Rivera-Lopez v. Gonzalez-Chapel

• Decision Date: 08 December 1975
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 597-73.
• Citation: 430 F. Supp. 704
• Parties: Faustino RIVERA-LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. Antonio GONZALEZ-CHAPEL, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

430 F. Supp. 704

Faustino RIVERA-LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. Antonio GONZALEZ-CHAPEL, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 597-73.

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

December 8, 1975.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Ralph Vallone, Jr., Hato Rey, P. R., for plaintiff.

Jaime A. Rodriguez-Lecoeur, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, P. R., for defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

TOLEDO, Chief Judge.

This cause is before the Court pursuant to plaintiff's action for equitable relief and damages brought under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, Title 42, United States Code and its jurisdictional counterpart, Title 28, United States Code, Section 1343, against the Secretary of Agriculture of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Antonio Gonzalez Chapel, the Director of Personnel of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Milagros Guzman, and the Auxiliary Secretary of Administration of the Department of Agriculture of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Luis A. Crespo, in view of the termination of his employment at the Department of Agriculture of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Plaintiff seeks redress before this Court alleging defendants have deprived him of rights and privileges secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Upon filing the complaint, plaintiff applied for a temporary restraining order. The application was not granted and in lieu thereof an order to show cause was entered against defendants. Full hearings were had. Before the commencement of the hearings the parties agreed, with the Court's approval, to consolidate the application for preliminary and permanent injunction in order to avoid further hearings on this aspect of the case. The question of damages was left for further litigation, if necessary.

The Court having held the necessary hearings, having considered the extensive documentary and testimonial evidence and having considered the extensive post trial memoranda filed by the parties, enters the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiff has been a career employee in the civil service of the Government of Puerto Rico since September 1944, and thereafter for twenty-nine uninterrupted years, having served during said years in various governmental functions and from September 8, 1969, as Director of the Arecibo Agricultural Region of the Department of Agriculture of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

2. By September 1974, plaintiff would have accumulated thirty years of service and would have been eligible to a merit pension commensurate to his monthly salary for life, pursuant to the retirement plan for government employees of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.¹

3. Plaintiff was recruited in August, 1969 as Director of the Arecibo Agricultural Region of the Department of Agriculture of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico with executive duties with regard to 12 towns. His performance in that position was positive. He was so employed until June 30, 1973, at which time his official dismissal came to pass. He was informed of this action by defendant Antonio Gonzalez Chapel less than twenty two days prior to the effective date of dismissal.

4. On November 3, 1972, plaintiff's position was changed from non-competitive to competitive by virtue of an official reclassification letter signed by the then Director of Personnel, Mr. Frank Romero (Plaintiff's Exhibit 4). In this letter, Mr. Romero stated that the position has lost the characteristics which warranted its inclusion in the non-competitive service. This was and continues to be the official mode of operating such a change.

5. Subsequently, plaintiff continued his employment at the Department of Agriculture as Director of the Arecibo Agricultural Region. At all times he had the status of a regular employee in the competitive service, although the positions held were of trust and confidence (executive), the non-competitive type.

6. An employee may pass from one system of employment to the other.² A position may also change in nature. The Secretary of Agriculture definitely had the power to change the functions of a position³ which had already once before been competitive. The Director of Personnel could approve such changes. In the light of the testimony of the former Secretary of the Department of Agriculture of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Luis Rivera Brenes, the criteria for the change was a change in the nature of the position. Once so changed, the plaintiff was invested with all of the incidents of competitive employment and as such could not be dismissed without a hearing.

7. Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 (in the words of defendant Milagros Guzman), constitutes evidence that the request of the Secretary of Agriculture was approved by the Director of Personnel. No other official approval was necessary for this change to go through, especially since plaintiff himself had nothing to do with said change.⁴ The ultimate decision, the approval, is therefore made by the Director of Personnel (page 186 of the record). The normal procedure was used for introducing plaintiff to the competitive system (see testimony of codefendant Milagros Guzman at page 193 of the record). Since the files of the Personnel Board are private (page 193 of the record), the plaintiff was led by official communications (Plaintiff's Exhibit 4) to believe he enjoyed a secure competitive position.

8. Plaintiff at no time received official notice of a change in his classification from the Personnel Board; rather, he received an unofficial letter dated April 18, 1973 from the Auxiliary Secretary of Administration of the Department of Agriculture, codefendant Luis A. Crespo. This letter did not constitute an official notice from the Personnel Board, and as such was not an official notice of reclassification.

9. Plaintiff's career is one of distinction. He completed his college education in three years rather than four. He is a father of five children and a member of various civic and professional organizations. Throughout his years as public servant he has received numerous promotions, merit awards and acknowledgements of proficiency in the performance of his duties. His work record of twenty-nine years of public service does not reflect one single disciplinary action or reprimand and the testimony offered in Court does not bear any light on any unfavorable or disagreeable conduct on his part. One witness testified there was no knowledge of any unfavorable circumstances which might have induced his discharge.

10. Plaintiff is a member of the New Progressive Party that was in office from 1969 to 1972. This fact was well known to defendants and the people who worked with him.⁵

11. As a result of the Popular Democratic Party winning the Elections held in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on November 7, 1972 and taking the administration of the Government in January, 1973, codefendants Antonio Gonzalez Chapel and Milagros Guzman were appointed Secretary of Agriculture and Director of Personnel, respectively, in substitution of the former administrators, Luis Rivera Brenes and Frank Romero, respectively. The duties and powers remained the same as those of the former administrators.

12. As a result of the change of political administration plaintiff was neglected and harassed in his work, and constructively deprived of his duties without reason prior to his dismissal⁶ (see also testimony of codefendant Gonzalez Chapel at page 305 of the record to the effect that he never met with the plaintiff). Plaintiff was originally in charge of an office with a large number of employees, in an "executive type" position as Director of Agricultural Programs III (page 41). After the elections the plaintiff was no longer consulted, he no longer met with the Secretary of Agriculture, and even the mail was routed to another person. Pressure was brought upon him to resign.⁷⁸

13. On January 30, 1973, codefendant Luis A. Crespo requested from codefendant Milagros Guzman an opinion about the legality of the employment status of a group of employees, among which was plaintiff. Meanwhile, plaintiff was unaware that his job was in jeopardy.

14. Prior to the interchange of correspondence between codefendants Luis A. Crespo and Milagros Guzman, there were several conversations and meetings between said codefendants relative to the contents of said letters.⁹

15. Plaintiff was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on the abrupt change of status in his civil service career from competitive to non-competitive service, nor on his termination of employment after twenty-nine years of service. Likewise, plaintiff was not advised that defendants were contemplating divesting him of his rights as an employee in the competitive service or that they were contemplating terminating his public career, or depriving him of his property interest in his employment and pension.

16. The testimony of Felix Cabrera indicates that plaintiff was obliged to work in an atmosphere of hostility and was confronted with "a warning"¹⁰ of an official nature. Additionally, a conversation overheard by plaintiff between Rafael Garces and Ruben Gonzalez Chapel is indicative of the then existing atmosphere to eliminate him from his position. Furthermore, plaintiff was told by Mr. Felix Cabrera that the Sub-secretary Dr. Manuel Mejias Mattei¹¹ wished him to "ask from the fellow companion and friend Faustino to present his resignation by writing to avoid any other action taken by the Secretary". (emphasis ours). Plaintiff did not act unreasonably in interpreting this clearly as a warning in the scope of the possible actions that the Secretary could take.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present action under the Civil Rights Act. In civil rights actions predicated under Section 1983 of Title 42, United States Code,¹² the elements necessary to establish a claim are that the conduct complained of was engaged in...