## Facts

- Sandra Rodriguez-Hernandez worked for Occidental International in Puerto Rico, was promoted to office manager, and had a positive work record.
- Occidental’s principal customer was the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA), which accounted for most of Occidental’s Puerto Rico business.
- Edwin Miranda-Velez, a senior PREPA official responsible for materials management and contracting, interacted with Rodriguez as part of her job.
- Rodriguez testified that Miranda made repeated sexual advances and demands during their work-related interactions.
- Rodriguez complained to Occidental supervisors; Occidental stressed the importance of maintaining the PREPA relationship and did not intervene.
- After Rodriguez indicated she would complain to PREPA about Miranda’s conduct, Occidental suspended and then terminated her.
- Rodriguez sued under Title VII and Puerto Rico law, alleging retaliatory discharge and employer responsibility for tolerating customer-related sexual harassment.
- A jury found for Rodriguez against Occidental and its president Omar Chavez, but returned defense verdicts for Miranda and other customer-side defendants.
- The district court awarded attorney’s fees to Rodriguez as the prevailing party; defendants appealed multiple trial rulings, and Rodriguez cross-appealed the fee amount.

## Issues

1. Whether a defense verdict for the alleged harasser/customer-side defendants required reversal of the verdict against the employer for retaliation.
2. Whether the district court properly excluded evidence concerning the plaintiff’s sexual history under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (and related balancing principles).
3. Whether the district court committed reversible error in handling juror peremptory challenges.
4. Whether the trial was tainted by judicial bias requiring reversal.
5. Whether the attorney’s fees award was adequately supported and properly calculated.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the judgment for Rodriguez against Occidental and Chavez on liability and damages.
- The court held the defense verdicts for Miranda and other customer-side defendants did not legally compel reversal of the employer’s liability.
- The court affirmed the district court’s key evidentiary rulings, including exclusion of most sexual-history evidence under Rule 412.
- The court affirmed the district court’s rulings concerning peremptory challenges and rejected the claim of judicial bias.
- The court vacated the attorney’s fees award and remanded for a fuller explanation and reconsideration.

## Legal Principles

- An employer may be liable under Title VII for retaliating against an employee who complains about sexual harassment by a customer, even if the customer is not found liable.
- Verdicts are not necessarily inconsistent where different defendants face different legal theories and elements; employer retaliation liability turns on the employer’s conduct and motive.
- In civil cases, Federal Rule of Evidence 412 generally bars evidence of an alleged victim’s sexual behavior or predisposition unless its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm and unfair prejudice, and trial courts have broad discretion in applying this standard.
- Appellate courts typically review evidentiary rulings (including Rule 412 and related prejudice balancing) for abuse of discretion.
- Reasonable attorney’s fees for prevailing Title VII plaintiffs must be supported by an adequate explanation sufficient for appellate review, commonly anchored in lodestar analysis and the degree of success obtained.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit sustained a Title VII retaliation verdict where an employer fired an employee after she complained about sexual demands from a key customer’s official, upheld trial management and Rule 412-based exclusions of sexual-history evidence, and required a more reasoned attorney’s fee determination on remand.


Rodriguez-Hernandez v. Miranda-Velez, 132 F.3d 848 (1st Cir. 1998)