Aviles Martinez v. Jimenez Monroig, Civ. No. 87-1387 (JP).

• Decision Date: 28 May 1991
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 87-1387 (JP).
• Parties: Francisco AVILES MARTINEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Guillermo JIMENEZ MONROIG, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

764 F. Supp. 240

Francisco AVILES MARTINEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Guillermo JIMENEZ MONROIG, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 87-1387 (JP).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

May 28, 1991.

Frank Rodríguez García, Ponce, P.R., for plaintiffs.

Pedro A. Del Valle Ferrer, Dept. of Justice of P.R., San Juan, P.R., for defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

PIERAS, District Judge.

The Court has before it the parties cross-motions for summary judgment. This is a civil rights action for damages and injunctive relief based upon claims of political discrimination. Federal jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Both plaintiffs further invoke this Court's pendent jurisdiction over alleged violations of Puerto Rico's Constitution and local statutes.

Plaintiffs, both members of Puerto Rico's New Progressive Party (the "PNP")¹, claim that they have been subjected to political persecution at their place of employment, the Ponce office of the Automobile Accident Compensation Administration ("AACA") by defendants Guillermo Jiménez Monroig (the Ponce Regional Manager of AACA and the plaintiffs' immediate supervisor), and Carmen Rivera Vázquez (Deputy Executive Director of AACA) (both members of Puerto Rico's Popular Democratic Party "PDP"), on account of their political affiliation. Plaintiff Francisco Avilés Martínez, at all times relevant to this case, has and continues to be the Deputy Manager of the Ponce AACA office. For the reasons stated herein the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted, and the plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment must be denied.

I. THE FACTS

Avilés specifically details instances where defendant Jiménez was allegedly responsible for the following harassment: his telephone was disconnected; his desk was taken away; he was relieved of some of his duties as Deputy Manager; he was assigned menial tasks; he was assigned overly burdensome tasks; he was not invited to a number of office meetings; he was excluded from some office training sessions; and he was prohibited from receiving outside calls. Avilés seeks compensatory damages for the political harassment the defendants allegedly engaged in, and injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from continuing to engage in such persecution.

Plaintiff Manuel A. Flores Colón claims that the defendants' pattern of political discrimination resulted in a constructive discharge from his position as Supervisor of the Ponce Office. Flores contends that the following behavior is equivalent to a constructive discharge: defendant Jiménez replaced his desk with a smaller desk; Jiménez placed his belongings in a cardboard box; Jiménez subjected him to ridicule on a daily basis which led to an emotional crisis which prevented him from working; defendant Rivera granted him a six-month leave of absence without pay because of his mental disturbance, but the leave was not extended for an additional six months as the plaintiff requested; defendant Rivera then gave Flores the option of returning to the same working conditions immediately or being terminated unfavorably; the plaintiff then chose to resign under force. Flores requests reinstatement, backpay and compensatory damages.

The defendants Guillermo Jiménez Monroig (the Ponce Regional Manager of AACA and the plaintiffs' immediate supervisor) and Carmen M. Rivera Vázquez (Deputy Executive Director of AACA) allege that the plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; that they did not discriminate against the plaintiffs based upon their political affiliation; and that in addition they are released from liability based upon the qualified immunity doctrine.

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion for summary judgment is appropriate when:

The pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Brennan v. Hendrigan, 888 F.2d 189, 191 (1st Cir.1989); see e.g., Medina-Muñoz v. R.J. Reynolds, 896 F.2d 5 (1st Cir.1990). A "genuine" issue is one that is dispositive, and must therefore be decided at trial. Mack v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 871 F.2d 179, 181 (1st Cir.1989); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2509-10, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A "material" fact is one which affects the outcome of the suit and must be resolved before attending to related legal issues. Mack v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 871 F.2d at 181.

Essentially, Rule 56(e) mandates that summary judgment be entered against a party who fails to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Thus, the burden is first on the movant, to show "that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. at 2554. Thereafter, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to establish the existence of a genuine material issue. Brennan v. Hendrigan, 888 F.2d at 191. The nonmovant, however, cannot rest upon mere allegation or denial of the pleadings. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.

Although the parties in this case have filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of liability,² such motions "are not ordinarily to be treated as the equivalent of submission upon an agreed-upon record." Wiley v. American Greetings Corp., 762 F.2d 139, 140 (1st Cir.1985). Cross-motions for summary judgment

are no more than a claim by each side that it alone is entitled to summary judgment, and the making of such inherently contradictory claims does not constitute an agreement that if one is rejected the other is necessarily justified or that the losing party waives judicial consideration and determination whether genuine issues of material fact exist. If any such issue exists it must be disposed of by a plenary trial and not on summary judgment.

Id. at 140-41 (citation omitted). In the instant case, there are no genuine issues of material fact which require a plenary trial. An application of the law of political discrimination mandates that the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted as it pertains to Avilés, and that the plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment be denied with regard to Avilés' claims.

III. THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DOCTRINE

The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates government actors in their exercise of discretionary powers, from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not abridge clearly established federal rights about which a reasonably prudent official should have been aware. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038-39, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

The qualified immunity inquiry logically begins with identification of the right at issue and proceeds to place that right in historical perspective. If the right allegedly violated was "clearly established" when the challenged conduct took place, then the defendants should reasonably have been cognizant of it. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738. In this context, the phrase "clearly established" has a special condition: "The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).

Amsden v. Morán, 904 F.2d 748, 752 (1st Cir.1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 713, 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991). It is important to note that the qualified immunity doctrine only insulates government officials from civil liability, not injunctive relief. "Hence, defendants' right to summary judgment on the injunction demand depends upon what the substantive law really (and currently) is, not upon what the defendants might then reasonably have thought it." Newman v. Burgin, 930 F.2d 955, 957 (1st Cir.1991).

It is now clearly established that, except in situations where political orientation may be a constitutionally appropriate criterion for employment decision making, it is an impermissible infringement on employees' First Amendment rights to base promotions, transfers and lesser acts of retaliation upon an employee's political affiliation. Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, ___ U.S. ___, ___ n. 8, 110 S.Ct. 2729, 2737 n. 8, 111 L.Ed.2d 52, 67 n. 8 (1990) (express extension of the Elrod-Branti³ rule to promotion, transfer, recall, hiring decisions and patronage practices that would lead a reasonable person to resign). The First Circuit has unequivocally stated that it was unclear in the 1985-1989 time frame that the Constitution prohibited politically motivated demotions, and hence other patronage practices short of actual dismissal. Roque-Rodríguez v. Moya, 926 F.2d 103, 108 (1st Cir.1991). The instant case was filed on October 14, 1987, with allegations of political discrimination originating in 1986 when defendant Jiménez commenced his employment as AACA's Ponce Regional Manager. As the challenged patronage practices were not clearly established as violations of federal law when the conduct was allegedly committed, the doctrine of qualified immunity insulates the defendants from civil liability.

The defendants are also immune from plaintiff Flores' request for a back pay award. Lenea v. Lane, 882 F.2d 1171, 1179 (7th Cir.1989) explains that qualified immunity bars the award of back pay relief because "regardless of what label is placed on the monetary relief which Lenea the plaintiff wants, `equitable' or `legal damages,' it remains a personal monetary award out of the official's own pocket." The rationale for according government officials qualified immunity is two-fold: 1) to keep a fear of the threat of personal liability from deterring...