Rodriguez-Garcia v. Municipality of Caguas

Decision Date31 July 2007
Docket NumberNo. 05-1847.,05-1847.
Citation495 F.3d 1
PartiesCarmen L. RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. MUNICIPALITY OF CAGUAS; Hon. William Miranda-Marin; Wilfredo Puig, as Vice Mayor of Caguas and In his Personal Capacity, Defendants, Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Michael Craig McCall, with whom Luis E. Pabon-Roca, Grisselle Gonzalez Negron, and Faccio & Pabon Roca, were on brief for the Municipality of Caguas, William Miranda-Marin and Wilfredo Puig in their official capacities.

Leticia Casalduc-Rabell, Assistant Solicitor General, with whom Salvador J. Antonetti-Stutts, Solicitor General, Mariana Negron-Vargas, Deputy Solicitor General, and Maite D. Oronoz-Rodriguez, Deputy Solicitor General, were on brief for William Miranda-Marin and Wilfredo Puig in their personal capacities.

Before LYNCH, Circuit Judge, STAHL, Senior Circuit Judge, and LIPEZ, Circuit Judge.

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Carmen Rodriguez-Garcia, a career employee in the Municipality of Caguas ("the municipality"), claimed that she was transferred from the Public Works Department ("Public Works")1 to the Office of Federal Funds ("Federal Funds") in violation of the First Amendment and Puerto Rico law. Although she enjoyed the same title and salary in the two positions, Rodriguez-Garcia alleged that the transfer constituted a demotion because she had no significant work responsibilities at Federal Funds. She further alleged that the transfer was intended as retaliation because she complained of improper campaign tactics by the mayor and others in the municipal government, sparking an investigation by the Puerto Rico Office of Ethics ("Ethics Office"). Alternatively, she asserted that the transfer, motivated by her political affiliation, was an act of political discrimination.

Prior to trial, the court granted summary judgment to defendants on the political discrimination claim. At trial, Rodriguez-Garcia proceeded against Mayor Miranda Marin and Vice Mayor Wilfredo Puig in their personal and official capacities on her retaliation claim, arguing that their actions supported liability against the municipality based on their final authority over her transfer. The court dismissed the retaliation claim against Mayor Marin as a matter of law at the completion of appellant's case. Although the jury found Vice Mayor Puig not personally liable, it found the municipality liable on the retaliation claim. Finding this jury verdict inconsistent with Rodriguez-Garcia's theory of the case — that the liability of the municipality was contingent on the personal liability of the mayor or the vice mayor — the district court entered judgment as a matter of law for the municipality.

We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand to the district court for further proceedings. Specifically, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants on Rodriguez-Garcia's political discrimination claim. We also affirm the judgment in favor of Vice Mayor Puig on Rodriguez-Garcia's retaliation claim and the decision of the district court vacating the jury award against the municipality. However, we order a new trial on Rodriguez-Garcia's retaliation claim against Mayor Marin and the municipality because the district court's dismissal of the case against the mayor rested upon an erroneous evidentiary ruling involving the application of Federal Rule of Evidence 408 dealing with "compromise and offers to compromise." That error was not harmless.

I.
A. Factual Background
1. Rodriguez-Garcia's Transfer

Rodriguez-Garcia served as Executive Secretary for the Director of Public Works, Luisa Flores, from 1998 until her transfer in 2000.2 In that position, she was required to open all incoming mail and enter it into a log. In 1999, Flores began receiving tickets to fundraisers and notices of leadership meetings for the Popular Democratic Party ("PDP"), the party to which both the mayor and Flores belonged. Rodriguez-Garcia suspected that the receipt of this material violated a rule prohibiting the use of government resources to further political campaigns. Nevertheless, she duly logged the materials and delivered them to Flores.

Rodriguez-Garcia first discussed her concerns with Flores in 1999, but they were ignored. She then contacted a distant relative, Roberto Carrasquillo, who was a municipal assemblyman for the minority Puerto Rican Independence Party, ("PIP"). He confirmed the merit of her concerns and, with her permission, lodged a complaint with the Ethics Office. Rodriguez-Garcia was summoned to the Ethics Office to testify concerning her complaint on December 21, 1999, and she complied.

On February 1, 2000, Flores reprimanded Rodriguez-Garcia in front of her co-workers for failing to perform one of her tasks. Rodriguez-Garcia acknowledges that this reprimand was unrelated to her testimony in the Ethics Office investigation. Upset, Rodriguez-Garcia left the office early and did not return to work the next day. Instead, she spent that day resting and on medication.3 On February 3, she had a heated conversation with Flores about the missed day of work; shortly after that conversation, she passed out and required medical care. Her doctor advised her to rest, which she did until February 18. On that date, Rodriguez-Garcia delivered a copy of her medical release to the Human Resources Office ("Human Resources"). She then went to Vice Mayor Wilfredo Puig's office to discuss the doctor's recommendations and her intention to return to work.

The contents of the conversation between Rodriguez-Garcia and Vice Mayor Puig are hotly contested. According to Rodriguez-Garcia, she told the vice mayor that, despite her doctor's recommendation that she not return to Public Works, she wanted to return because she thought she could work things out with Flores. She testified that Vice Mayor Puig then told her that Flores had showed him a copy of the mail log that Rodriguez-Garcia kept and that the Ethics Office was investigating the use of municipal resources to distribute political propaganda. Apparently unaware that Rodriguez-Garcia had already testified before the Ethics Office on this matter, Vice Mayor Puig suggested that she would be summoned to testify and asked her what she would say. At trial, Rodriguez-Garcia testified: "I told him that I'd tell the truth. That I'd tell the truth because that was my job." According to Rodriguez-Garcia, Vice Mayor Puig told her that "whatever truth I said could affect him, the Mayor and the party, and I told him that I was very sorry, but that was my job." He then told her that "he could no longer count on me." Vice Mayor Puig recalled a very different conversation. He testified that Rodriguez-Garcia requested a transfer out of Public Works and that there was no discussion of the Ethics Office investigation.

Shortly after this meeting, Rodriguez-Garcia was transferred out of her position at Public Works. After initial assignment to the Municipal Education Department, where she had no work to do, she was transferred to Federal Funds. Rodriguez-Garcia claims she did "very little, practically nothing," at Federal Funds because the office already had an Executive Secretary; she alleges that this lack of work was intended to encourage her to quit municipal employment altogether. Rodriguez-Garcia testified that the lack of work made her feel "bad," "uncomfortable," "ashamed," and "depressed," and that it affected her home life: "I locked myself in, within that problem, and I couldn't see beyond [it]. . . . and I forgot that the kids were growing up, that I had a husband, a mom, a family, and that became my life as a whole." In contrast, the Director of Federal Funds, Gilberto Charriez, testified that his office was understaffed and desperate for workers when Rodriguez-Garcia arrived and that she seemed happy in her new position. He also described ordering pizza on busy work nights when Rodriguez-Garcia stayed late with the rest of the staff to meet deadlines, lunches eaten together in a conference room, office Christmas parties and meeting Rodriguez-Garcia's family outside of work on social occasions.

2. Attempts at Reinstatement

Following her transfer, Rodriguez-Garcia sent a letter to Human Resources dated March 3, 2000, requesting a written explanation for her transfer.4 Her attorney, Eladio Cartagena, followed up on this first letter with three additional letters. The first of these, dated March 8, was directed to the mayor. This letter requested Rodriguez-Garcia's reinstatement to Public Works and suggested that her transfer was motivated by the Ethics Office investigation. Cartagena received a reply from Human Resources dated March 27 that began, "The Hon. William Miranda Marín, Mayor, has referred to us your letter dated March 8, 2000 concerning the transfer of Mrs. [Rodriguez-Garcia]," and stated that: (1) the transfer had been made at Rodriguez-Garcia's request because of differences she had with her direct supervisor; (2) it was considered a temporary transfer; and (3) that "we would have no inconvenience in newly reinstating Mrs. [Rodriguez-Garcia] to her former position." Cartagena sent a second letter to the mayor on April 10, requesting the offered reinstatement.5 Receiving no response, he penned a third letter on May 31 informing the mayor that, on the basis of the offered reinstatement, Rodriguez-Garcia had met with the interim Human Resources director and the director of Public Works and that they had refused to reinstate her. The May 31 letter also notified the mayor of Rodriguez-Garcia's intention to file a civil action based on Mayor Marin's failure to reinstate her.6

Sometime thereafter, Rodriguez-Garcia happened upon the mayor in a public square, where she approached him and asked about the resolution of her complaint. According to Rodriguez-Garcia's testimony, she "grabbed him strongly" and asked about...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • Ramos–Santos v. Hernandez–Nogueras
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • June 8, 2012
    ...constitutional violation.” Feliciano–Hernández v. Pereira–Castillo, 663 F.3d 527 (1st Cir.2011) (quoting Rodríguez–García v. Municipality of Caguas, 495 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir.2007)). Plaintiff has failed to show that the Rodríguez had notice of Hernández's behavior until after it had already ......
  • Peña–Peña v. Figueroa–Sancha
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • June 11, 2012
    ...or omissions of the official, or from indirect conduct that amounts to condonation or tacit authorization.” Rodriguez–Garcia v. Municipality of Caguas, 495 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff must therefore link each individual defendant to the alleged ......
  • United States ex rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • July 2, 2015
    ...rest. It is hard to imagine that this constituted anything other than a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Cf. Rodriguez–Garcia v. Municipality of Caguas, 495 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2007) (reversing because erroneous Rule 408 ruling hamstrung plaintiff's ability to show elements of claim).In sum, in......
  • Reyes–Orta v. Highway & Transp. Auth.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • February 14, 2012
    ...or omissions of the official, or from indirect conduct that amounts to condonation or tacit authorization.” Rodriguez–Garcia v. Municipality of Caguas, 495 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff must therefore link each individual defendant to the alleged ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT