Caraballo-Rivera v. Garcia-Padilla
| Decision Date | 03 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 14-1435 (DRD) |
| Parties | ALEXIS CARABALLO-RIVERA, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. HON. ALEJANDRO GARCIA-PADILLA, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Plaintiffs Alexis Caraballo-Rivera, Hector M. Vazquez-Garcia, Doroteo Sanchez-Cruz, Daniel Valentin-Garcia, Carlos J. Pacheco-Estrada, Luis A. Perez-Bernard, and Roberto Velez-Garcia (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a Complaint (Docket No. 1) on May 29, 2014 against Hon. Alejandro Garcia-Padilla, Harold Gonzalez-Rosado, and Arturo Gonzalez (collectively, "Defendants"), all in their official and personal capacities, alleging political discrimination. Plaintiffs brought this action under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; Puerto Rico Law No. 131 of 1943, 1 L.P.R.A. §§ 13-19; Puerto Rico Law No. 100 of 1959, 29 L.P.R.A. § 146, et seq.; Puerto Rico Law 80 of 1976, 29 L.P.R.A. § 185a, et seq.; Articles 1802 and 1803 of the Civil Code, 31 L.P.R.A. §5141-5142; and Sections 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 of Article II of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.1
On September 30, 2015, the Court entered an Opinion and Order (Docket No. 28) addressing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Court dismissed all federal and state law claims against former defendant, Governor Alejandro Garcia-Padilla, with prejudice and dismissed Plaintiffs Vazquez-Garcia, Velez-Garcia, and Perez-Bernard's First Amendment political discrimination claims with prejudice.
Defendants filed a Joint Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 61) on December 27, 2016. Defendants posit the Court should dismiss all claims pending against them on several grounds. First, Defendants argued the Plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie claims for political discrimination or for First Amendment retaliation. Defendants then averred Plaintiffs' dismissals were justified due to their unsatisfactory performance and legal pursuant to the Mt. Healthy doctrine. In the alternative, Defendants sought entitlement to the changeover and qualified immunity defenses. Finally, Defendants argued the Plaintiffs did not have a valid Fourteenth Amendment due process claim because all Plaintiffs were "trust employees under the applicable regulations.2
Plaintiffs duly opposed Defendants' motion on February 20, 2017. See Docket No. 69. Plaintiffs pointed to evidence on the record, which established the required elements of both Section 1983 claims and, in the alternative, argued there were genuine issues of material fact that precluded the entry of summary judgment. Additionally, Plaintiffs asseverated Defendants were not entitled to the changeover defense nor qualified immunity and that, despite their classification as "trust" employees, they were entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protections. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion.
Plaintiff Sanchez-Cruz has been an employee at the Governor's Mansion ("La Fortaleza") since November 16, 2009, when he was hired as an Administrative Assistant II. ¶1. On November 1, 2010,Plaintiff Sanchez-Cruz was named Maintenance and Conservation Supervisor. ¶4. On February 16, 2012, Plaintiff Sanchez-Cruz was named Technical Assistant. ¶6. La Fortaleza classifies all three of the aforementioned positions, including the Technical Assistant position, as a "trust" or "confidential" positions. Id. In all three positions, Plaintiff Sanchez-Cruz worked in the motor pool area of La Fortaleza. ¶2. The motor pool area includes the storage house, the parking, and the woodshop. Id.
Prior to his termination, Plaintiff Sanchez-Cruz was repairing a fan in La Fortaleza's Rattan Room, a room that is roughly four-hundred square feet. ¶¶ 8, 11. While Plaintiff Sanchez-Cruz worked, former Governor Alejandro Garcia-Padilla and Secretary of Public Affairs, Jorge Colberg-Toro, entered the room. ¶9. Governor Garcia-Padilla ordered Plaintiff Sanchez-Cruz and his maintenance crew to continue working while the two men spoke. ¶10; see also Docket No. 69, Exhibit 1, ¶5 (Plaintiff's Objections to DSMUF).
Plaintiff Sanchez-Cruz received his termination letter, signed by Defendant Harold Gonzalez-Rosado, on May 31, 2013. ¶¶ 12, 13, 14. Plaintiff Sanchez-Cruz's termination was effective immediately. Id. Plaintiff never discussed partisan politics with Defendant Harold Gonzalez-Rosado, nor did he tell Defendant Harold Gonzalez-Rosado that he was a member of the New Progressive Party ("NPP"). ¶¶ 15, 17.4
Plaintiff Pacheco-Estrada began working at La Fortaleza on December 16, 2011. ¶18. Plaintiff Pacheco-Estrada first worked as a driver, a trust position. Id. At the time of his termination, however, Plaintiff Pacheco-Estrada served as an electrician at La Fortaleza, where he dealt with electricity-related issues and assisted his maintenance coworkers with related issues. ¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. Plaintiff Pacheco-Estrada's office was located at La Fortaleza's storage room, near the motor pool. ¶29.
Plaintiff Pacheco-Estrada primarily worked inside the Governor's residence within La Fortaleza, but also worked outside La Fortaleza. ¶ 24, 30. During former Governor Luis Fortuño's term, Plaintiff Pacheco-Estrada entered the Governor's residence on over ten occasions, coinciding with former Governor Fortuño on three occasions. ¶¶ 25, 27. Plaintiff Pacheco-Estrada entered the Governor's residence approximately twice during Governor Garcia-Padilla's term. ¶31.
Plaintiff Pacheco-Estrada received his termination letter, signed by Defendant Harold Gonzalez-Rosado, on May 31, 2013. ¶31. Plaintiff Pacheco-Estrada's termination was effective immediately. Id. Plaintiff Pacheco-Estrada never directly expressed he was an NPP supported to Defendants Arturo Gonzalez-Perez or Harold Gonzalez-Rosado, nor did either Defendant ask Plaintiff Pacheco-Estrada directly about his affiliations or express their own political inclinations to Plaintiff Pacheco-Estrada. ¶¶ 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39.
Plaintiff Valentin-Garcia was hired on April 1, 2009 to serve as a Maintenance and Conservation worker at La Fortaleza. ¶40. La Fortaleza classified the position as one of "trust." Id. Plaintiff Valentin-Garcia worked in all of La Fortaleza's buildings, and sometimes saw former Governors Fortuño and Garcia-Padilla. ¶¶ 43, 44, 45.
Plaintiff Valentin-Garcia's relationship with Defendants Harold Gonzalez-Rosado and Arturo Gonzalez-Perez was work-related, not personal, and Plaintiff Valentin-Garcia never interacted with Defendants outside of work. ¶¶ 48, 49, 50, 54. Plaintiff Valentin-Garcia similarly did not have conversations with Defendants regarding his or their political affiliations and has no personal knowledge about whether Defendants know his political affiliation or about Defendant's own political affiliations. ¶¶ 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65.
Plaintiff Valentin-Garcia was terminated on May 31, 2013. ¶41. Plaintiff Valentin-Garcia has no personal knowledge about whether his termination from La Fortaleza was politically motivated. ¶66.
On February 2, 20014, Plaintiff Vazquez-Garcia was hired in La Fortaleza to work as a Conservation worker. ¶67. La Fortaleza classifies said position as one of "trust." Id. Plaintiff Vazquez-Garcia testified that Defendant Arturo Gonzalez-Perez told him, in the presence of two other plaintiffs, that they were going to get rid of NPP-supporting employees. ¶73. Plaintiff Vazquez-Garcia told Defendant Arturo Gonzalez-Perez that he was not going to participate in the elimination of the NPP supporters in La Fortaleza. ¶74. On May 31, 2013, a human resources official handed Plaintiff Vazquez-Garcia a termination letter signed by Defendant Harold Gonzalez-Rosado. ¶70. Plaintiff Vazquez-Garcia's termination was effective immediately. ¶69. Plaintiff Vazquez-Garcia has no personal knowledge of whether he was replaced after termination. ¶72.
Plaintiff Perez-Bernard had worked as a Skilled Worker at La Fortaleza since February 2, 2004. ¶75. La Fortaleza classifies said position as a "trust" position. Id. Plaintiff Perez-Bernard worked in all areas of La Fortaleza. ¶¶ 79, 80, 81. During the week, Plaintiff Perez-Bernard often worked in rooms that were occupied by La Fortaleza's staff, including Directors. ¶¶ 82, 83. During these instances, Plaintiff Perez-Bernard often could hear employees having work-related conversations. ¶84.
Plaintiff Perez-Bernard was present when Defendant Arturo Gonzalez-Perez instructed the PDP-affiliated Plaintiffs to refrain from assigning work to those affiliated with the NPP. ¶90. Plaintiff Perez-Bernard did not agree to freeze-out the NPP supporters and expressed that the maintenance workers were like a family. ¶91. Plaintiff Perez-Bernard received his termination latter, signed by Defendant Harold Gonzalez-Rosado, on May 31, 2013. ¶87. Plaintiff Perez-Bernard's termination was effective immediately. ¶85, 86.
Plaintiff Velez-Garcia became a Maintenance and Conservation Worker, a "trust" position, at La Fortaleza on August 6, 2001. ¶¶ 92, 93. Plaintiff Velez-Garcia worked all throughout La Fortaleza, including within the Governor's residence, and the surrounding grounds. ¶96. In total, Plaintiff Velez-Garcia entered the executive mansion approximately ten times in 2012. ¶97. The Governor at the time, Luis Fortuño, was present on approximately six occasions. ¶98.
Plaintiffs Velez-Garcia and Valentin-Garcia once spent five days constructing a closet to conceal wiring...
To continue reading
Request your trial