Lopez-Sanchez v. Vergara-Agostini, CIV.03-1073 SEC JA.

• Decision Date: 23 February 2005
• Docket Number: No. CIV.03-1073 SEC JA.,CIV.03-1073 SEC JA.
• Citation: 359 F.Supp.2d 48
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
• Parties: Iris N. LÓPEZ-SANCHEZ, Plaintiff v. Eduardo J. VERGARA-AGOSTINI, et al., Defendants

359 F.Supp.2d 48

Iris N. LÓPEZ-SANCHEZ, Plaintiff v. Eduardo J. VERGARA-AGOSTINI, et al., Defendants

No. CIV.03-1073 SEC JA.

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

February 23, 2005.

Garcia & Fernandez, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.

Ana M. Margarida-Juliá, Department of Justice, Federal Litigation Division, San Juan, PR, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

ARENAS, Chief United States Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on motion for summary judgment filed by co-defendants Eduardo Vergara-Agostini (hereinafter "Agostini") and Alicia Díaz (hereinafter "Díaz") (collectively "defendants"). (Docket No. 37, Nov. 29, 2004.) As of the date of this opinion and order, defendants' motion for summary judgment remains unopposed by the plaintiff, Iris N. López-Sánchez (hereinafter "López"). Thus, after considering the evidence in the record, the applicable law and for the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED.

I. Background

López brought the present action against the defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that she was discriminated against by reason of her political affiliation in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. (Docket No. 1.) She also invokes this court's supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, to assert a claim under article 1802 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, 31 P.R. Laws Ann. § 5141. (Id.) In all, López seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as cost, interest and reasonable attorney's fees. (Id.)

López worked for the Administration for the Training of Future Entrepreneurs and Workers (hereinafter "AAFET" for its Spanish acronym) as Vocational Academic Director. The general allegation in the complaint is that the defendants, acting under color of state law, terminated Lopez' employment at AAFET because of her affiliation to the New Progressive Party (hereinafter "NPP"). Vergara and Díaz were AAFET's Administrator and Special Assistant to the Administrator in charge of Human Resources respectively. Vergara was appointed Administrator of AAFET in 2001, the year in which the Popular Democratic Party (hereinafter "PDP") assumed control of the government of Puerto Rico. He is an active member of the PDP.

The complaint specifically alleges that López commenced her employment relation with AAFET in December of 1990 as Executive Officer V, a transitory position assigned to the Job Corps Program of the Municipality of Barranquitas. The position had a fixed term and was set to expire on July 31, 1991. López' appointment to said transitory position was renewed on August 1, 1991, until July 31, 1992. On August 1, 1992, López was appointed Executive Director I of the Job Corps Program. The position was also transitory, set to expire on December 31, 1992. But her appointment was renewed on a year to year basis until August 1, 1994, when she was appointed to yet another transitory position: Programs Director. The title of that position was subsequently changed to Academic Vocational Director, the position that López held at the time she was discharged. This position apparently depended on the assignment of federal funding from year to year.

The complaint further asserts that Law No. 256 of December 28, 1995 (hereinafter "Law No. 256"), amended the Puerto Rico Public Service Personnel law, 3 P.R. Laws. Ann. § 1301 et seq., to grant regular career employment status to all transitory employees with more than one year of service. The new law required that the transitory employee perform permanent functions of career service nature in government agencies regulated by Puerto Rico's Public Service Personnel law. On July 1, 1996, and pursuant to Law No. 256, López, along with several other employees, was granted regular career employment status. By virtue of this, she acquired regular career status in her Academic Vocational Director position at AAFET since she had occupied said position for more than one year.

It is alleged, however, that in January of 2001, when the PDP assumed control of the central government and Vergara was appointed Administrator of AAFET, he "set in motion a chain of events to fabricate an administrative case against plaintiff." (Docket No. 1, at 5, ¶ 22.) He is alleged to have done so under color of state law, motivated by López' affiliation to the rival political party, and with the purpose of annulling her appointment to a career position in order to terminate her employment. Vergara did in fact serve López with a written notice of intent to terminate her employment. A pre-termination hearing was held at López' request, but on February 4, 2002, López was officially terminated. The grounds adduced for the termination was Vergara's understanding that López did not qualify for regular career status under Law No. 256.

Vergara is also charged with having disregarded an express remedy provided by Law No. 256 whereby an employee found to be ineligible for a regular career appointment, had to be included in a preference registry to occupy existing vacant permanent positions at AAFET, that were equal or similar in class to the position previously held by said employee. Finally, López claims that equally situated employees, members of the PDP, were not terminated and that her functions are being performed by a PDP member.

Co-defendants Vergara and Díaz have moved for summary judgment claiming, inter alia, that López' termination was not politically motivated. On the contrary, it is defendants' contention that there are legitimate reasons for the adverse employment action, namely that López' appointment was null and void because it was in violation of AAFET's personnel regulations and Puerto Rico's Public Service Personnel Act. Defendants further maintain that López' personnel file was audited neutrally to determine whether it conformed with public service personnel law and regulations, regardless of political affiliation. Alternatively, the defendants argue that they escape liability as a matter of law under the defense set forth by the Supreme Court in Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977).

Defendants' motion for summary judgment was filed on November 29, 2004. However, López has failed to file a response in opposition to defendants' motion. Therefore, I analyze defendants' request for brevis disposition without the benefit of López' opposition.

II. Summary Judgment Standard

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). To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must show that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's position. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party has properly supported its motion, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial and that a trier of fact could reasonably find in its favor. Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46, 52 (1st Cir.2000). The party opposing summary judgment must produce "specific facts, in suitable evidentiary form," to counter the evidence presented by the movant. López-Carrasquillo v. Rubianes, 230 F.3d 409, 413 (1st Cir.2000) (quoting Morris v. Gov't Dev. Bank of P.R., 27 F.3d 746, 748 (1st Cir.1994)). A party cannot discharge said burden by relying upon "conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupportable speculation." Id.; see also Carroll v. Xerox Corp., 294 F.3d 231, 236-37 (1st Cir.2002) (quoting J. Geils Band Employee Benefit Plan v. Smith Barney Shearson, Inc., 76 F.3d 1245, 1251 (1st Cir.1996)) ("`[N]either conclusory allegations [nor] improbable inferences' are sufficient to defeat summary judgment.").

The court must view the facts in light most hospitable to the nonmoving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. See Patterson v. Patterson, 306 F.3d 1156, 1157 (1st Cir.2002). A fact is considered material if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case under applicable law. Nereida-González v. Tirado-Delgado, 990 F.2d 701, 703 (1st Cir.1993).

Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the obligation of adverse parties to respond to summary judgment motions. De La Vega v. San Juan Star, Inc., 377 F.3d 111, 115 (1st Cir.2004.) The rule provides in pertinent part that

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response ... must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). While Rule 56(e) imposes on an adverse party the obligation to respond to a summary judgment motion, as stated, his or her failure to do so does not mean that the moving party is automatically entitled to summary judgment. Jaroma v. Massey, 873 F.2d 17, 20 (1st Cir.1989). What it means is that the non-moving party loses his or her ability to oppose the motion. See Mullen v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 972 F.2d 446, 451-52 (1st Cir.1992) (referring to a local rule of court requiring that an opposition be filed within a certain deadline). "[T]he district court [is] still obliged to consider the motion on its merits, in light of the record as constituted, in order to determine whether judgment would be legally appropriate." Id. at 452 (quoting Kelly v. United States, 924 F.2d 355, 358 (1st Cir.1991)); see also Empress Hotel Inc. v. Puerto Rico, 218...