SAN JUAN (LN) — U.S. Magistrate Judge Giselle López-Soler on Monday denied both the Department of Veterans Affairs’ and plaintiff Vivian Nieves’ motions to alter or amend judgment in a sexual harassment lawsuit, ruling that triable issues of fact remain regarding whether the agency’s reversal of its own harassment findings was pretextual.
Nieves sued Denis McDonough, the VA Secretary, and the Department of Justice, alleging a hostile work environment and disparate treatment. The VA moved to alter the court’s prior summary judgment order, arguing that the record established no liability and that the court erred in finding pretext in the agency’s decision to return the accused coworker to the workplace.
The VA argued that its decision to reinstate the coworker was based on insufficient evidence of sexual harassment, noting that witness statements did not clearly establish that the coworker was made aware his behavior was unwelcome. The agency also pointed to an amendment made to the initial fact-finding report approximately six months later, which it characterized as a "delayed memorialization" of earlier conclusions.
López-Soler rejected the VA’s arguments, noting that the agency’s disagreement with the inferences drawn from the undisputed facts was insufficient to warrant reconsideration under Rule 59(e). The judge emphasized that the undisputed record showed the VA’s initial report found the coworker had engaged in sexual harassment conduct supported by witnesses, and that two additional female employees confirmed the conduct was a pattern.
"Without conducting an additional investigation, the VA concluded that 'the conclusions and recommendations could not be substantiated and information contained statements,'" López-Soler wrote, quoting the agency’s own statement of uncontested material facts.
The magistrate judge noted that management at the Virginia Supreme Court acknowledged the employee’s behavior made Nieves and other witnesses uncomfortable, prompting immediate action. However, the agency later concluded the harassment could not be substantiated because the witnesses did not clearly establish the coworker knew the conduct was unwelcome.
The court ruled that whether the evidence justified the VA’s conclusion and its decision to amend the initial report is a matter for the jury. "At most, those facts show that, after reviewing the evidence, the VA ultimately concluded that no harassment occurred," López-Soler wrote. "But whether the evidence justified the VA’s conclusion and its decision to amend the initial report is a matter for the jury."
Nieves had also sought reconsideration, arguing that a hostile work environment claim is viable even without allegations of continued harassment after the employer learned of the conduct. The judge denied that motion as well, ruling that Nieves failed to address controlling First Circuit precedent, including Caruso v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Vizcarrondo-González v. Vilsack, which she did not cite in her initial briefing. This denial leaves the hostile work environment claim dismissed.
The VA’s motion had also argued that Nieves could not establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment because the court had not found discriminatory animus. López-Soler rejected this, stating that causal connection was established by inferences drawn in favor of the plaintiff under the summary judgment standard, and that Nieves was not required to establish discriminatory animus as part of her prima facie case.
Both motions are now denied, leaving the pretext issue to proceed to trial.