Pagan-Garcia v. Rodriguez
| Decision Date | 27 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 14-1385 (DRD) |
| Parties | MARY JESSICA PAGAN-GARCIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LUZ ELINA RODRIGUEZ, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Plaintiffs Mary Jessica Pagan-Garcia, Luz Irizarry-Maldonado, Ciara Ramos-Torres, Yolanda Santiago, Carmen Caba-Virola and Daisy Irizarry-Hernandez (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed an Amended Complaint on June 6, 2014 (Docket No. 5) against Defendants Luz Elina Rodríguez, Jorge Rivera-Hernández, Puerto Rico Department of Health, National Building Maintenance Corp., Management Consultants and Computer Services, Laura Tricoche, Blanca Rodríguez, Edwin Carmona and Associates, Edwin Carmona and Genesis Security (collectively, "Defendants"), all in their official and personal capacities, alleging political discrimination.1 Plaintiffs bring 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. 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.2
Plaintiffs worked at the Center for Diagnostic Treatment of Adjuntas, Puerto Rico ("CDT"), performing non-managerial functions, before being discharged or transferred. Plaintiffs were all employed by Private Contractors,4 who provide essential services, such as nursing, billing, security, and maintenance, at the CDT.
Plaintiffs are all affiliated with the New Progressive Party ("NPP") and actively participated in the November 2012 elections. According to Plaintiffs, their political ideologies were well known to all Defendants.
Defendant Luz Elina Rodríguez works at the Department of Health as a Regional Director, and serves as Defendant Jorge Rivera-Hernández's immediate supervisor. Defendant Rivera-Hernández was named Administrator of the CDT in the aftermath of the 2012 General Elections, a position he previously held following the 2000 General Elections.
Plaintiffs claim that, immediately after the results of the November 6, 2012 general election, they were subjected to politicalharassment at the hands of Defendant Rivera-Hernández, who openly spoke about making "NPP heads roll." Defendant Rivera-Hernández repeatedly threatened NPP affiliated employees by warning them that they would be fired and replaced with members of the Popular Democratic Party ("PDP").
Defendant Rivera-Hernández's threats became a reality in June/July 2013, when Plaintiffs were either discharged from their employment without just cause or transferred to inferior positions. The Private Contractors immediately replaced Plaintiffs with individuals affiliated with the PDP and informed several Plaintiffs that they had been terminated at Defendant Rivera-Hernández's request, who ordered that PDP affiliated individuals be hired in their place.5
Following Plaintiffs' terminations and/or transfers, Plaintiff Pagán-García visited the office of the Department of Health's Regional Director, Defendant Luz Elina Rodríguez, to complain about Defendant Rivera-Hernández's conduct and to seek Plaintiffs' reinstatement. After Plaintiff Pagán-García's provided a detailed explanation of the events in question, Defendant Rodríguez indicated that she would not do anything about the layoffs because Defendant Rivera-Hernández was an important figure within the PDP.
On November 14, 2014, Defendants Puerto Rico Department of Health and Luz Elina Rodríguez filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 48). Therein, Defendant Rodríguez argues, inter alias, that Plaintiffs failed to establish that she participated in the allegedadverse employment action, as the facts demonstrate that Plaintiffs had already been removed from their positions when Defendant Rodríguez became aware of the purported discriminatory conduct. Additionally, Defendant Rodríguez avers that Plaintiffs' due process claim fails as a matter of law, as Plaintiffs were not employees of the Puerto Rico Department of Health. Furthermore, Defendants accentuate that all claims against the Department of Health and the individual Defendants in their official capacity for monetary damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Lastly, Defendant Rodríguez contends that she is entitled to qualified immunity, as the evidence fails to establish a violation of a statutory and/or constitutional right as a result of her conduct.
On December 22, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Response in Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss at Dockets 36 and 48 (Docket No. 64) asserting that Defendant Rodríguez subjected Plaintiffs to adverse employment actions when she failed to rehire them after being confronted with evidence surrounding their unconstitutional terminations. In sum, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant Rodríguez condoned Defendant Rivera-Hernández's discriminatory conduct. Furthermore, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant Rodríguez was well-aware of their political affiliations and that their Due Process claims must stand, as Defendant Rivera-Hernández utilized the contractual relationship between the Department of Health and the Private Contractors to Plaintiffs' detriment. Additionally, Plaintiffs accentuate that Defendant Rodríguez is not entitled to qualified immunity given that her conduct violated Plaintiffs' knownconstitutional rights. Lastly, Plaintiffs clarify that they are not seeking monetary damages against the government defendants in their official capacity, only injunctive relief.
On February 18, 2015, Defendants Edwin Carmona and Edwin Carmona & Associates (collectively, "Carmona Defendants") filed a Motion for Joinder (Docket No. 77) regarding the Motion to Dismiss filed at Docket Entry 36. In essence, the Carmona Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment, Law 80, and Articles 1802 and 1803 claims.
On March 9, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Filed by Co-Defendants Edwin Carmona and Edwin Carmona & Associates (Docket No. 79) arguing that Plaintiffs Ciara Ramos-Torres and Yolanda Santiago-Beltrán were prematurely terminated by the Carmona Defendants at the request of Defendant Rivera-Hernández. Plaintiffs aver that the Carmona Defendants assisted the new PDP administration in firing NPP affiliated employees in order to maintain their contracts with the Puerto Rico Department of Health. However, Plaintiffs concede that their Articles 1802 and 1803 claims should be dismissed.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires plaintiffs to provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Under Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), a plaintiff must "provide the grounds of his entitlement [with] more than labels and conclusions." See Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12(1st Cir. 2011) ()(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (citation omitted). Thus, a plaintiff must, and is now required to, present allegations that "nudge [his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible" in order to comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a). Id. at 570; see e.g. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court's inquiry occurs in a two-step process under the current context-based "plausibility" standard established by Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, and Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662. "Context based" means that a Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts that comply with the basic elements of the cause of action. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-679 (). First, the Court must "accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint[,]" discarding legal conclusions, conclusory statements and factually threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. "Yet we need not accept as true legal conclusions from the complaint or 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.'" Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 268 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. 678) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
Under the second step of the inquiry, the Court must determine whether, based upon all assertions that were not discarded under the first step of the inquiry, the complaint "states a plausible claim for relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. 679. This second step is "context-specific" and requires that the Court draw from its own "judicial experience and common sense" to decide whether a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted, or, conversely, whether dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate. Id.
Thus, "[i]n order to survive a motion to dismiss, [a] plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show that he has a plausible entitlement to relief." Sanchez v. Pereira-Castillo, 590 F.3d 31, 41 (1st Cir. 2009). "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not 'show[n]' 'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Furthermore, such inferences must be at least as plausible as any "obvious alternative explanation." Id. at 679-80 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 567). "A plaintiff is not entitled to 'proceed perforce' by virtue of allegations that merely parrot the elements...
To continue reading
Request your trial