Vargas Figueroa v. Saldana
| Decision Date | 10 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 86-1433(PG). |
| Citation | 646 F. Supp. 1362 |
| Parties | Fernando VARGAS FIGUEROA, Plaintiff, v. Jose M. SALDANA, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Eliezer Aldarondo, Hato Rey, P.R., for plaintiff.
James D. Noel, III, Hato Rey, P.R., for defendants.
This is a civil rights action brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which plaintiff alleges that defendants deprived him under color of state law of his rights under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Plaintiff asserts that he was removed from his position as Head of the Department of Physiology of the School of Medicine of the University of Puerto Rico because of political and national origin reasons. Plaintiff is claiming damages and reinstatement in his position as Head of the Department of Physiology.
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3) and (4).
On September 10, 11, and 12, 1986, a hearing was held before this Court on plaintiff's request for preliminary injunction. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing we reach the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Plaintiff, Dr. Fernando Vargas, born and raised in Chile, is a citizen of the United States. He is a well known scientist in the international community with over 70 publications. He has a D.D.S. from the University of Chile and a Ph.D. in physiology and physical chemistry from the University of Minnesota. Plaintiff, however, has no local political affiliation.
Defendant Dr. José M. Saldaña is the present Chancellor of the Medical Sciences Campus of the University of Puerto Rico (UPRMSC). He is an active member of the Popular Democratic Party (PDP) with participation in advisory committees. Dr. Saldaña and Dr. Nydia de Jesús, the present Dean of the School of Medicine of the UPRMSC, removed Dr. Fernando Vargas as Head of the Department of Physiology. Defendant Dr. Manuel Martinez Maldonado was Acting Director of the Department of Physiology of the School of Medicine of the UPRMSC from 1973 to 1979 and member of the PDP. He was again appointed to that position after the removal of Dr. Vargas. All of the above defendants were sued in their individual and official capacities.1
The other codefendant is the University of Puerto Rico. However, the complaint against the University was dismissed since the University was immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. (See our Opinion and Order of October 8, 1986).
On September 1980, Dr. Fernando Vargas was appointed Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Physiology. The department had been without a permanent chairman since 1973. Dr. Vargas came to know about the position through a science journal sending his curriculum vitae to the appropriate University committee. On January 1980 he received an invitation to visit the campus and conduct various seminars on his specialty and to be interviewed for the position. Before coming to Puerto Rico, Dr. Vargas did not know anyone at the University. After his nomination went through the Department of Physiology, the Dean of the School of Medicine and the Chancellor of the UPRMSC, in accordance with the regulations of the School of Medicine, he was appointed to that position.
At the outset, Dr. Fernando Vargas encountered difficulties with Dr. Manuel Martinez Maldonado and the latter's colleague, Dr. Susan Opava Stitzer. Dr. Manuel Martinez Maldonado assumed an attitude of arrogance by pretending to exercise authority at the Department of Physiology. On one occasion, for example, Dr. Martinez Maldonado invited Dr. Burg to come from Maryland and give a series of seminars at the Department of Physiology. Dr. Martinez Maldonado arranged a detailed program of activities including meetings with the students, faculty, and the Head of the Department. This program was initiated and programmed without consulting Dr. Fernando Vargas (Plaintiff's Exhibits 7 and 8).
Animosity between Dr. Vargas and Dr. Martinez Maldonado further increased when Dr. Vargas removed Dr. Martinez Maldonado as coordinator of a chapter of renal physiology. Dr. Martinez Maldonado was a full-time nephrologist and physician at the Veterans Administration Hospital, which seems to prevent him from performing his duties as coordinator of this chapter. Dr. Martinez Maldonado taught only two or three hours in the semester, did not attend departmental meetings and was not available to students for questions (Plaintiff's Exhibit 6).
Another incident occurred at a faculty meeting held on January 27, 1984. At said meeting a discussion was opened on the reasons why a high number of medical students flunked exams. At the meeting Dr. Manuel Martinez Maldonado stated that this failure rate of students was caused by an insufficient number of native Puerto Ricans teaching basic sciences. He urged the School of Medicine to fill up new positions with native Puerto Ricans. These remarks evidently implied a lack of professional integrity on the part of non-native Puerto Ricans and was certainly an unwarranted and shameful attack on non-native Puerto Ricans. The next day a poster was put on plaintiff's door at the Department stating:
(Plaintiff's Exhibit 19).
Other similar posters were put throughout the Department.
During that time, Dr. Bernstein, a Jewish professor born and raised in Chile, was physically attacked by Dr. Garcia Palmieri, a member of the Faculty Promotions Committee at the time of Dr. Vargas tenure decision.2 Apparently, Dr. Bernstein had written a letter complaining of Dr. Martinez Maldonado's remarks, which prompted Dr. Garcia Palmieri to insult Dr. Bernstein, hit him on the neck and threaten to kill him. Dr. Bernstein pressed charges to the police but withdrew them when Dr. Garcia Palmieri apologized.
With regards to Dr. Susan Opava Stitzer, Dr. Vargas also had problems when he came to the Department where Dr. Susan Stitzer was a member. On February 1981, Dr. Susan Stitzer was transferred by Dr. Norman Maldonado, the Chancellor of the UPRMSC at the time, to the Department of Pharmacology. Although Dr. Fernando Vargas did not participate in the decision, he did know there were problems between Dr. Stitzer and the Department and wanted the problems solved. As a result of the transfer, Dr. Susan Stitzer brought an action in this Court alleging sex discrimination. Said complaint was dismissed, however, on res judicata, collateral estoppel and comity grounds since the administrative agency in charge and the Superior Court of Puerto Rico had reached a decision on the merits. Susan Opava Stitzer v. University of Puerto Rico, 617 F.Supp. 1246 (D.P.R.1985).
Dr. Vargas also encountered problems with Dr. Susan Stitzer's husband, Dr. Kent Stitzer, who opposed Dr. Vargas' bid for tenure. At the Faculty Promotions Committee Dr. Kent Stitzer made a series of accusations which Dr. Vargas was not permitted to rebut. Among the accusations made, Dr. Kent Stitzer complained that the Department of Physiology gave preferential treatment to Chileans and South Americans.3 Dr. Brush and Dr. Keene, members of said committee, objected to the accusations and the lack of process due to Dr. Vargas (Plaintiff's Exhibits 39-40). After some delay the tenure was finally approved by said committee. However, a decision on the tenure by the Administrative Board has yet to be reached.4 The tenure recommendation has been before the Administrative Board for over a year (Defendants' Exhibit E). Part of the delay was caused by Dr. Susan Stitzer's proposal on May 7, 1985, to postpone consideration of Dr. Vargas' tenure until September 1985, when he was to complete his five years as associate professor. Tenure is given to professors who have given five years of satisfactory work (Article 14, Section 14.1, General Regulations of the University of Puerto Rico, December 1978, Plaintiff's Exhibit 42). Dr. Pedro Santiago Borrero, however, testified that under the rules and customs of the University consideration of the tenure is permitted after four years of academic service. This was done in order to insure that if a favorable decision was reached, the professor could have tenure at the completion of the five years. Dr. Pedro Santiago Borrero was the Dean of the School of Medicine of the UPRMSC from 1978 to 1985.
The tenure decision was also delayed because the Administrative Board requested the Office of the President of the University for an interpretation of the rules and regulations concerning the granting of tenure to professors who occupied administrative positions (Minutes of Administrative Board's Ordinary Meeting, October 8, 1985, Defendants' Exhibit E). Said delay, however, was a gimmick to harass Dr. Vargas. The rules and regulations which were the concern of the Administrative Board were approved April 1, 1981, and were not applicable to Dr. Vargas. Dr. Vargas entered the University on September 1980 and therefore his tenure decision was under the protection of the Rules and Regulations of the University of Puerto Rico, approved on December 2, 1978. Under said regulations Dr. Vargas completed the minimum requirement of five years. Article 14, Section 14.7 states:
The members of the teaching personnel to whom are assigned administrative functions or additional tasks, such as President of the University, Chancellor, Dean, Director of an institutional unit, chief of division, assistant to executive official and other analogous administrative positions, will not acquire tenure for the performance of such functions and additional tasks, although they will acquire tenure for their teaching as professors.
Dr. Vargas actively participated as a professor in the University, devoting two-thirds of his time to teaching and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- KEYSTONE RESOURCES v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.
-
Vargas-Figueroa v. Saldana
...injunction that required the university officials to permit Dr. Vargas to continue as head of the department. Vargas Figueroa v. Saldana, 646 F.Supp. 1362 (D.P.R.1986). Those officials appeal, claiming that the injunction is unlawful. We agree and now The record indicates the following even......