Jury Awards $200K to Nurse in Retaliation Lawsuit
Table of Contents
Case Background
The lawsuit was filed in 2021 by Plaintiff Keila García Colón against the Defendant, the Corporation of the State Insurance Fund (CSIF). Ms. García was recruited by the CSIF in 2004 as a General Nurse, she alleged that she experienced sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation during her employment, with the central successful claim being retaliation for engaging in protected conduct.
Cause
The central purpose of the action was to secure redress for alleged wrongful conduct. She claimed the Defendant engaged in sexual harassment and retaliation against her. These acts occurred while she was in the course of her employment relationship. Ms. García's complaint specifically identified retaliation as a key claim. The jury's verdict ultimately confirmed this allegation. The jury found that Ms. García was subjected to retaliation. This liability was established because she had participated in "protected conduct”. The retaliation was deemed sufficient to constitute a compensable hostile work environment.
Injury
The Plaintiff suffered sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation against her while in the course of their employment relationship which led to emotional or mental harm
Damages
The Plaintiff sought damages for the harm she suffered. Her demands included both compensatory and punitive damages. She also requested equitable and injunctive relief from the Court and also the Attorney’s fees. The financial recovery was intended to address the harm she sustained due to the Defendant's proven retaliatory actions.
Key Arguments & Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Keila Garcia-Colon
· Plaintiff's Counsel: Juan R. Gonzalez-Munoz | San Juan | Jose L. Rivero-Vergne | Natalia Eugenia Del Nido-Rodriguez
Defendant: Corporation of the State Insurance Fund
· Defendant's Counsel: Myriam C. Ocasio-Arana | Javier A. Vega-Villalba | Peter W. Miller | Stuart A. Weinstein-Bacal | Yashkiabette Ivelisse De Jesus-Blanco
· Defendant’s Expert witness: Raul Lopez
Claims
The Plaintiff, Keila García Colón, a General Nurse IV at the Corporation of the State Insurance Fund (CSIF), claimed sexual harassment and retaliation. The sexual harassment claims centered on the unwanted advances and physical contact made by Wanda Toledo, an NUC Professor who was coordinating a nursing program at the CSIF. After García reported the harassment and rejected the advances, she alleges the CSIF, particularly Regional Director Magalis Soto Pagán (Toledo's friend), subjected her to a pattern of unlawful retaliation. This retaliation included Soto monitoring her, fabricating baseless complaints, and failing to properly investigate her sexual harassment claim. The retaliatory harassment further escalated with a co-worker, Migdalia Baerga, engaging in psychological harassment and making explicit threats of grave bodily harm, which García's superiors are aware of but have not effectively corrected. García seeks injunctive relief, compensatory, and punitive damages under Title VII and various Puerto Rico laws
Defense
The State Insurance Fund Corporation mounted a rigorous defense to the claims. The SIFC's systematically denied all allegations of wrongdoing. They rejected the accusations of sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation. The SIFC also asserted several specific affirmative defenses. First, the Defendant argued that the Plaintiff failed to state a valid claim for relief. Second, the SIFC claimed it acted responsibly to prevent any unlawful practices. They asserted they exercised reasonable care to promptly correct any retaliatory conduct or hostile work environment. Third, the defense argued that Ms. García herself contributed to her losses. They claimed she unreasonably failed to take advantage of available preventative or corrective measures. The SIFC also argued any action against Ms. García was justified by legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons. Furthermore, they maintained their actions were taken in a good-faith belief of legality.
Jury Verdict
The jury ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, the total compensatory damages awarded to the Plaintiff were $200,000.00. This amount was calculated to compensate her for the injuries caused by the State Insurance Fund Corporation's retaliation. The Plaintiff had initially requested a broad array of monetary remedies. These included not only compensatory and punitive damages but also costs. Only the compensatory damages were resolved by the jury. The remaining financial requests were left to the Court for a later determination. They affirmed that the SIFC was the party responsible for this conduct.
Documents are available for purchase upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com