintiff's constitutional claims against all Defendants are also DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and finally Plaintiff's request for dismissal of the remainder of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc. as time-barred is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.