The Oliveras-Villafañe Doctrine: Waiver on Appeal Where an Alternative Ground Goes Unchallenged

1. Introduction

Oliveras-Villafañe v. Baxter Healthcare SA, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on 13 June 2025, is an employment-discrimination case arising out of Puerto Rico. The plaintiffs—former Baxter employee Efraín Oliveras-Villafañe, his spouse Mirta Rosario-Montalvo, and their conjugal partnership—alleged that Baxter engaged in discriminatory practices on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, and age in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Puerto Rico’s Law 80, and Puerto Rico contract law.

After the District Court granted summary judgment for Baxter, the plaintiffs appealed, raising three issues: (1) whether their EEOC charge was timely as to a 2018 transfer, (2) whether equitable tolling should apply, and (3) whether the District Court abused its discretion in striking facts for non-compliance with Local Civil Rule 56(c). The Court of Appeals affirmed without reaching the merits of those issues, holding that plaintiffs had waived their appeal by failing to contest one of the District Court’s alternative, independent holdings—namely, that their EEOC charge did not encompass the 2018 transfer at all.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The First Circuit affirmed the District Court on the following key points:

Alternative Holdings: The lower court had ruled (a) that the 2019 EEOC charge did not cover the 2018 transfer and (b) even if it did, the charge was untimely. Only the timeliness branch was challenged on appeal.
Appellate Waiver: By ignoring the “encompassment” holding, appellants left an unassailed, self-sufficient ground for judgment. Under settled First Circuit practice, that omission is fatal.
Local Rule 56(c): The panel noted—but did not disturb—the District Court’s discretionary choice to strike non-conforming statements of fact.
Result: Judgment for Baxter affirmed; no remand; no discussion of substantive discrimination evidence.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Quintana-Dieppa v. Dep’t of the Army, 130 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2025) – Reiterates that judges are “not mind readers” and refuse to construct undeveloped arguments.
United States v. Arroyo-Blas, 783 F.3d 361 (1st Cir. 2015) – Origin of the “ossature” metaphor for skeletal arguments.
United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) – Classic waiver precedent for perfunctory argumentation.
Thornton v. UPS, 587 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2009) – Confines Title VII litigation to the allegations in, or reasonably flowing from, the EEOC charge.
Clockedile v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Corrections, 245 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) – Establishes the 300-day filing window in “deferral” states.
W.R. Cobb Co. v. V.J. Designs, LLC, 130 F.4th 224 (1st Cir. 2025) – Warns that developing arguments is counsel’s job.

These cases collectively underscore two ideas that dominate the opinion: (1) the strictness of the exhaustion requirement in discrimination cases and (2) the uncompromising nature of appellate waiver in the First Circuit.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Structure of the District Court’s Ruling:
- Holding #1 – The EEOC charge did not mention or reasonably suggest the 2018 transfer.
- Holding #2 – Even if it did, the charge was filed 447 days later—beyond the 300-day limit.
Appellate Strategy Flaw: Plaintiffs attacked only Holding #2 (timeliness), making no “square, distinct” argument against Holding #1 (scope of charge).
Doctrine of Waiver/Forfeiture: Under First Circuit rules, failure to dispute an independent ground suffices to affirm; courts will not revive a claim sua sponte.
Resultant Doctrine – “Oliveras-Villafañe Doctrine”: Where a lower court supplies alternative grounds, an appellant must explicitly challenge each to preserve the issue. Any untouched ground will sustain the judgment by itself.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

The ruling carries several practical and doctrinal consequences:

Tactical Drafting of Briefs: Appellate counsel must enumerate challenges to all dispositive rulings, including secondary or “belt-and-suspenders” grounds voiced by the trial court.
Employment Litigation: Plaintiffs must articulate every adverse action in their EEOC charge. Post-charge “add-ons” are vulnerable.
District Court Practice: Judges may be more inclined to issue explicit alternative holdings, knowing that unchallenged ones create waiver.
Puerto Rico Cases: The decision complements First Circuit jurisprudence on Local Rule 56(c) enforcement, signaling continued intolerance for non-compliant fact statements.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Title VII Exhaustion: Before suing in court for job discrimination, an employee must file a charge with the EEOC (or Puerto Rico’s ADU). The charge must describe the discriminatory act and be filed within 180/300 days.
Alternative Holding: A court sometimes gives two independent reasons for the same result. If either is correct, the judgment stands.
Waiver on Appeal: An appellant waives an issue by not arguing it properly. The First Circuit requires arguments to be spelled out, with citations and analysis.
Local Rule 56(c): The District of Puerto Rico’s rule governing summary-judgment statements of fact. Non-compliance lets the court disregard the offending facts.
Equitable Tolling: A doctrine allowing late filings if the plaintiff was misled or prevented from filing on time. Plaintiffs tried to invoke it here, but the court never reached the issue.
Conjugal Partnership: Under Puerto Rico civil law, a married couple forms a “sociedad legal de gananciales,” translated in federal practice as a conjugal partnership— a necessary co-plaintiff when the couple seeks damages for employment discrimination.

5. Conclusion

Oliveras-Villafañe crystallizes an exacting rule of appellate practice in the First Circuit: ignore one alternative ground and you lose the appeal. Beyond its immediate employment-law context, the case stands as a cautionary tale for litigants who hope the court of appeals will “fill in the blanks.” The decision reinforces the primacy of administrative exhaustion in Title VII litigation, underscores the importance of Local Rule 56(c) compliance, and offers a strategic lesson—meticulous issue preservation is not optional but essential.