Reyes-Orta v. Highway and Transportation, 1st Cir. (2016)

7/26/2019 Reyes-Orta v. Highway and Transportation, 1st Cir. (2016)

1/24

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 2172

SHEI LA REYES- ORTA; J OS L. CASTI LLO- CARRI LLO; CONJ UGALPARTNERSHI P CASTI LLO- REYES,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s,

v.

PUERTO RI CO HI GHWAY AND TRANSPORTATI ON AUTHORI TY; RUBN

HERNNDEZ- GREGORAT, i n hi s i ndi vi dual and of f i ci al capaci t y asSecretary of Transpor t at i on and Publ i c Works; BRENDA GOMI LA-SANTI AGO, i n her i ndi vi dual and of f i ci al capaci t y as Execut i veDi r ect or of Human Resour ces; CSAR MALDONADO- VZQUEZ, i n hi s

i ndi vi dual and of f i ci al capaci t y as Human Resour ces Speci al i st ;I NSURANCE COMPANY ABC,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO[ Hon. Sal vador E. Casel l as, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Bar r on, Hawki ns, * and Li pez,Ci r cui t J udges.

J uan M. Fr ont er a- Suau, wi t h whom Kennet h Col on and Fr ont er aSuau Law Of f i ces, PSC wer e on br i ef f or appel l ant .

Mi chel l e Camacho Ni eves, wi t h whom Margar i t a L. Mer cado-Echegar ay, Sol i ci t or Gener al , and Zar el Sot o- Acab, Assi st antSol i ci t or Gener al , Depar t ment of J ust i ce, wer e on br i ef f or

* Of t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/24

appel l ees Rubn Hernndez- Gr egorat , Br enda Gomi l a- Sant i ago, andCsar Mal donado- Vzquez i n t hei r i ndi vi dual capaci t i es.

Yassmi n Gonzl ez- Vl ez, Counsel f or Puer t o Ri co Hi ghway andTr anspor t at i on Aut hor i t y, was on br i ef f or appel l ee Puer t o Ri coHi ghway and Transpor t at i on Aut hor i t y and appel l ees RubnHernndez- Gr egorat , Br enda Gomi l a- Sant i ago, and Csar Mal donado-Vzquez i n t hei r of f i ci al capaci t i es.

J anuar y 25, 2016


3/24

HAWKINS, Circuit Judge. Pl ai nt i f f Shei l a Reyes- Or t a

al l eges t hat she was st r i pped of var i ous j ob dut i es and was

ul t i mat el y ter mi nat ed f r om her j ob at t he Puer t o Ri co Hi ghway and

Tr anspor t at i on Aut hor i t y ( "PRHTA") because of her af f i l i at i on

wi t h t he Popul ar Democr at i c Par t y ( "PDP") . Af t er st r i ki ng

cer t ai n exhi bi t s, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed summary j udgment

agai nst her on her Fi r st Amendment pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on

cl ai ms because ( 1) t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t hat act i ons

shor t of di smi ssal const i t ut ed adver se empl oyment act i ons; and

( 2) absent any pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on, she woul d have been

t er mi nated i n any event f or nondi scr i mi natory r easons. We

r everse and remand.

I. Background

A. Facts

Reyes- Or t a has wor ked f or t he Puer t o Ri co gover nment

f or near l y thr ee decades. I n 2001, she t r ansf er r ed f r om a

posi t i on as a human r esour ces pr ogr am of f i cer at t he I ndust r i al

Commi ssi on t o a hi gher posi t i on, human r esour ces pr ogr am chi ef ,

at t he PRHTA.

I n 2001- 2002 and 2004, whi l e t he PDP admi ni st r at i on was

i n of f i ce, t he i nt er nal audi t of f i ces of bot h t he Puer t o Ri co

I ndust r i al Commi ssi on and PRHTA i nvest i gated Reyes- Or t a' s

"t r ansf er - pr omot i on. " The i nt er nal audi t of f i ce of t he

I ndust r i al Commi ssi on f ound t hat t he cer t i f i cat i on of j ob dut i es

- 3-


4/24

she pr ovi ded t o get t he PRHTA posi t i on i naccur at el y st at ed t hat

she had super vi sed cl er i cal and secr et ar i al per sonnel as an

"essent i al dut y" of her I ndust r i al Commi ssi on posi t i on. The

i nt er nal audi t of f i ce al so f ound t hat t he cer t i f i cat i on was

i mpr oper l y si gned by a f el l ow human r esour ces pr ogr am of f i cer ,

who f ai l ed t o ver i f y i t s cont ent and who f ai l ed t o r ef er t he

mat t er t o t he I ndust r i al Commi ssi on' s human r esour ces di r ect or .

The of f i ce r ecommended t hat t he i nvest i gat i on be r ef er r ed t o t he

l egal di vi si on t o det er mi ne t he appr opr i at e cor r ect i ve measur es.

The PRHTA' s i nt er nal audi t of f i ce, whose r epor t was

wr i t t en by J uan Encar naci n i n 2004, al so f ound t hat t he

cer t i f i cat i on was f r audul ent , but i t coul d not det er mi ne whet her

t he cer t i f i cat i on was a "det er mi ni ng f act or " i n per mi t t i ng Reyes-

Or t a' s t r ansf er . I t r ecommended t hat t he PRHTA' s human r esour ces

depar t ment r e- anal yze Reyes- Or t a' s document s t o det er mi ne i f she

shoul d be cer t i f i ed as qual i f i ed; t hat t he l egal di vi si on

eval uat e t he l egal i t y and val i di t y of t he document s; and t hat t he

agency t ake appr opr i at e cor r ect i ve act i on.

No f ur t her act i on was t aken f or f i ve year s. By J anuar y

2009, Reyes- Or t a was i n anot her posi t i on, di r ect or of t he Of f i ce

of Posi t i on Anal ysi s, Compensat i on and Fr i nge Benef i t s at t he

PRHTA. That mont h, Lui s For t uo of t he New Progr essi ve Par t y

( "NPP") t ook of f i ce as Gover nor of Puer t o Ri co af t er def eat i ng

t he PDP i ncumbent i n t he 2008 gener al el ect i on. Rubn Hernndez-

- 4-


5/24

Gr egor at , an NPP member , t ook over as t he PRHTA' s execut i ve

di r ect or . Between J anuary and May 2009, Br enda Gomi l a- Sant i ago,

al so an NPP member , ser ved as Hernndez- Gr egorat ' s ai de. I n J une

2009, she t ook over as human r esour ces di r ect or at PRHTA f r om

Lui s Snchez- Casanova, who had occupi ed t hat posi t i on f r om

J anuar y t o May 2009.

On Apr i l 29, 2009, El Nuevo D a, t he l argest newspaper

i n Puer t o Ri co, r epor t ed t hat , accor di ng t o a PDP l egi sl at or ,

PRHTA execut i ve di r ect or Hernndez- Gr egorat had, f our mont hs

af t er t aki ng of f i ce, gi ven hi s dr i ver s and ai des hef t y sal ar y

r ai ses whi l e PRHTA was r unni ng a $300 mi l l i on oper at i onal def i ci t

and was at r i sk of havi ng t o l ay of f 30, 000 publ i c empl oyees and

t o hal t i t s pr oj ect s. The ar t i cl e pr ompt ed Her nndez- Gr egor at t o

di r ect t hen- human r esour ces di r ect or Snchez- Casanova to

i nvest i gat e who had l eaked t he i nf or mat i on t o the PDP l egi sl at or .

Reyes- Or t a cl ai ms t hat , dur i ng t hat t i me, Snchez- Casanova t ol d

her sever al t i mes t hat she shoul d be car ef ul because t he "t op"

want ed t o "cut her head of f " and t hat he was under pr essur e

because he di d not want t o t ake di sci pl i nar y act i on agai nst her .

Reyes- Or t a' s co- wor ker Soni a Vl ez- Vl ez, who had j oi ned t he

PRHTA at t he same t i me as she, cl ai ms Snchez- Casanova al so t ol d

her dur i ng t hi s t i me t hat he was f eel i ng pr essur ed by Her nndez-

Gr egorat t o t er mi nate PDP empl oyees, i ncl udi ng Reyes- Or t a and

Vl ez- Vl ez, and that Her nndez- Gr egor at was l ooki ng f or an

- 5-


6/24

at t or ney t o j ust i f y t hose t er mi nat i ons.

On May 19, 2009, Snchez- Casanova wr ot e a r epor t on hi s

i nvest i gat i on, i n whi ch he st at ed t hat t wo wi t nesses had

i dent i f i ed Reyes- Or t a as t he sour ce of t he l eak, somet hi ng Reyes-

Or t a deni ed. The r epor t al so st at ed t hat he had t ol d Reyes- Or t a

t hat he was goi ng t o r equest a br oader di sci pl i nar y i nvest i gat i on

by t he Of f i ce of I ndust r i al Rel at i ons and t hat t he l eak was

"unaccept abl e and t hat , i f [ Reyes- Or t a was t he sour ce of t he

l eak] , she shoul d st op [ l eaki ng i nf or mat i on] . . . si nce i t

af f ect ed al l of t he col l eagues of t he ar ea. "

The r epor t was sent t o t he Of f i ce of I ndust r i al

Rel at i ons, whi ch t hen assi gned Csar Mal donado- Vazquez, an NPP

member , t o conduct a f ormal i nvest i gat i on. Mal donado- Vzquez

i nt ervi ewed Reyes- Or t a on August 31, 2009. Accor di ng t o Reyes-

Or t a, Mal donado- Vzquez t ol d her t hat he knew she was af f i l i ated

wi t h t he PDP; t hat t he past PDP admi ni st r at i on had ki cked hi m

out ; t hat t he PDP admi ni st r at i on "di d what ever [ i t ] want [ ed] when

gr ant i ng st eps f or mer i t al l over wi t hout havi ng an assessment

syst em"; and that she and ot her empl oyees were goi ng to be l ai d

of f because t he r esol ut i ons t hat had al l owed t hem t o be

t r ansf er r ed t o PRHTA back i n 2001 wer e i l l egal . Thr ee days

l at er , Reyes- Or t a sent a l et t er t o Her nndez- Gr egor at , Gomi l a-

Sant i ago, Mal donado- Vzquez, and ot hers r epeat i ng what Mal donado-

Vzquez had sai d and st at i ng t hat she f el t humi l i at ed and

- 6-


7/24

pol i t i cal l y di scri mi nat ed agai nst dur i ng t he i nt er vi ew. She

r ecei ved no r esponse.

Reyes- Or t a cl ai ms t hat , soon af t er Gomi l a- Sant i ago t ook

over as human r esour ces di r ect or , she st r i pped Reyes- Or t a of

var i ous j ob dut i es, and i gnor ed Reyes- Or t a' s r equest s t o have her

comput er f i xed. As a r esul t , Reyes- Or t a had no comput er bet ween

Apr i l 2009 and her event ual t ermi nat i on i n May 2010 and had t o

depend on ot her empl oyees t o access t he sof t war e pr ogr ams she

needed f or her j ob.

I n December 2009, Reyes- Or t a r ecei ved a l et t er f r om

Her nndez- Gr egor at st at i ng hi s i nt ent t o decl ar e her appoi nt ment

nul l because an audi t had r eveal ed t hat her 2001 t r ansf er was

i l l egi t i mat e because she had f al sel y r epr esent ed that she had

exper i ence super vi si ng of f i ce per sonnel and t hus was not

qual i f i ed f or her PRHTA posi t i on and because her t r ansf er -

pr omot i on vi ol at ed Puer t o Ri co' s mer i t pr i nci pl e and f r ee

compet i t i on pr i nci pl e. Accor di ng t o t he l et t er , t he vacancy f or

her j ob shoul d have been post ed publ i cl y bef ore she was

appoi nt ed.

I n J anuar y 2010, Her nndez- Gr egor at i ssued Resol ut i on

No. 2010- 01, whi ch annul l ed sever al pr evi ous r egul at i ons, Nos.

2000- 15, 2001- 13, and 2001- 24, because t hey r an count er t o t hen-

pr evai l i ng Puer t o Ri co l aw, i ncl udi ng t he mer i t pr i nci pl e. The

r esol ut i on aut hor i zed t he deput y execut i ve di r ect or of PRHTA " t o

- 7-


8/24

t ake t hose measures whi ch ar e l egal l y per t i nent f or t he

t r ansact i ons of per sonnel enacted by t he Hi ghway and

Tr anspor t at i on Aut hor i t y under t he af or esai d Rul i ngs be r evi sed,

cor r ect ed, or annul l ed pur suant t o t he appl i cabl e l aw. "

At Reyes- Or t a' s r equest , an i nf or mal hear i ng r egar di ng

her t er mi nat i on was hel d i n March 2010. The exami ni ng of f i cer

uphel d Hernndez- Gr egorat ' s deci si on t o t er mi nate her because her

appoi nt ment was nul l . Her of f i ci al t er mi nat i on dat e was May 3,

2010.

B. Procedural History

Reyes- Or t a and her husband f i l ed t hi s l awsui t i n May

2011, al l egi ng t hat Def endant s PRHTA, Hernndez- Gr egorat , Gomi l a-

Sant i ago, and Mal donado- Vzquez vi ol at ed t hei r r i ght s under t he

Fi r st and Four t eenth Amendment s and Puer t o Ri co l aw. The

di st r i ct cour t di smi ssed Pl ai nt i f f s' Four t eent h Amendment cl ai ms

and some st at e l aw cl ai ms at t he mot i on t o di smi ss st age. Af t er

sever al r ounds of br i ef i ng at t he summary j udgment st age, t he

di st r i ct cour t di smi ssed Pl ai nt i f f s' Fi r st Amendment cl ai ms and

decl i ned suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on over t he r emai ni ng st at e l aw

cl ai ms.

I n i t s summar y j udgment or der , t he di st r i ct cour t hel d

t hat t he El Nuevo D a i nvest i gat i on, t he st r i ppi ng of j ob

f unct i ons, and t he l oss of Reyes- Or t a' s comput er , "even t aken

t oget her , " di d not const i t ut e "adver se empl oyment act i ons"

- 8-


9/24

because t her e was no evi dence t hat t he El Nuevo D a i nvest i gat i on

was di r ect ed at Reyes- Or t a speci f i cal l y or t hat she was

i nvest i gat ed because of her pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on; t hat

Def endant s changed her j ob dut i es i n any meani ngf ul or

i l l egi t i mate way; or t hat Def endant s caused her comput er

pr obl ems. Reyes- Or t a v. Hi ghway & Transp. Aut h. , No. CI V. 11-

1410 SEC, 2014 WL 4827406, at *5- 8 (D. P. R. Sept . 29, 2014) .

Wi t h r egar d t o Reyes- Or t a' s cl ai m t hat her per sonnel

f i l e was audi t ed and t hat she was t er mi nat ed due t o pol i t i cal

di scr i mi nat i on, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat , even assumi ng

Reyes- Or t a est abl i shed a pr i ma f aci e case, Def endant s had

est abl i shed a Mt . Heal t hy def ense by showi ng t hat t he PRHTA had

even- handedl y audi t ed al l per sonnel f i l es and pl edged to cor r ect

al l past per sonnel t r ansact i ons done under l egal l y i nval i d

r esol ut i ons. The cour t r ej ect ed Reyes- Or t a' s at t empt s t o r ebut

t hi s evi dence wi t h evi dence t hat al l of t he per sonnel t er mi nat ed

as a resul t of t hese audi t s were PDP member s and t hat t he audi t s

began even bef ore Hernndez- Gr egor at i ssued Resol ut i on No. 2010-

01. 1

Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r oneousl y

excl uded some of t hei r exhi bi t s i n eval uat i ng t hei r cl ai ms. They

1The di st r i ct cour t al so hel d t hat Pl ai nt i f f s' 1983 cl ai msagai nst Mal donado- Vzquez wer e t i me- bar r ed and t hat t hei r ci vi lr i ght s conspi r acy cl ai ms agai nst al l of t he Def endant s wer ei nadequat el y pl ed. Reyes- Or t a, 2014 WL 4827406, at *11- 12.Pl ai nt i f f s do not appeal t hese deci si ons.

- 9-


10/24

al so ar gue t hat t he di st r i ct cour t wr ongl y r el i ed on i nadmi ssi bl e

evi dence f r om Def endant s and di scount ed Pl ai nt i f f s' evi dence i n

eval uat i ng Def endant s' Mt . Heal t hy def ense.

We agr ee t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n gr ant i ng

summar y j udgment and t her ef or e r ever se and r emand t he case.

II. Standard of Review

A di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of summary j udgment i s

r evi ewed de novo. Uni t ed St at es ex r el . J ones v. Br i gham &

Women' s Hosp. , 678 F. 3d 72, 83 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . Summar y j udgment

i s proper l y gr ant ed i f t he movant can demonst r at e t hat " t her e i s

no genui ne di sput e as t o any mater i al f act and t hat t he movant i s

ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. " Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( a) .

A "genui ne" di sput e exi st s when a j ur y can r easonabl y i nt er pr et

t he evi dence i n t he non- movant ' s f avor . A "mat er i al " f act i s

"one that mi ght af f ect t he out come of t he sui t under t he

gover ni ng l aw. " Vl ez- Ri ver a v. Agost o- Al i cea, 437 F. 3d 145, 150

( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( quot i ng Mor r i s v. Gov' t Dev. Bank of Puer t o

Ri co, 27 F. 3d 746, 748 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ) .

A pr i ma f aci e pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m has f our

el ement s: " ( 1) t hat t he pl ai nt i f f and def endant have opposi ng

pol i t i cal af f i l i at i ons, ( 2) t hat t he def endant i s awar e of t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s af f i l i at i on, ( 3) t hat an adver se empl oyment acti on

occur r ed, and ( 4) t hat pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on was a subst ant i al or

mot i vat i ng f act or f or t he adver se empl oyment act i on. " Ocasi o-

- 10-


11/24

Her nndez v. For t uo- Bur set , 640 F. 3d 1, 13 ( 1st Ci r . 2011)

( quot i ng Lamboy- Or t i z v. Or t i z- Vl ez, 630 F. 3d 228, 239 ( 1st Ci r .

2010) ) .

I f t he pl ai nt i f f has suf f i ci ent evi dence t o establ i sh a

pr i ma f aci e case, t he bur den then shi f t s t o t he def endant s t o

show t hat " ( i ) t hey woul d have t aken t he same act i on i n any

event ; and ( i i ) t hey woul d have t aken such act i on f or r easons

t hat ar e not unconst i t ut i onal . " Vl ez- Ri ver a, 437 F. 3d at 152

( ci t i ng Mt . Heal t hy Ci t y Sch. Di st . Bd. of Educ. v. Doyl e, 429

U. S. 274, 286- 87 ( 1977) ) . A def endant can def eat l i abi l i t y under

Mt . Heal t hy "by showi ng t hat pl ai nt i f f s' posi t i ons wer e obt ai ned

i n vi ol at i on of Puer t o Ri co l aw and t hat , even i f pol i t i cal

ani mus was a f actor , def endant s woul d have t aken cor r ect i ve

act i on anyway agai nst every empl oyee whose posi t i on was obt ai ned

i n vi ol at i on of l aw. " Sanchez- Lopez v. Fuent es- Puj ol s, 375 F. 3d

121, 131 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ; see al so Reyes- Pr ez v. St at e I ns. Fund

Cor p. , 755 F. 3d 49, 54- 55 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( af f i r mi ng summar y

j udgment i n def endant s' f avor where t he gover nment empl oyer

conduct ed agency- wi de, mer i t - pr i nci pl e audi t s of al l per sonnel ,

not j ust i ndi vi dual s of a par t i cul ar par t y) ; Sot o- Padr v. Pub.

Bl dgs. Aut h. , 675 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( "[ E] ven i f a

pl ai nt i f f shows an i mper mi ssi bl e pol i t i cal mot i ve, he cannot wi n

i f t he empl oyer shows t hat i t woul d have t aken t he same act i on

anyway, say, as par t of a bona f i de r eor gani zat i on. " ) .

- 11-


12/24

Al t hough si mi l ar at f i r st bl ush t o t he f ami l i ar

McDonnel l Dougl as bur den- shi f t i ng scheme used i n Ti t l e VI I and

other empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on cases, 2

Mt . Heal t hy i s di f f er ent .

Under t he t hr ee- st ep McDonnel l Dougl as t est , t he pl ai nt i f f

r et ai ns the bur den of per suasi on at al l t i mes. At t he second

st ep, t he def endant ' s bur den of pr oduct i on i s onl y t o ar t i cul at e

some l egi t i mat e nondi scr i mi nat or y reason f or i t s act i ons; t he

bur den t hen shi f t s back t o t he pl ai nt i f f t o show t hat t he

ar t i cul at ed r eason i s pr et ext ual . However , under Mt . Heal t hy,

t her e i s no t hi r d st ep; t he bur den of per suasi on does not shi f t

back t o t he pl ai nt i f f . To est abl i sh a successf ul Mt . Heal t hy

def ense, i t i s t he def endant ' s r esponsi bi l i t y t o per suade t he

f act f i nder t hat i t woul d have made t he same deci si on even i f t he

i l l egi t i mat e r eason had not been a f act or . 3 See Wel ch v. Ci ampa,

2

See McDonnel l Dougl as Cor p. v. Gr een,

411 U. S. 792, 802- 04( 1973) .

3 Thi s ci r cui t has st at ed t hat , "[ i ] f t he def endant succeeds i ncar r yi ng i t s bur den of per suasi on as t o i t s Mt . Heal t hy def ense,t he pl ai nt i f f may t hen ' di scredi t t he pr of f er ed nondi scri mi nat or yr eason, ei t her ci r cumst ant i al l y or di r ect l y, by adduci ng evi dencet hat di scr i mi nat i on was mor e l i kel y t han not a mot i vat i ng f act or . ' "Reyes- Pr ez, 755 F. 3d at 55 ( quot i ng Padi l l a- Gar c a v. Gui l l er moRodr i guez, 212 F. 3d 69, 77 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ) . Thi s l anguage makesan obvi ous poi nt : i n at t empt i ng t o est abl i sh a Mt . Heal t hy def ense

by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence, t he def endant must over come anyevi dence adduced by t he pl ai nt i f f . I t must not be mi sconst r ued t osay t hat af t er t he def endant has successf ul l y est abl i shed a Mt .Heal t hy def ense, t he bur den of per suasi on shi f t s back t o t hepl ai nt i f f . As we expl ai ned i n Padi l l a- Gar c a:

I n a pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on case, t he pl ai nt i f f maydi scr edi t t he pr of f er ed nondi scr i mi nat or y r eason, ei t herci r cumst ant i al l y or di r ect l y, by adduci ng evi dence t hat

- 12-


13/24

542 F. 3d 927, 941 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ; Padi l l a- Gar c a v. Gui l l er mo

Rodr i guez, 212 F. 3d 69, 77- 78 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) . Because al l

r easonabl e i nf er ences ar e dr awn i n t he non- movant ' s f avor at

summary j udgment , Padi l l a- Gar c a, 212 F. 3d at 73, a def endant

cannot wi n at summar y j udgment unl ess t he onl y r easonabl e

i nt er pr et at i on of t he evi dence i s t hat t he pl ai nt i f f woul d have

been di smi ssed i n any event f or nondi scr i mi natory reasons.

III. Discussion

A. Plaintiffs' Prima Facie Case

We addr ess f i r st t he Pl ai nt i f f s' pr i ma f aci e case. The

f i r st el ement of Pl ai nt i f f s ' pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on cl ai ms ( t he

par t i es havi ng di f f er ent pol i t i cal af f i l i at i ons) not bei ng

di sput ed, we addr ess t he second, t hi r d, and f our t h el ement s i n

turn.

di scr i mi nat i on was mor e l i kel y t han not a mot i vat i ngf act or . I n t hi s way, t he bur den- shi f t i ng mechani sm i ssi gni f i cant l y di f f er ent f r om t he devi ce used i n ot herempl oyment di scr i mi nat i on cont exts, such as Ti t l e VI Icases, wher e a pl ai nt i f f i s r equi r ed t o come f or war d wi t haf f i r mat i ve evi dence t hat t he def endant snondi scri mi nat or y r eason i s pr et ext ual . I n a pol i t i caldi scr i mi nat i on case, t he def endant bear s t he bur den ofper suadi ng t he f act f i nder t hat i t s r eason i s credi bl e.The evi dence by whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f est abl i shed her pr i ma

f aci e case may suf f i ce f or a f act f i nder t o i nf er t hat t hedef endant s r eason i s pr et ext ual and t o ef f ect i vel y checksummar y j udgment .

212 F. 3d at 77- 78 ( ci t at i ons and f oot not e omi t t ed) .

- 13-


14/24

1. Defendants' Knowledge of Reyes-Orta's Political

Affiliation

The pr oof t hat Def endant s knew about Reyes- Or t a' s

pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on i ncl udes: ( 1) Reyes- Or t a' s and Vl ez-

Vl ez' s decl ar at i ons t hat Snchez- Casanova t ol d t hem bet ween

J anuar y and May 2009 t hat Her nndez- Gr egor at was pr essur i ng hi m

t o f i r e PDP members, i ncl udi ng t hem; and ( 2) t he Sept ember 2,

2009 l et t er Reyes- Or t a sent t o Her nndez- Gr egorat , Gomi l a-

Sant i ago, and Mal donado- Vzquez, among ot her s, compl ai ni ng about

Mal donado- Vzquez' s pol i t i cal comment s to her . Def endant s obj ect

t hat t he l et t er di d not af f i r mat i vel y st at e t hat Reyes- Or t a was a

PDP member , and t hat Reyes- Or t a l acks per sonal knowl edge of

whet her t he r eci pi ent s act ual l y r ead t he l et t er .

Readi ng t he r ecor d i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he

Pl ai nt i f f s ( even st r i ki ng t he Vl ez- Vl ez decl ar at i on, as t he

di str i ct cour t di d) , 4 i t i s r easonabl e t o i nf er t hat , gi ven t he

4 The di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s di scr et i on i n st r i ki ngVl ez- Vl ez' s decl ar at i on. The di st r i ct cour t gave a number ofr easons f or doi ng so: ( 1) Vl ez- Vl ez had not been announced as awi t ness f or t he Pl ai nt i f f s; ( 2) t he st at ement was made sol el y tocr eat e an i ssue of f act t o sur vi ve summar y j udgment , ci t i ng Or t a-Cast r o v. Merck, Sharp & Dohme Qu mi ca P. R. , I nc. , 447 F. 3d 105,110 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ; ( 3) her st at ement l acked f oundat i on; and ( 4)

her s t at ement const i t ut ed i nadmi ssi bl e hear say. The f i r st gr oundi s suf f i ci ent to j ust i f y t he di str i ct cour t ' s deci si on. UnderFeder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 37( c) ( 1) ,

I f a par t y f ai l s t o pr ovi de i nf or mat i on or i dent i f y awi t ness as r equi r ed by Rul e 26( a) or ( e) , t he par t y i snot al l owed t o use that i nf or mat i on or wi t ness t o suppl y

- 14-


15/24

mul t i pl e r ef er ences i n t he l et t er t o Mal donado- Vzquez' s

knowl edge that Reyes- Or t a was a PDP member , a r easonabl e r eader

woul d have under st ood Reyes- Or t a t o be af f i l i at ed wi t h the PDP.

As f or whet her Def endant s r ecei ved t he l et t er , Reyes- Or t a

t est i f i ed t hat she per sonal l y handed copi es of t he l et t er t o

Her nndez- Gr egor at ' s and Gomi l a- Sant i ago' s secr et ar i es and t o the

r ecept i oni st at Mal donado- Vzquez' s of f i ce. I t i s r easonabl e t o

i nf er f r om her t est i mony that Def endant s r ecei ved t hose copi es,

especi al l y wi t hout count er - evi dence t hat t hey di d not . See

Cashmer e & Camel Hai r Mf r s. I nst . v. Saks Fi f t h Ave. , 284 F. 3d

evi dence on a mot i on, at a hear i ng, or at a t r i al , unl esst he f ai l ur e was subst ant i al l y j ust i f i ed or i s har ml ess.

Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t hi s sanct i on i s not war r ant ed because ( 1)Def endant s deposed Vl ez- Vl ez i n her own pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i onl awsui t agai nst t hem, and she t est i f i ed t her e t o t he same f act s she

st at ed i n her decl ar at i on; and ( 2) i n t hei r r esponses t oDef endant s' i nt er r ogat or i es, Pl ai nt i f f s ment i oned Vl ez- Vl ez as awi t ness t o an al l eged di scr i mi natory st at ement by Her nndez-Gr egor at . Pl ai nt i f f s di d not make t hese ar gument s t o t he di st r i ctcour t and t her ef or e, we need not consi der t hem on appeal . SeeCochr an v. Quest Sof t war e, I nc. , 328 F. 3d 1, 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) .Even i f we wer e t o consi der t he ar gument s on the mer i t s, t hey ar eunper suasi ve. Cl ose r evi ew of t he docket s i n Reyes- Or t a' s andVl ez- Vl ez' s r espect i ve cases shows t hat Vl ez- Vl ez' s deposi t i ondi d not t ake pl ace unt i l di scover y had al r eady cl osed and t hemot i on f or summary j udgment was al r eady f i l ed i n Reyes- Or t a' s case,l eavi ng Def endant s no oppor t uni t y t o exami ne Vl ez- Vl ez aboutReyes- Or t a' s case. Pl ai nt i f f s' i nt er r ogat or y r esponse ment i oni ngVl ez- Vl ez di d not gi ve Def endant s not i ce t hat Vl ez- Vl ez mi ghtknow somet hi ng about Sanchez- Casanova. Si nce i t i s not cl ear t hatt he f ai l ur e t o di scl ose was subst ant i al l y j ust i f i ed or har ml ess,t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s di scr et i on i n st r i ki ng t heVl ez- Vl ez decl ar at i on and i t s deci si on must be af f i r med.

- 15-


16/24

302, 316 n. 14 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( f i ndi ng i t r easonabl e t o i nf er

t hat def endant r ecei ved a f axed l et t er even t hough he test i f i ed

he was not sur e i f he r ecei ved i t or not ) . Thus, t hi s ar gument

i s al so r ej ect ed, and we hol d t hat Pl ai nt i f f s had suf f i ci ent

evi dence to sust ai n a f i ndi ng t hat Def endant s wer e aware of

Reyes- Or t a' s PDP af f i l i at i on.

2. Adverse Employment Action

The di st r i ct cour t and par t i es spend a gr eat deal of

t i me di scussi ng whet her Reyes- Or t a suf f er ed any adver se

empl oyment act i ons shor t of di smi ssal . Thi s i s somewhat

academi c. Si nce i t i s undi sput ed t hat Reyes- Or t a was t er mi nated,

and that t er mi nat i on i s an adver se empl oyment act i on, Reyes- Or t a

can pr oceed wi t h her Fi r st Amendment cl ai m based on her

t er mi nat i on whet her or not t he act i ons l eadi ng up t o t he

t ermi nat i on were adver se empl oyment act i ons. And even i f t hey

wer e not adver se empl oyment act i ons, t hey coul d st i l l be br ought

out at t r i al as evi dence t hat her f i nal t er mi nat i on was mot i vat ed

by pol i t i cal ani mus.

That sai d, because Pl ai nt i f f s have ur ged t hr oughout

t hi s l i t i gat i on t hat cer t ai n act i ons t aken agai nst Reyes- Or t a

bef or e di smi ssal ar e i ndependent l y act i onabl e as adver se

- 16-


17/24

empl oyment act i ons, we t ake t he t i me here t o expl ai n why we

r ever se t he di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of summar y j udgment on t hi s

poi nt .

"Act i ons shor t of di smi ssal or demot i on, i ncl udi ng

deni al s of pr omot i ons, t r ansf er s, and f ai l ur es t o r ecal l af t er

l ayof f , can const i t ut e adver se empl oyment act i ons" i f t he

act i ons, f r om an obj ect i ve per spect i ve, make an empl oyee' s wor k

si t uat i on "unr easonabl y i nf er i or " t o t he nor m f or hi s or her

posi t i on, pl aci ng "subst ant i al pr essur e on even one of t hi ck ski n

t o conf or m t o t he pr evai l i ng pol i t i cal vi ew. " Rodr guez- Gar c a

v. Mi r anda- Mar n, 610 F. 3d 756, 766 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( quot i ng

Agost o- de- Fel i ci ano v. Apont e- Roque, 889 F. 2d 1209, 1218 ( 1st

Ci r . 1989) ( en banc) , 5 and Ber geron v. Cabr al , 560 F. 3d 1, 8 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) , abr ogat ed on ot her gr ounds by Mal donado v. Font anes,

568 F. 3d 263 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ) . To det er mi ne whet her changes i n a

wor k si t uat i on ar e "suf f i ci ent l y sever e t o war r ant t he

' unr easonabl y i nf er i or ' descr i pt i on - - t he f actf i nder shoul d

canvass t he speci f i c ways i n whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f ' s j ob has

5 As t hi s ci r cui t has st at ed bef or e, "Ther e i s some quest i on as t ot he cont i nui ng vi t al i t y of Agost o- De- Fel i ci ano i n l i ght of t heSupr eme Cour t ' s r ul i ng i n Rut an v. Republ i can Par t y of I l l i noi s,497 U. S. 62 ( 1990) . Because we concl ude, however , t hat t here exi stsuf f i ci ent genui ne and mat er i al f act ual di sput es t o war r ant a t r i aleven under t he ar guabl y mor e st r i ngent st andar d set f or t h i nAgost o- De- Fel i ci ano, we do not r each t hi s i ssue. " Ri ver a- Rui z v.Gonzal ez- Ri ver a, 983 F. 2d 332, 335 n. 1 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) .

- 17-


18/24

changed. " Agost o- de- Fel i ci ano, 889 F. 2d at 1218. The pl ai nt i f f

must pr ove by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence that her new r ol e i s

"unr easonabl y i nf er i or t o what t he j ob i s supposed t o be. " I d.

at 1220.

Her e, Reyes- Or t a al l eges i n her unswor n decl ar at i on

t hat t he f ol l owi ng were adver se empl oyment act i ons:

( 1) She was pr event ed f r om at t endi ng meet i ngs r el at ed t o

her j ob dut i es and repr esent i ng Gomi l a- Sant i ago and

Hernndez- Gr egorat at meet i ngs;

( 2) Gomi l a- Sant i ago "gave expr ess i nst r uct i ons t hat al l

[ personnel appoi ntment ] assessment s had t o be consul t ed

and per f ormed by her of f i ce" and t hat , once Reyes- Or t a

compl ai ned, Gomi l a- Sant i ago "began t o out sour ce t he

per sonnel speci al i zed st udy whi ch [ Reyes- Or t a] was

supposed t o super vi se";

( 3) Gomi l a- Sant i ago st r i pped Reyes- Or t a of her capaci t y t o

"assi gn speci al st udi es t o [ her ] of f i ce per sonnel " and

she was "pr event ed f r om col l abor at i ng wi t h" t he co-

Def endants;

( 4) Gomi l a- Sant i ago i mpl ement ed an addi t i onal scr eeni ng

mechani sm f or changes i n payr ol l wi t hout Reyes- Or t a' s

consent , whi ch sl owed down some of t he wor k i n her

di vi s i on;

- 18-


19/24

( 5) Reyes- Or t a was i nt ent i onal l y depr i ved of t he use of her

comput er , t he use of whi ch was i mpor t ant t o her j ob;

and

( 6) Gomi l a- Sant i ago moved cer t ai n per sonnel f i l es t hat wer e

pr evi ousl y under Reyes- Or t a' s super vi si on t o her own

of f i ce and condi t i oned access t o t he f i l es on wr i t t en

r equest and physi cal t r ansf er f r om her secr et ar y.

The di st r i ct cour t di sr egar ded evi dence of some of t hese act i ons,

Reyes- Or t a, 2014 WL 4827406, at *7 n. 7 ( ci t i ng Or t a- Cast r o v.

Merck, Sharp & Dohme Qu mi ca P. R. , I nc. , 447 F. 3d 105, 110 (1st

Ci r . 2006) , among other s) , and det er mi ned t hat t he other s di d not

const i t ut e an adver se empl oyment act i on, ei t her i ndi vi dual l y or

col l ect i vel y, i d. at *8.

As a pr el i mi nar y mat t er , t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s

di scr et i on i n st r i ki ng par agr aphs 15- 17, 19- 22, and 27- 28 of

Reyes- Or t a' s unswor n decl ar at i on as cont r adi ct or y t o her

deposi t i on t est i mony. Those par agr aphs wer e consi st ent wi t h

Reyes- Or t a' s deposi t i on t est i mony and her wr i t t en r esponses t o

Def endant s' i nt er r ogat or i es. The di st r i ct cour t t hus shoul d have

consi der ed t he f ul l l i st of adver se act i ons al l eged by Reyes-

Or t a.

We do agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t her e i s

l i t t l e evi dence t hat Def endant s wer e r esponsi bl e f or t he comput er

- 19-


20/24

pr obl ems, gi ven t hat Reyes- Or t a' s comput er i ssues st ar t ed bef or e

Gomi l a- Sant i ago became the di r ect or of human r esour ces and Reyes-

Or t a admi t t edl y di d not f ol l ow t he pr oper st eps t o get a new

comput er . Ther e i s al so l i t t l e evi dence f r om whi ch t o det er mi ne

whet her some of t he dut i es t aken away f r om Reyes- Or t a, i . e. ,

at t endi ng meet i ngs, super vi si ng the speci al i zed per sonnel st udy,

const i t ut ed a si gni f i cant por t i on of what her j ob dut i es wer e

supposed t o be. However , gi ven Reyes- Or t a' s cont ent i on t hat t he

per sonnel f i l es r emoved f r om her of f i ce wer e her "pr i mar y t ool

f or exer ci si ng [ her ] dut i es, " and t hat she used t hem "dai l y, "

t her e i s suf f i ci ent evi dence t o f i nd t hat at l east one of t he

al l eged act i ons was an adver se empl oyment act i on.

Fur t her , when t hese act i ons are consi der ed t oget her , a

j ur y coul d r at i onal l y concl ude t hat t he cumul at i ve l oss of j ob

f unct i ons const i t ut ed an adver se empl oyment act i on.

Consequent l y, we r everse and r emand f or t he j ur y t o determi ne

whet her t he adver se empl oyment act i on el ement was met i n t hi s

case.

3. Causation

Evi dence t hat Def endant s' act i ons agai nst Reyes- Or t a

wer e pol i t i cal l y mot i vat ed i ncl udes: ( 1) Mal donado- Vzquez' s

st at ement s t o her dur i ng t he El Nuevo D a i nvest i gat i on;

- 20-


21/24

( 2) Snchez- Casanova' s war ni ngs t hat she shoul d be "car ef ul " ;

( 3) Snchez- Casanova' s si mi l ar st at ement s t o Vl ez- Vl ez;

( 4) Reyes- Or t a' s decl ar at i on t hat al l t he empl oyees f i r ed as a

r esul t of t he audi t were PDP members; and ( 5) t he t emporal

pr oxi mi t y between t he change i n admi ni st r at i on ( J anuary 2009) ,

t he El Nuevo D a i nvest i gat i on ( Apr i l - Sept ember 2009) , and t he

audi t l eadi ng t o her t er mi nat i on ( st ar t i ng somet i me bef or e

December 2009) . Agai n, even wi t h t he Vl ez- Vl ez st at ement s

st r i cken, t he r est of t he evi dence, t aken t oget her , r ai ses an

i nf er ence t hat Def endant s' act i ons wer e pol i t i cal l y mot i vat ed.

4. Conclusion

Reyes- Or t a made out a pr i ma f aci e case of pol i t i cal

di scri mi nat i on.

B. Defendants' Mt. Healthy Defense

We now t ur n t o t he Def endant s' Mt . Heal t hy def ense.

The key i nqui r y at summar y j udgment i s whether Def endant s can

show - - wi t h al l r easonabl e i nf er ences drawn i n Reyes- Or t a' s

f avor - - t hat t hey had a l awf ul r eason t o t er mi nat e her , t hat

t hey woul d have used t hat l awf ul r eason t o t er mi nat e her even i f

her pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on had not been a f actor , and t hat t her e

i s no genui ne di sput e of mat er i al f act on t hese i ssues.

Here, assumi ng wi t hout deci di ng t hat Def endant s had a

l awf ul r eason t o t er mi nat e Reyes- Or t a ( ei t her because she

- 21-


22/24

commi t t ed f r aud t o get her i ni t i al posi t i on at PRHTA or because

her t r ansf er - pr omot i on vi ol at ed Puer t o Ri co l aw) , 6 summar y

j udgment was not appr opr i at e because t here i s a genui ne di sput e

of mater i al f act as t o whet her Def endant s woul d have ter mi nat ed

her absent pol i t i cal f actor s.

Def endant s i nt r oduced evi dence t hat al l PRHTA personnel

wer e t o be audi t ed pur suant t o Resol ut i on No. 2010- 01, and t hat ,

as of December 28, 2011, f i f t y- t hr ee empl oyees were audi t ed, wi t h

f or t y- f our havi ng r ecei ved i nt ent i on t o t er mi nat e l et t er s. Of

t hese, el even empl oyees had act ual l y been t ermi nat ed. Def endant s

pr ovi ded no i nf or mat i on about t he pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on of t hese

empl oyees. Pl ai nt i f f s i nt r oduced evi dence t hat t he audi t

actual l y began bef ore Resol ut i on No. 2010- 01 was i ssued i n

J anuar y 2010, t hat onl y t en empl oyees wer e t er mi nat ed as a r esul t

of t he audi t , and t hat al l wer e PDP member s, Pl ai nt i f f s al so have

evi dence of comments by Mal donado- Vzquez and Snchez- Casanova

t hat Reyes- Or t a woul d be f i r ed because of her PDP af f i l i at i on.

Thi s evi dence i s suf f i ci ent t o cr eat e a genui ne di sput e

as t o whet her Def endant s woul d have f i r ed Reyes- Or t a r egardl ess

of her pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on. On t he one hand, t her e i s no

6 Because we do not addr ess t he l egal i t y of Reyes- Or t a' st er mi nat i on under Puer t o Ri co l aw, we do not addr ess t he di st r i ctcour t ' s evi dent i ar y rul i ngs r egar di ng t he 2004 audi t r epor t byEncar naci n and t he 2009 audi t r epor t by I r i s Azal i a- Ocasi o, whi chgo onl y t o t hat i ssue.

- 22-


23/24

evi dence t hat Def endant s appl i ed t he audi t i n a di scr i mi nat or y

manner , si nce t he PRHTA pur por t ed to audi t "al l PRHTA per sonnel , "

whi ch pr esumabl y i ncl udes bot h PDP and NPP member s. Evi dence of

t he audi t ' s di spar at e i mpact i s not suf f i ci ent by i t sel f t o r ebut

a Mt . Heal t hy def ense. Vl ez- Ri ver a, 437 F. 3d at 154. However ,

t he audi t began i n a pol i t i ci zed at mospher e, i l l ust r at ed by

Snchez- Casanova and Mal donado- Vzquez' s comment s t o Reyes- Or t a

dur i ng t he El Nuevo D a l eak i nvest i gat i on. The t i mi ng of t he

agency' s deci si on t o pur sue t er mi nat i on agai nst Reyes- Or t a i s

al so somewhat suspi ci ous, as she was audi t ed t wi ce bef ore and

nothi ng was done unt i l Def endant s per cei ved her t o be i nvol ved i n

a l eak of a pol i t i cal nat ur e ( a PDP l egi sl at or exposi ng NPP

excesses t o El Nuevo D a) . Def endant s do not make any ar gument

t hat t hey act ed agai nst Reyes- Or t a on t he bel i ef t hat she was

r esponsi bl e f or t he l eak. A j ur y coul d r easonabl y i nf er f r om

t hese f act s t hat Reyes- Or t a woul d not have been t ermi nat ed but

f or Def endant s' pol i t i cal ani mus. Accor di ngl y, t he di st r i ct

cour t er r ed i n grant i ng summar y j udgment based on Def endants' Mt .

Heal t hydef ense.

IV. Conclusion

For t he above r easons, we r ever se t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

gr ant of summary j udgment on Pl ai nt i f f s' Fi r st Amendment cl ai ms

and r emand f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o rei nst at e t he Puer t o Ri co

- 23-


24/24

l aw cl ai ms t hat i t di smi ssed i n i t s summar y j udgment or der , see

Fer nndez- Sal i cr up v. Fi gueroa- Sancha, 790 F. 3d 312, 328 ( 1st

Ci r . 2015) , and t o conduct f ur t her pr oceedi ngs i n har mony wi t h

t hi s or der .

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Reyes-Orta v. Highway and Transportation, 1st Cir. (2016)

Documents