Cruz v. Puerto Rico Planning Bd.
| Decision Date | 31 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIV. NO. 14-1016(PG) |
| Parties | DAVID CRUZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. PUERTO RICO PLANNING BOARD, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Before the court is defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 62), plaintiffs' opposition (Docket No. 81) and defendants' reply thereto (Docket No. 70). For the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the defendants' motion.
January 9, 2014, plaintiffs David Cruz ("Cruz"), Wanda Miranda ("Miranda") and their Conjugal Partnership filed the above-captioned complaint against defendants the Puerto Rico Planning Board ("PRPB"), the Puerto Rico Developmental Disabilities Council (PRDDC or "Council"),1 Myrianne Roa2 ("Roa"), Magdalena Vazquez ("Vazquez"), and Luis Garcia-Pelatti ("Garcia-Pelatti"), in their official and individual capacities. According to the complaint, plaintiffs were employees of the PRDDC and were both affiliated with the New Progressive Party ("NPP"). Cruz was the Executive Director at the PRDDC, and his wife, plaintiff Miranda, held the position of Confidential Secretary I. Miranda was appointed to thisposition as part of a reasonable accommodation in favor of Cruz insofar as he has been blind since he was sixteen years old.
Co-defendant Garcia-Pelatti was the President of the PRPB at all relevant times herein. Garcia-Pelatti was appointed to this position by Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla, member of the Popular Democratic Party ("PDP"), which is plaintiffs' opposing party. Co-defendant Vazquez was the Human Resources Director of the PRPB at all times relevant herein.
Both Cruz and Miranda claim in the complaint they were harassed and terminated from their employment without being afforded their due process rights and because of their political affiliation to the NPP. According to the plaintiffs, all individual defendants were aware that plaintiffs were avid supporters of the NPP. Subsequent to Cruz's dismissal, Garcia-Pelatti replaced plaintiff Cruz with Ms. Roa, who is a member of the PDP.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief for the alleged violations of their constitutional rights under the First, Fifth3 and Fourteenth Amendments. See Docket No. 25. Finally, the plaintiffs additionally invoke the court's supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims brought pursuant to Articles 1802 and 1803 of the Civil Code of Puerto Rico ("Articles 1802 and 1803"), P.R. LAWS ANN. tit. 31, §§ 5141 and 5142. See Docket No. 1.
The defendants now move for summary judgment in their favor and the plaintiffs oppose this request.
A motion for summary judgment is governed by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which entitles a party to judgment if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "When the party who bears the burden of proof at trial is faced with a properly constituted summary judgment motion, defeating the motion dependson her ability to show that such a dispute exists." Geshke v. Crocs, Inc., 740 F.3d 74, 77 (1st Cir.2014)(citing Borges ex rel. S.M.B.W. v. Serrano-Isern, 605 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.2010)).
If the non-movant generates uncertainty as to the true state of any material fact, the movant's efforts should be deemed unavailing. See Suarez v. Pueblo Int'l, 229 F.3d 49, 53 (1st Cir.2000). Nonetheless, the mere existence of "some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not affect an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986). "Summary judgment may be appropriate if the nonmoving party rests merely upon conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation." Medina-Muñoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir.1990).
At the summary judgment juncture, the court must examine the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant, indulging that party with all possible inferences to be derived from the facts. See Rochester Ford Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 287 F.3d 32, 38 (1st Cir.2002). The court reviews the record "as a whole," and "may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 135 (2000). This is so because credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge. Id.
The court found the following relevant facts to be undisputed:
1. According to Section 125 of Public Law 106-402 or the Act, each State that receives assistance on behalf of said Act is required to create a council and "shall designate a State agency that shall, on behalf of the State, provide support to the Council."
2. Section 125(c)(9) of the Act states that the Council shall, consistent with State law, recruit and hire a Director to perform all duties and functions therein established.
3. Executive Order No. 1997-19 of the Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was enacted to appoint the Puerto Rico Planning Board (PRPB) as the State agency that would provide the Puerto Rico Developmental Disabilities Council (PRDDC) with support in the achievement of its plans and endeavors.
4. The salaries of all Council members are paid with federal funds.
5. The Memorandum of Understanding between the PRPB and the PRDDC establishes the roles and responsibilities of the State agency, which includes, in its Section VIII, all matters pertaining to the designation of the Executive Director of the Council. Subsection (b) of the Section VIII establishes that the Executive Director shall be a permanent government employee.
6. Plaintiff David Cruz is affiliated to the NPP. He was elected Senator for the New Progressive Party from January 1989 - January 1993. From January 1993 - January 2001 David Cruz was appointed by then NPP Governor Pedro Rossello to the trust position of Advocate for Persons with Disabilities (Procurador de Personas con Impedimentos). From 2001 to 2008 he was a consultant for the Senate of Puerto Rico, and from January of 2009 until July of 2009 he held the trust position of Executive Aide at the office of the Ombudsman. All of the abovementioned positions were under NPP administrations.
7. During the 2012 general elections, David Cruz was the Chairperson on Disability Affairs Committee for writing the NPP platform.
8. As a member of the PRDDC, plaintiff Cruz participated in an extraordinary assembly, held on June 15, 2011, where the Board voted to remove then Executive Director Myrainne Roa from her position.
9. Plaintiff Cruz was nominated to be the Executive Director of the PRDDC during an extraordinary meeting of the Board of Directors.
10. Cruz was appointed Director of the Council during this extraordinary meeting.
11. Thereafter, on July 21, 2011, plaintiff Cruz was appointed to a trust position at the PRPB as Bureau Director of Location Consultations, or Site Consulting Office. During his tenure, Cruz never performed the functions of said position. According to job posting number 05-28, Bureau Director was a trust position ascribed to the PRPB.
12. Plaintiff Cruz admits that he was not qualified to occupy the position of Bureau Director of the Location Consultations at the PRPB because he had no experience or any academic background in that area.
13. Plaintiff Wanda Miranda is affiliated to the NPP and she has been a polling officer for many years. She has also attended political activities for the NPP.
14. On July 21, 2011, plaintiff Miranda was appointed Confidential Secretary I at the PRPB.
15. The Confidential Secretary I position, held by Miranda, was a trust position, ascribed to the Board Members of the PRPB.
16. Plaintiff Miranda admits that she never performed the duties of a Confidential Secretary I, the position she held.
17. During Cruz's tenure, all personnel that worked at the Council held career positions, except for him and Wanda Miranda, who held trust positions.
18. Plaintiff Cruz had no career position to return to once his designation to the trust position he held ended.
19. On January 2013, the former Governor of Puerto Rico, Hon. Alejandro J. Garcia-Padilla, named co-Defendant Luis Garcia-Pelatti President of the Planning Board.
20. Garcia-Pellatti worked on the platform of Sila Calderon when she ran for Governor under the PPD. He was then appointed by Sila Calderon to the Planning Board as associate member of the Board, and then was appointed as advisor to Calderon's Chief of Staff Cesar Miranda.
21. Garcia Pelatti helped candidates for the PDP during the 2000 and 2012 elections, but not for the NPP nor PIP.
22. Garcia Pellatti understands that normally trust positions come with political affiliation.
23. Co-defendant Vazquez was appointed as Human Resources Director in the Planning Board on an interim basis in January of 2013, and as of right in March of 2013.
24. Vazquez is affiliated with the PDP, and as such, she participates in political activities, writes comments in social media, and attends meetings for PDP employees.
25. There is a group of employees that responds to the PDP at the Planning Board known as "PDP Public Employees" ("Servidores Publicos Populares") and Vazquez attended their meetings.
26. Partisan politics are discussed at the Planning Board, especially during the electoral period.
27. Vazquez knows that plaintiff Cruz ran for Senator under the NPP.
28. Co-defendant Garcia-Pelatti met plaintiff Cruz for the first time on January 2013 in Santurce, Puerto Rico, when he went to a meeting at the Council.
29. Garcia-Pellati knew that plaintiff Cruz had been an NPP representative, and member of the NPP. He also knew that Cruz had been appointed as Ombudsman by then NPP Governor Pedro Rossello.
30....
To continue reading
Request your trial