Diaz-Ortiz v. Diaz-Rivera
| Decision Date | 01 May 2009 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 07-1390 (GAG)(JA). |
| Citation | 611 F.Supp.2d 134 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
| Parties | Ángel M. DÍAZ-ORTIZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. Jose M. DÍAZ-RIVERA, et al., Defendants. |
JUSTO ARENAS, United States Chief Magistrate Judge.
Pending before me is the motion for summary judgment of defendants Jose M. Díaz-Rivera, Heriberto Rodríguez-Adorno, and the Municipality of Morovis. (Docket No. 26.) The motion was filed on October 26, 2008 and seeks dismissal of various political discrimination claims advanced by plaintiffs Ángel M. Díaz-Ortiz, Georgina Allomes-Ramos, and the conjugal partnership between them. Plaintiffs moved to strike defendants' motion on November 14, 2008. (Docket No. 38.) I denied that motion on December 29, 2008 (Docket No. 45) and plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment on March 13, 2009. (Docket No. 51.) Defendants submitted a reply brief1 on March 24, 2009. (Docket No. 55.)
Plaintiff Díaz-Ortiz filed this action on May 8, 2007, accusing defendants of political discrimination and of violating his rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Articles 1802 and 1803 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, Puerto Rico Laws Annotated title 31, sections 5141-5142. He also claims a right to recover under the Puerto Rico Constitution and under the Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. He claims that this Court has jurisdiction over his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, in that his claims arise under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 et seq., and the United States Constitution.
Díaz-Ortiz, a member of Puerto Rico's Popular Democratic Party ("PDP") (Docket No. 1, at 2, ¶ 3.1) began working for the Municipality of Morovis on February 16, 2001. (Docket No. 1, at 4, ¶ 4.2; Docket No. 26-3, at 2, ¶ 3.) An employment form bearing his signature indicated that his title was "Worker II" and that his position was "transitory." (Docket No. 34-3; Docket No. 26-3, at 2, ¶ 3.) His employment term was extended nine times on a "transitory" basis and twice on an "irregular" basis between July 2001 and November 2002. (Docket No. 34-4.) On January 1, 2003, Díaz-Ortiz was appointed to the position of Certified Electrician. (Docket No. 26-3, at 2, ¶ 6.) In this capacity he was responsible for installing and maintaining equipment and electrical fixtures within the public buildings of the Municipality of Morovis. (Docket No. 1, at 4, ¶ 4.2; Docket No. 51-2, at 4, ¶ 10.) Díaz-Ortiz asserts that he never formulated or influenced public policy in any way pursuant to his job duties, and defendants do not contend otherwise. (Docket No. 1, at 4, ¶ 4.2; Docket No. 26-3.) His appointment as Certified Electrician was extended multiple times on a transitory basis through May 2006. (Docket Nos. 34-5 and 34-6.) Díaz-Ortiz was aware that his appointment was transitory. (Docket No. 26-3, at 2, ¶ 9; Docket No. 51-7, at 5, ¶ 9.)
On November 2, 2004, general elections were held in Puerto Rico. (Docket No. 26-3, at 1, ¶ 1.) The elections included the race for mayor in the Municipality of Morovis, whose population is less than thirty thousand residents. (Docket No. 51-2, at 2, ¶ 2-3.) The incumbent mayor of Morovis, who was affiliated with the PDP, lost that city's mayoral election to defendant Heriberto Rodríguez-Adorno of the New Progressive Party ("NPP"). (Docket No. 26-3, at 1, ¶ 1.) Rodríguez-Adorno took office on January 10, 2005. (Id.) Rodríguez-Adorno appointed defendant José Díaz-Rivera, an active member of the NPP, to the office of Director of the Department of Public Works in Morovis. (Docket No. 51-2, at 3, ¶ 6; Docket No. 1, at 3, ¶ 3.3.)
Shortly after the election, Díaz-Ortiz sustained a work-related injury. (Docket No. 51-2, at 5, ¶ 15.) He returned to work in April 2005, at which time his direct supervisor was Díaz-Rivera. (Id.) He asserts that his duties were occasionally assigned to other active NPP party members while he would be relegated to duties unrelated to his position as Certified Electrician, such as cleaning street gutters and performing miscellaneous construction work. (Id. at 6, ¶ 17.) Defendants' explanation for this is that there were occasions where there was no work requiring Díaz-Ortiz' attention, causing his supervisors to give him the option of taking the day off or joining other municipality employees in performing their tasks. (Docket No. 55-2, at 3, ¶ 17.) By May 2006, the last month of Díaz-Ortiz' employment, Mr. Jose Vega had replaced Díaz-Rivera as Díaz-Ortiz' supervisor. (Docket No. 26-3, at 4, ¶ 22.)
At some time in 2005 or 2006, a secret electrical line connected to the Town Hall building was discovered, and the apparently illegal line received local media coverage. (Docket No. 51-2, at 6, ¶¶ 18 & 21; Docket No. 55-2, at 3, ¶ 18.) Pursuant to an investigation of the electrical line, the police interviewed Díaz-Ortiz, who stated to the police that the line was installed subsequent to Rodríguez-Adorno's taking office. (Docket No. 55-2, at 3-4, ¶ 20.) Defendants, to the contrary, contend that the line was in place before that time. (Docket No. 51-2, at 6, ¶ 20; Docket No. 55-2, at 4, ¶ 20.) In any event, shortly after the issue became public and Díaz-Ortiz was questioned, Díaz-Ortiz was informed his employment would not be renewed. (Docket No. 51-2, at 7, ¶ 22.)
In a letter dated May 10, 2006, Rodríguez-Adorno informed Díaz-Ortiz that his appointment would not be renewed after May 31, 2006, the date his existing transitory appointment was to conclude. (Docket No. 34-2; Docket No. 34-6, at 17.) The letter cited a "fiscal crisis" as a reason for this non-renewal. (Docket No. 34-2.) Indeed, defendants assert that the municipality's income from its Municipal Tax Collection Center was eliminated in this crisis, and that the central government was forced to shut down. (Docket No. 26-3, at 4, ¶ 25.) Díaz-Ortiz, however, objects to the court's recognition of these claims by defendant, and in any event asserts that the decision not to renew his contract was politically motivated. (Docket No. 51-7, at 9, ¶ 24; Docket No. 1, at 8, ¶ 5.3.)
The parties dispute whether Díaz-Ortiz was a "well-known" PDP activist in Morovis. (Docket No. 51-2, at 4, ¶ 11; Docket No. 55-2, at 2, ¶ 11.) It is not disputed, however, that at some point Díaz-Ortiz held the position of president of the PDP local action committee of the Barrio Perchas ward within Morovis. (Docket No. 51-2, at 4, ¶ 12.) In 2000 and again in 2004, he was the vice-president of that action committee. (Id.) He actively participated in PDP rallies, meetings, caravans, house calls with PDP candidates, and "campaign closing activities." (Id.) Díaz-Rivera was aware of Díaz-Ortiz' political affiliation, as the two men were neighbors who used to discuss politics, and as Díaz-Rivera was president of the local NPP action committee at the same time Díaz-Ortiz was vice president of the PDP action committee. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 9 & 13.)
Díaz-Ortiz asserts that Rodríguez-Adorno also knew that he was an active PDP supporter because Díaz-Rivera knew as much, and because Rodríguez-Adorno allegedly refused to visit Díaz-Ortiz' home while campaigning. (Docket No. 51-2, at 4-5, ¶ 13.) Díaz-Ortiz cites Rodríguez-Adorno's deposition testimony that, "there are always people in the neighborhoods who know what political affiliation is each ... each person." (Docket No. 51-3, at 10:1-3.) Defendants deny, however, that Rodríguez-Adorno had any such knowledge or that he intentionally avoided visiting Díaz-Ortiz' home for political reasons. (Docket No. 55-2, at 2, ¶ 13.) In support of their stance, defendants point to the following undisputed facts: that Díaz-Ortiz and Rodríguez-Adorno never had a conversation; that the two never discussed politics; that Díaz-Ortiz never heard, saw, or knew of Díaz-Rivera or anybody else talking to Rodríguez-Adorno about him or his political affiliation; that Díaz-Ortiz never heard of nor knew of either defendant making any comment regarding him or his political affiliation; and that Díaz-Ortiz never heard any comment from any third party that was related to himself, Rodríguez-Adorno, and/or politics. (Id.; Docket No. 26-3, at 3, ¶¶ 15-17, at 4, ¶¶ 18-21.) Díaz-Ortiz' deposition testimony on this subject reads as follows:
(Docket No. 34-7, at 10:20-22, at 11:1-4.) Regarding the contention that Rodríguez-Adorno avoided his home while campaigning, Díaz-Ortiz' testimony was the following:
...
A: But categorically I cannot tell you because I no not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Febus-Rodriguez v. Questell-Alvarado
...of duties ... [is] discrete in nature," and that it is "not actionable under the continuing violation theory." Díaz-Ortiz v. Díaz-Rivera, 611 F.Supp.2d 134, 142 (D.P.R.2009); Rivera-Torres v. Ortiz-Velez, 306 F.Supp.2d 76, 82 (D.P.R.2002). Since Jiménez alleges a deprivation of her duties u......
-
Ramos-Borges v. P.R., P.R. Health Dept.
...has held that an allegation of deprivation of duties is "not actionable under the continuing violation theory." Díaz-Ortiz v. Díaz-Rivera, 611 F.Supp.2d 134, 142 (D.P.R.2009) (quoting Rivera-Torres v. Ortiz-Vélez, 306 F.Supp.2d 76, 84 (D.P.R.2002)). Therefore, since the alleged discriminato......
-
Marrero–saez v. Municipality of Aibonito
...few] offer[ed] evidence that [defendant] had first-hand knowledge of their affiliations” with the opposing party. Díaz–Ortiz v. Díaz–Rivera, 611 F.Supp.2d 134, 144 (D.P.R.2009) (citations omitted); see also Roman v. Delgado Altieri, 390 F.Supp.2d 94, 102 (D.P.R.2005) (citing Aviles–Martinez......
-
Loubriel v. Estado, Civil No. 09–1994 (JA).
...claims based on discrete acts are only timely where such acts occurred within the limitations period ....”)); see Díaz–Ortiz v. Díaz–Rivera, 611 F.Supp.2d 134, 142 (D.P.R.2009). The Supreme Court listed some examples of discrete acts: “termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or......