o'connell v. marrero recio, 1st cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 O'Connell v. Marrero Recio, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/24

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 2191

ROSEMARI E O' CONNELL; ALEJ ANDRO FRANCO,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s,

v.

HUMBERTO MARRERO- RECI O, i n hi s personal and of f i ci al capaci t y;J ORGE GARC A- FANEYTT, i n hi s personal and of f i ci al capaci t y;

J ESS MNDEZ- RODR GUEZ, i n hi s personal and of f i ci al capaci t y,Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Ai da M. Del gado- Col n, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge][ Hon. Mar cos E. Lpez, U. S. Magi st r at e J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Sel ya and Li pez,Ci r cui t J udges.

Har r y Anduze- Mont ao, wi t h whomJ os A. Moral es- Bosci o was onbr i ef , f or appel l ant s.

Mi chel l e Camacho- Ni eves, Assi st ant Sol i ci t or Gener al ,Depar t ment of J ust i ce, wi t h whomMar gar i t a Mercado- Echegaray was onbr i ef , f or appel l ees.

J ul y 22, 2013


2/24

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Af t er br i ef st i nt s as t he

Human Resour ces Di r ect or of t wo Puer t o Ri co gover nment al agenci es,

Pl ai nt i f f - Appel l ant Rosemar i e O' Connel l sued her f or mer super vi sor s

seeki ng r edr ess under 42 U. S. C. 1983 and t he l aws of Puer t o Ri co.

The di st r i ct cour t di smi ssed some of her cl ai ms at t he pl eadi ng

st age, and t he r est at summar y j udgement . O' Connel l now appeal s

t he di smi ssal of t hr ee of t hose cl ai ms.

Speci f i cal l y, O' Connel l f i r st chal l enges t he di smi ssal of

her Fi r st Amendment f r ee speech cl ai m, ar gui ng t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t er r ed i n f i ndi ng t hat her "speech" excl usi vel y revol ved

ar ound her pr of essi onal r esponsi bi l i t i es as Human Resour ces

Di r ect or . Second, O' Connel l chal l enges t he di smi ssal of a cl ai m

she made under t he Puer t o Ri co Whi st l ebl ower s Pr otect i on Act ( "Law

426") , P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 1, 601, and t akes i ssue wi t h t he

cour t ' s det er mi nat i on t hat she never engaged i n t he ki nd of

whi st l ebl owi ng act i vi t i es pr ot ect ed under t he st at ut e. Thi r d,

O' Connel l chal l enges t he j udgment on her Fi r st Amendment f r eedomof

associ at i on cl ai m. Accor di ng t o O' Connel l , t he cour t er r ed i n

hol di ng t he Fi r st Amendment i nappl i cabl e to her posi t i on as Human

Resour ces Di r ect or .

Af t er car ef ul consi der at i on, we af f i r mthe di st r i ct cour t

on al l f r ont s.

-2-


3/24

I. Background1

Af t er t he New Pr ogr essi ve Par t y ( "NPP") won Puer t o Ri co' s

November 2008 gener al el ect i ons, O' Connel l , a l ong- t i me NPP

a f f i l i a t e , 2 became t he Human Resour ces Di r ect or of t he Puer t o Ri co

Per mi t s and Regul at i on Admi ni st r at i on ( Spani sh acr onym "ARPE") .

Shor t l y t her eaf t er , Def endant s- Appel l ees, Humber t o Mar r er o- Reci o

and J or ge Gar c a- Faneyt t i , al so NPP af f i l i at es, wer e r espect i vel y

appoi nted as t he f i r st and second i n command at ARPE. 3 O' Connel l ,

Mar r er o, and Gar c a appear t o have coexi st ed wi t hout conf l i ct

dur i ng t hei r f i r st mont hs at ARPE.

Thi ngs changed i n May 2009 when an NPP pr i mar y el ect i on

pi t t ed O' Connel l and Mar r er o' s candi dat es agai nst each ot her . When

Mar r er o l ear ned t hat O' Connel l st ood i n a di f f er ent camp f or t he

el ect i on, he pr ohi bi t ed her f r om campai gni ng i n f avor of her

1

We st at e t he f act s under l yi ng O' Connel l ' s cl ai ms as al l eged i nher compl ai nt . S. E. C. v. Tambone, 597 F. 3d 436, 438 ( 1st Ci r .2010) . When r evi ewi ng t he summary j udgment r ul i ng, see i nf r a Par tI I ( B) , we use onl y t hose f act s t hat ar e pr oper l y document ed i n t hesummar y j udgment r ecor d.

2 As an act i ve member of t he NPP, O' Connel l has hel d di f f er entl eader shi p posi t i ons t hr ough t he year s, i ncl udi ng, f or exampl e,Regi onal Di r ect or of t he Women' s Or gani zat i on, El ect or al Di r ect orf or t he Car ol i na Regi on, and "Get Out t o Vot e" Regi onal Di r ect or .I n t he 2007 NPP pr i mar y el ect i on, O' Connel l unsuccessf ul l y r an f ora Senat e seat r epr esent i ng t he Car ol i na Di st r i ct . She has al so

worked wi t hi n t he NPP Human Resour ces Pr of essi onal Gr oup of t hePubl i c Empl oyment Coal i t i on as wel l as coor di nat ed sever al NPPact i vi t i es.

3 Mar r er o r emai ned as ARPE' s Admi ni st r ator unt i l Oct ober 8, 2009,when he was appoi nt ed t o a di f f er ent posi t i on at anothergover nment al agency. Garc a succeeded hi mas ARPE' s Admi ni st r ator .

-3-


4/24

candi dat e. Mar r er o al so t hr eat ened her by st at i ng t hat "he di d not

want t o l ear n t hat she vot ed i n t he pr i mar i es f or [ her candi dat e] . "

O' Connel l vot ed f or her candi date anyway, and a f ew days af t er t he

el ect i on, Mar r er o t ol d O' Connel l t hat he knew how she had vot ed and

t hat , f r om t hat poi nt on, she was not al l owed t o engage i n any

"of f - of f i ce" pol i t i cal act i vi t i es. Mar r er o al so enl i sted some of

hi s subor di nat es at ARPE t o spy on O' Connel l . A cl andest i ne

newsl et t er ci r cul at i ng at ARPE st at ed t hat O' Connel l was bei ng

vi deot aped and t hat she hel d a par al l el pr i vat e- sect or j ob.

O' Connel l l at er l ear ned t hat a subor di nat e of Mar r er o was

r esponsi bl e f or t he publ i cat i on of t he newsl et t er and t hat Mar r er o

exer t ed cont r ol over i t s cont ent .

O' Connel l and Mar r ero al so but t ed heads when i t came t i me t o

i mpl ement t he "Speci al Act Decl ar i ng a St at e of Fi scal Emer gency, "

al so known as "Law 7. " As ARPE' s Human Resour ces Di r ect or ,

O' Connel l was r esponsi bl e f or det er mi ni ng and repor t i ng t he agency

empl oyees' "year s of ser vi ce" t o a so- cal l ed St abi l i zat i on Boar d

cr eat ed under Law 7. The Boar d was requi r ed t o det ermi ne t he

r espect i ve "seni or i t y" of each empl oyee i n or der t o make downsi zi ng

deci si ons. Empl oyees coul d chal l enge t he Boar d' s det er mi nat i ons

wi t hi n a per i od of 30 days.

I n an at t empt t o pr event t he possi bl e l ayof f of cer t ai n

NPP empl oyees under Law 7, Mar r er o i nst r uct ed O' Connel l t o f al si f y

t hei r per sonnel r ecor ds by i ncr easi ng t hei r year s of ser vi ce. She

-4-


5/24

r ef used, and, a f ew days l ater , Garc a made t he same r equest . But

O' Connel l r eaf f i r med her posi t i on "and expl ai ned t hat t he[ ] same

empl oyees [ had] f ai l ed to chal l enge the cal cul at ed t i me wi t hi n t he

t er m est abl i shed by Law 7 [ and] [ t ] hat i t was i l l egal f or her t o

change t he number s adj udi cat ed by t he St abi l i zat i on Boar d. "

Unabl e to i mpose hi s wi l l over O' Connel l , Mar r er o

ent r ust ed one of hi s subordi nates wi t h r evi ewi ng empl oyees'

chal l enges t o t he year - of - ser vi ce comput at i ons made by t he

St abi l i zat i on Boar d. Mar r er o t hen i nst r uct ed O' Connel l t o cer t i f y

t he wor k of hi s subor di nat e wi t hout val i dat i ng t he i nf or mat i on

pr ovi ded t o her . She r ef used and t ol d Mar r er o t hat " t he I nt er nal

Audi t or , t he I T Di r ect or , t he Li cense Super vi sor , and human

r esour ces per sonnel woul d ver i f y t he cal cul at i ons. "

O' Connel l and Mar r er o' s wor ki ng r el at i onshi p cont i nued t o

det er i or at e as she consi st ent l y r ef used t o f ol l ow hi s pol i t i cal l y

mot i vat ed order s. For exampl e, among other t hi ngs, O' Connel l

r ef used to acqui esce t o Mar r er o' s wi shes t o ( 1) r ei nst at e an NPP

empl oyee who was previ ousl y t ermi nat ed because of di shonest y; ( 2)

i gnor e an Of f i ce of Gover nment Et hi cs r equest f or i nf or mat i on as t o

possi bl e unet hi cal conduct at t he agency; ( 3) di sr egar d per sonnel

r el ated i nqui r i es made by NPP empl oyees consi der ed t o be t r ai t ors

because they wer e f r i ends wi t h empl oyees af f i l i at ed wi t h t he

opposi ng par t y; and ( 4) ar bi t r ar i l y t r ansf er an ARPE empl oyee as

puni shment f or suppor t i ng t he opposi ng par t y. I n r ef usi ng t o act

-5-


6/24

as i nst r uct ed, O' Connel l t ol d Mar r er o t hat hi s r equest s " coul d not

be l egal l y j ust i f i ed and woul d sur el y br i ng upon [ t hem negat i ve

l egal r eper cussi ons] . " Mar r er o r esponded " t hat he was

' di sappoi nt ed' wi t h her f ai l ur e t o act accor di ng t o hi s wi shes. "

And when O' Connel l r ei nst at ed t he dut i es of anot her empl oyee

af f i l i ated wi t h an NPP opponent , Mar r er o r esponded by havi ng an

empl oyee under hi s di r ect super vi si on t hr eat en her , st at i ng t hat

" t hose who do not f ol l ow our i nst r uct i ons ( gest ur ed by ' passi ng a

f i nger acr oss hi s neck' ) . . . [ and we] know wher e your husband

works and where your daught er st udi es. "

O' Connel l t ender ed her r esi gnat i on on Oct ober 9, 2009,

ef f ect i ve on December 15, 2009. A f ew days l at er , however ,

O' Connel l r ecei ved an of f er t o become t he Human Resour ces and Labor

Rel at i ons Di r ect or f or t he Puer t o Ri co Publ i c Bui l di ngs Aut hor i t y

( Spani sh acr onym" AEP") under t he di r ect i on of Def endant - Appel l ee

J ess Mndez- Rodr guez ( t oget her wi t h Mar r er o and Gar c a,

"Def endant s" ) . She accept ed t he of f er and changed t he ef f ect i ve

dat e of her r esi gnat i on t o Oct ober 31, 2009. But dur i ng

O' Connel l ' s f i r st day at AEP, Mndez summoned her t o a meet i ng and

i nf ormed her t hat "she was [ bei ng] t er mi nated i mmedi atel y" because

Mar r ero had t hr eat ened t o cause probl ems i f she was empl oyed at t he

agency. As O' Connel l l ef t t he AEP bui l di ng, she came acr oss an

edi t i on of ARPE' s cl andest i ne newsl et t er al r eady i n ci r cul at i on

st at i ng t hat she had been i mmedi atel y t er mi nated f r om AEP.

-6-


7/24

O' Connel l f i l ed her compl ai nt on Oct ober 7, 2010, and

amended i t on J anuar y 19, 2011. O' Connel l di vi ded Count One of her

amended compl ai nt i nt o t wo sect i ons. The f i r st sect i on cl ai med

t hat she had been const r uct i vel y di schar ged at ARPE, and t hen

di schar ged at AEP, due t o her al l egi ance wi t h an NPP f act i on

di sf avor ed by Def endant s, i n vi ol at i on of her Fi r st Amendment

f r eedom of associ at i on r i ght s. The second sect i on cl ai med Fi r st

Amendment f r ee speech vi ol at i ons i n t he f or m of r et al i at i on on

account of "her r ef usal t o par t ake i n t he[ ] i l l egal act i ons"

r equest ed by Mar r er o and Garc a. O' Connel l ' s Law 426 cl ai m was

pl ed i n Count Fi ve of t he amended compl ai nt , whi ch st ated t hat

"Def endant s t ook an adver se empl oyment act i on agai nst Pl ai nt i f f

because of her ' whi st l ebl owi ng' act i ons. "

I n due cour se, Def endants moved t o di smi ss t he amended

compl ai nt under Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) . The

di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he mot i on i n par t , di smi ssi ng O' Connel l ' s

Fi r st Amendment r et al i at i on cl ai mas wel l as her Law 426 cl ai m. I n

so hol di ng, t he cour t r ej ect ed O' Connel l ' s cont ent i on t hat t he

compl ai nt suf f i ci ent l y pl ed r et al i at i on based on t he di f f er ent

act i ons Mar r er o and Gar c a took upon her r ef usal t o f ol l ow

per sonnel - r el at ed or der s t hat she consi der ed i l l egal and

pol i t i cal l y mot i vat ed. The cour t r easoned t hat O' Connel l ' s

"speech" was made i n r esponse t o Mar r ero' s or ders " pur suant t o her

pr of essi onal acti vi t i es and, t her ef or e, d[ i d] not f al l under t he

-7-


8/24

Fi r st Amendment ' s pr ot ect i ons. " I n connect i on wi t h O' Connel l ' s Law

426 cl ai m, t he cour t agr eed wi t h Def endant s t hat t he compl ai nt

f ai l ed t o al l ege "t he mi suse of publ i c pr oper t y or publ i c f unds"

r equi r ed f or a val i d whi st l ebl owi ng cl ai m under t hat l aw.

Once di scover y concl uded, Def endant s moved f or summar y

j udgment i n connect i on wi t h O' Connel l ' s Fi r st Amendment f r eedomof

associ at i on cl ai mand t he r emai ni ng st at e l aw cl ai ms. As rel evant

her e, t hey ar gued t hat O' Connel l ' s Human Resour ces posi t i ons at

ARPE and AEP were "t r ust " and "pol i cymaki ng" posi t i ons exempt ed

f r om t he pr ot ect i on of t he Fi r st Amendment . I n opposi t i on,

O' Connel l st at ed t hat t he r esponsi bi l i t i es of her posi t i ons

r esembl ed t hose of a t echnocr at and not a pol i cymaker gi ven t hat

Law 7 had "st r i pped" her j ob of any di scr et i on and "sever el y

cur t ai l ed" her super vi sor y dut i es. I n a t hor ough, wel l - r easoned

opi ni on, t he di st r i ct cour t si ded wi t h Def endant s, and t hi s appeal

t i mel y ensued.

II. Discussion

A. Chal l enges t o the Pl eadi ng St age Di smi ssal s

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng on a mot i on t o

di smi ss de novo, accept i ng al l wel l - pl ed f act s i n t he compl ai nt as

t r ue, and dr awi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n f avor of t he

pl ai nt i f f . Ocasi o- Her nndez v. For t uo- Bur set , 640 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st

Ci r . 2011) ; Gar gano v. Li ber t y I nt ' l Under wr i t er s, I nc. , 572 F. 3d

45, 48 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Di smi ssal f or f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m i s

-8-


9/24

war r ant ed when t he compl ai nt l acks " suf f i ci ent f act ual mat t er . .

. t o ' s tat e a cl ai m t o rel i ef t hat i s pl aus i bl e on i t s f ace. ' "

Ashcr of t v. I qbal , 556 U. S. 662, 678 ( 2009) ( quot i ng Bel l At l .

Cor p. v. Twombl y, 550 U. S. 544, 570 ( 2007) ) . We make t hi s

det er mi nat i on t hr ough a hol i st i c, cont ext - speci f i c anal ysi s of t he

compl ai nt , whi ch, i n some cases, can repr esent a f or mi dabl e

under t aki ng. See I qbal , 556 U. S. at 679; Mal donado v. Font anes,

568 F. 3d 263, 268 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . However , wher e, as her e, a

di st r i ct cour t "accur at el y t akes t he measur e of a case,

per suasi vel y expl ai ni ng i t s r easoni ng, and r eaches a cor r ect

r esul t , i t ser ves no usef ul pur pose f or a r evi ewi ng cour t t o wr i t e

at l engt h i n pl aci ng i t s seal of appr oval on t he deci si on bel ow. "

Moses v. Mel e, 711 F. 3d 213, 216 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . We t her ef ore

l i mi t our di scussi on t o t he bar e essent i al s.

1. O' Connel l ' s Fi r st Amendment Ret al i at i on Cl ai m

Our anal ysi s begi ns wi t h O' Connel l ' s cl ai m t hat

Def endant s i mpi nged on her Fi r st Amendment r i ght s i n ret al i at i ng

agai nst her f or r ef usi ng t o par t ake i n "unet hi cal , unl awf ul and

di scr i mi nat or y pr act i ces. " She cl ai ms t hat her r ef usal s

const i t ut ed pr ot ect ed "speech. " We di sagr ee.

Under t he thr ee- par t t est appl i cabl e her e, t he thr eshol d

i nqui r y i s whet her O' Connel l spoke as a ci t i zen on a mat t er of

publ i c concer n. See Decot i i s v. Whi t t emmore, 635 F. 3d 22, 29 ( 1st

Ci r . 2011) ( ci t i ng Cur r an v. Cousi ns, 509 F. 3d 36, 45 ( 1st Ci r .

-9-


10/24

2007) ) , and Pi cker i ng v. Bd. of Educ. , 391 U. S. 563, 568 ( 1968) ) . 4

A di sposi t i ve f act or i n t hi s det er mi nat i on i s whet her t he "speech"

under l yi ng O' Connel l ' s cl ai m was made "pur suant t o [her ] of f i ci al

dut i es. " Gar cet t i v. Cebal l os, 547 U. S. 410, 421 ( 2006) . I f t he

answer t o t hi s i nqui r y i s i n t he af f i r mat i ve, t hen O' Connel l has no

Fi r st Amendment cl ai m, si nce " r est r i ct i ng speech t hat owes i t s

exi st ence t o a publ i c empl oyee' s pr of essi onal r esponsi bi l i t i es does

not i nf r i nge any l i ber t i es. " I d. at 421- 22.

As t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y hel d, t he "speech"

under l yi ng O' Connel l ' s cl ai m was made pur suant t o her dut i es as

ARPE' s Human Resour ces Di r ect or . Accor di ng t o Count One of her

compl ai nt , O' Connel l ' s al l eged pr ot ect ed speech consi st ed

excl usi vel y of sever al i nst ances i n whi ch she communi cat ed to

Mar r er o and Gar c a her r el uct ance t o under t ake per sonnel - r el at ed

act i ons t hat she deemed ei t her i l l egal or unet hi cal . I n ot her

wor ds, O' Connel l ' s " speech" sol el y f ocused on event s at her

wor kpl ace and was made excl usi vel y t o f ul f i l l her r esponsi bi l i t i es

as ARPE' s Human Resour ces Di r ect or . Thi s t ype of communi cat i on i s

t he qui nt essent i al exampl e of speech t hat owes i t s exi st ence t o a

4 For t he second pr ong, " t he cour t must bal ance t he i nt er est oft he empl oyee, as a ci t i zen, i n comment i ng upon mat t er s of publ i c

concer n and t he i nt er est of t he St at e, as an empl oyer , i n pr omot i ngt he ef f i ci ency of t he publ i c ser vi ces i t per f or ms t hr ough i t sempl oyees. " Decot i i s, 635 F. 3d at 29 ( ci t at i ons, al t er at i ons, andquotat i on marks omi t t ed) . Under t he t hi r d pr ong, " t he empl oyeemust show t hat t he pr otect ed expr essi on was a subst ant i al ormot i vat i ng f act or i n t he adver se empl oyment deci si on. " I d.( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

-10-


11/24

publ i c empl oyee' s pr of essi onal r esponsi bi l i t i es and t hus i s not

pr ot ect ed under t he Fi r st Amendment . See, e. g. , Gar cet t i 547 U. S.

at 421- 22 ( f i ndi ng t he Fi r st Amendment Fr ee Speech cl ause

i nappl i cabl e t o pr osecut or s memo on t he pr oper di sposi t i on of a

pendi ng cr i mi nal case as i t was wr i t t en i n conj unct i on wi t h hi s

pr of essi onal r esponsi bi l i t i es and i t was par t of what he was pai d

t o do) ; Fol ey v. Town of Randol ph, 598 F. 3d 1, 7- 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2010)

( f i ndi ng no Fi r st Amendment pr ot ect i on wher e the chi ef of t he f i r e

depar t ment addr essed t he medi a i n an of f i ci al capaci t y dur i ng a

pr ess conf erence when he was on dut y, i n uni f orm, at t he scene of

a f i r e, and speaki ng al ongsi de t he St at e Fi r e Mar shal on mat t er s

concer ni ng t he f i r e depar t ment s f undi ng) . For t hat r eason,

O' Connel l i s unabl e t o st at e a pl ausi bl e cl ai m f or r el i ef and our

Decot i i s i nqui r y ends.

O' Connel l cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di sr egar ded

wel l - pl ed al l egat i ons st at i ng t hat she suf f er ed r et al i at i on f or

par t i ci pat i ng i n t he NPP' s pr i mar y el ect i on agai nst Mar r er o' s

wi shes. O' Connel l , however , di d not premi se her Fi r st Amendment

r et al i at i on cl ai m on t hose al l egat i ons. Count One, subsect i on B

( ent i t l ed "Ret al i at i on") of her f i r st amended compl ai nt makes pl ai n

t hat O' Connel l ' s r et al i at i on cl ai m ar ose out of Mar r er o and

Gar c a' s act i ons i n connect i on wi t h her r ef usal t o go al ong wi t h

t hei r al l eged i l l egal or der s:

-11-


12/24

Def endant s vi ol at ed Pl ai nt i f f ' s Fi r stAmendment r i ght s as she suf f ered [ D] ef endant s'ret al i at i on f or ref us i ng t o f ol l ow pol i t i cal l ymot i vat ed i l l egal empl oyment act i ons t o f avormember s of her own par t y, and f or opposi ngorder s f r omt he codef endant s t o i nj ur e member s

of t he opposi ng par t y . . . . O' Connel lengaged i n pr otect ed speech whi l e r ef usi ng t of ol l ow t he unet hi cal , unl awf ul anddi scr i mi nat or y pr act i ces or der ed by[ D] ef endant s.

Si mi l ar l y, O' Connel l ' s opposi t i on t o Def endant s' mot i on t o di smi ss

r est at ed t hat Def endant s' "r et al i at i on was due t o Pl ai nt i f f ' s

r ef usal t o vi ol at e t he l aw and her dut i es as a publ i c ser vant i n

or der t o accommodat e def endant s' r equest s t o f avor t hei r pol i t i cal

pr ot egees and t o i l l egal l y af f ect ot her s t hat wer e not . . . . "5

The di st r i ct cour t t heref or e had no r eason t o f act or i nt o i t s

anal ys i s of O' Connel l ' s ret al i at i on cl ai m t he al l egat i ons

concer ni ng her par t i ci pat i on i n t he NPP' s pr i mar y el ect i ons. See

Ri ver a- Gomez v. de Cast r o, 843 F. 2d 631, 635 (1st Ci r . 1988)

( " J udges are not expect ed t o be mi ndr eader s. Consequent l y, a

l i t i gant has an obl i gat i on t o spel l out i t s ar gument s squar el y and

di st i nctl y or el se f or ever hol d i t s peace. ") ( i nt er nal ci t at i on and

quot at i on omi t t ed) . Nei t her do we. Uni t ed St at es v. Sl ade, 980

5 Def endant s' mot i on t o di smi ss unequi vocal l y argued t hatO' Connel l ' s r et al i at i on cl ai m f ai l ed because i t was pr emi sed on"speech" t hat excl usi vel y ar ose f r om her pr of essi onalr esponsi bi l i t i es. I f O' Connel l f el t t hat Def endant s wer emi sconst r ui ng her r et al i at i on cl ai m, she coul d ( and shoul d) havest ated so i n her opposi t i on or r equest ed l eave t o amend t hecompl ai nt . She di d nei t her .

-12-


13/24

F. 2d 27, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( " I t i s a bedr ock r ul e t hat when a

par t y has not pr esent ed an argument t o t he di st r i ct cour t , she may

not unvei l i t i n t he cour t of appeal s. ") .

Let us be per f ect l y cl ear . We i n no way condone conduct

of t he t ype t hat O' Connel l at t r i but es i n her compl ai nt t o Mar r er o

and Garc a. But f eder al l aw does not pr ovi de a r emedy f or ever y

ki nd of mi sf easance by a l ocal of f i ci al , no mat t er how

unat t r act i ve, and O' Connel l has not pl ausi bl y al l eged a t i mel y

ar gued vi ol at i on of any f eder al l y assur ed r i ght .

2. O' Connel l ' s Law 426 Cl ai m

Next , we consi der O' Connel l ' s cont ent i on t hat her

compl ai nt pl ausi bl y pl ed a Law 426 whi st l ebl owi ng cl ai m. Law 426

was enact ed t o pr ot ect

t he r i ght s of publ i c empl oyees and of f i ci al swho di scl ose i nf or mat i on or t est i f y on al l egedi mpr oper or i l l egal act s r egar di ng t he use ofpubl i c pr oper t y or f unds t hat due t o t hei rnatur e const i t ut e act s of gover nmentcor r upt i on or f al l wi t hi n t he et hi cal conductr egul ated by our l egal syst em.

P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 1, 601. ( emphasi s added) . I t s pr ovi si ons,

among ot her t hi ngs, make i t i l l egal t o di smi ss, t hr eat en, or

di scr i mi nate agai nst any publ i c empl oyee who di scl oses or at t empt s

t o di scl ose, "bef or e any of f i ci al or empl oyee wi t h i nvest i gat i ve

f uncti ons or bef or e a st at e or f eder al l egi sl at i ve, admi ni st r at i ve

or j udi ci al f or um, " t he i mpr oper or i l l egal mi suse of publ i c f unds,

act s of cor r upt i on, abuse of aut hor i t y, or ot her qual i f i ed

-13-


14/24

i nf or mat i on. P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 1, 603( a) , ( b) ( 1) . Ther ef or e,

i n or der t o l ay out a pl ausi bl e whi st l ebl owi ng cause of act i on

under Law 426, t he st at ut e' s pl ai n l anguage cal l s f or a compl ai nt

t o st at e t hr ee t hr eshol d al l egat i ons: ( 1) t hat t he pl ai nt i f f was

awar e of qual i f i ed i nf or mat i on; ( 2) t hat she r epor t ed or at t empt ed

t o r epor t t hat i nf or mat i on t o an i nvest i gat or y agent or t o a f or um

wi t h admi ni str at i ve, l egi sl at i ve, or j udi c i al aut hor i t y; and ( 3)

t hat she was r et al i at ed agai nst on account of such r epor t i ng or

at t empt ed r epor t i ng.

I n di smi ssi ng O' Connel l ' s Law 426 cl ai m, t he di st r i ct

cour t hel d t hat O' Connel l ' s compl ai nt had "not al l eged t hat [ she]

ever r epor t ed t he mi suse of publ i c pr oper t y or publ i c f unds . . .

. " O' Connel l di sagr ees and ar gues t hat Mar r er o and Gar c a' s or der s

i n connect i on wi t h t he "year s- of - ser vi ce" r epor t pr ovi ded t o t he

St abi l i zat i on Boar d const i t ut ed act s of f i nanci al mal f easance

di r ect l y f al l i ng under Law 426' s pur vi ew. She r easons t hat t he

St abi l i zat i on Boar d was t o use t hat r epor t i n i mpl ement i ng

per sonnel - r el at ed deci si ons, and t hat Mar r er o and Gar c a' s or der s

woul d have event ual l y i mpacted publ i c f unds. O' Connel l , however ,

never r ai sed t hi s ar gument bel ow. I n f act , t he f ol l owi ng sent ences

encompass t he ent i r e ext ent of O' Connel l ' s memorandumi n opposi t i on

t o the di smi ssal of her Law 426 cl ai m: "Pl ai nt i f f s' aver ment s ampl y

showed t he cor r upt ed conduct engaged by t he [ D] ef endant [ s] . Thus,

Def endant [ s] ' Law 426 argument i s mer i t l ess. " Accordi ngl y, we need

-14-


15/24

not consi der O' Connel l ' s el event h- hour cont ent i ons at t hi s

j unct ur e. Sl ade, 980 F. 2d at 30. I n any event , even i f we wer e t o

do so, t he f act r emai ns t hat O' Connel l ' s compl ai nt nowher e al l eges

t hat she ever di scl osed or at t empt ed t o di scl ose Mar r er o and

Gar c a' s al l eged f i nanci al wr ongdoi ng t o anybody wi t h i nvest i gat i ng

aut hor i t y, or t o an ot her wi se qual i f i ed f or um, and t hi s i n i t sel f

i s f at al t o her cont ent i ons under Law 426' s whi st l ebl owi ng

pr ovi si ons.

I n t he al t er nat i ve, O' Connel l ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t const r ued Law 426 t oo nar r owl y i n l i mi t i ng i t s appl i cat i on t o

i nst ances of f i nanci al mal f easance r epor t i ng. I n suppor t , she

al l udes t o subsect i on b( 3) of Law 426, whi ch, i n per t i nent par t ,

pr ovi des t hat " [ n] o publ i c empl oyee who has aut hor i t y t o i nf l uence,

r ecommend or approve any act i on, shal l make adverse or

di scr i mi nat or y deci si ons r egar di ng any publ i c of f i ci al or empl oyee

f or [ . . . ] [ r ] ef usi ng t o obey an or der t o car r y out an act or

omi ssi on t hat woul d br i ng about t he vi ol at i on of a l aw or

r egul at i on. " P. R. Law Ann. t i t . 1, 603( b) ( 3) ( emphasi s

suppl i ed) . O' Connel l al so under scor es compl ai nt al l egat i ons

speci f i cal l y st at i ng t hat Mar r er o and Gar c a di scr i mi nat ed agai nst

her because she ref used t o car r y out order s t hat woul d have

vi ol at ed t he l aw.

Her cont ent i ons on t hi s f r ont appear t o have some mer i t .

Af t er al l , t he al l egat i ons she br i ngs t o our at t ent i on seem t o

-15-


16/24

depi ct t he exact same conduct pr ohi bi t ed under 603( b) ( 3) .

Never t hel ess, O' Connel l f ai l ed t o rai se thi s argument dur i ng t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s pr oceedi ngs. I n f act , when Def endant s moved t o

di smi ss her Law 426 cl ai m, t hey ar gued t hat she excl usi vel y

asser t ed whi st l ebl owi ng cl ai ms. 6 O' Connel l r esponded wi t h t he pai r

of per f unct ory, gener i c sent ences hi ghl i ght ed above, and never

ar gued t hat 603( b) ( 3) was i mpl i cat ed i n t hi s case. O' Connel l i s

t her ef or e i n no posi t i on t o chal l enge t he appl i cat i on of Law 426 on

gr ounds t hat she f ai l ed t o r ai se bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t , namel y,

t hat her cl ai m was pr emi sed on subsect i on b( 3) . Uni t ed St at es ex

r el . Est at e of Cunni nghamv. Mi l l enni umLabs. of CA, I nc. , 713 F. 3d

662, 674 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( "I f any pr i nci pl e i s set t l ed i n t hi s

ci r cui t , i t i s t hat , absent ext r aor di nar y ci r cumst ances, l egal

t heor i es not r ai sed squar el y i n t he l ower cour t cannot be br oached

f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal . ") ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

B. Chal l enge t o t he Summar y J udgment Or der

6 We f i nd t hat Def endant s i nt er pr et ed O' Connel l ' s compl ai ntcoher ent l y, gi ven t he way i n whi ch she ar t i cul ated her Law 426Count :

These st at ut es [ i ncl udi ng Law 426] i mposed as sanct i ons,

t he payment of doubl e damages agai nst t hose empl oyer st hat t ake adver se empl oyment act i ons, i ncl udi ng t ot er mi nat e any empl oyee, i n r et al i at i on f or cl ai mi ng herpr ot ect ed r i ght s and f or engagi ng i n speech of publ i cconcer n ( "whi st l ebl owi ng") . I n t he i nst ant case,Def endant s t ook an[ ] adver se empl oyment act i on agai nstPl ai nt i f f because of her "whi st l ebl owi ng" act i ons.

-16-


17/24

Last , we consi der O' Connel l ' s ar gument t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t er r ed when summar i l y di smi ss i ng her Fi r st Amendment f r eedom

of associ at i on cl ai m. We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s ent r y of

summar y j udgment de novo, Woj ci k v. Mass. St at e Lot t er y Comm' n, 300

F. 3d 92, 98 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) , and af f i r m when " t her e i s no genui ne

di sput e as t o any mat er i al f act and t he movant i s ent i t l ed t o

j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. " Far mer s I ns. Exch. v. RNK, I nc. , 632

F. 3d 777, 782 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Even t hough we are not wedded t o

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r at i onal e, and can af f i r m on any gr ound made

mani f est by t he r ecord, O' Br i en v. Town of Agawam, 350 F. 3d 279,

292 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) , when t he l ower cour t pr oduces a wel l - r easoned

on- poi nt deci si on, as i n t he pr esent case, we gener al l y t r ack t he

cour t ' s st eps and r ef r ai n f r om wr i t i ng at l engt h, Lawt on v. St at e

Mut . Li f e Assur . Co. of Am. , 101 F. 3d 218, 220 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) .

I n t he Fi r st Ci r cui t , i t i s a set t l ed pr i nci pl e t hat

t he Fi r st Amendment does not pr ot ect al l government empl oyees f r om

l ayof f s based on pol i t i cal - par t y af f i l i at i on. Fl ynn v. Ci t y of

Bost on, 140 F. 3d 42, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) . We empl oy a t wo- pr onged

t est t o det er mi ne whet her a par t i cul ar publ i c empl oyee can be

pr oper l y t er mi nat ed on account of pol i t i cal - par t y af f i l i at i on.

Fi r st , we l ook t o whet her " t he di schar gi ng agency' s f unct i ons

ent ai l deci si on maki ng on i ssues wher e t her e i s r oom f or pol i t i cal

di sagr eement on goal s or t hei r i mpl ement at i on. " Rosenber g v. Ci t y

of Ever et t , 328 F. 3d 12, 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( quot i ng Rol dn- Pl umey

-17-


18/24

v. Cer ezo- Sur ez, 115 F. 3d 58, 61- 62 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ) ( i nt er nal

quotat i ons omi t t ed) . Then we det er mi ne whet her " t he par t i cul ar

r esponsi bi l i t i es of t he pl ai nt i f f ' s posi t i on r esembl e t hose of a

pol i cy maker , pr i vy t o conf i dent i al i nf or mat i on, a communi cat or , or

some ot her of f i ce hol der whose f unct i on i s such t hat par t y

af f i l i at i on i s an equal l y appr opr i at e r equi r ement f or cont i nued

t enur e. " I d.

Her e, on t he f i r st pr ong, we f i nd t hat bot h di schar gi ng

agenci es, ARPE and AEP, are i nvol ved i n deci si on- maki ng on i ssues

f or whi ch t her e i s r oom f or pol i t i cal di sagr eement . On t he one

hand, ARPE, among ot her t hi ngs, i s char ged wi t h the admi ni st r at i on

of t he per mi t pr ocess f or ever y const r uct i on pr oj ect i n Puer t o

Ri co. We t hus agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t i n Vel zquez v.

Qui ones, 550 F. Supp. 2d 243, 249 (D. P. R. 2007) , t hat t he agency

"pl ays a vi t al r ol e i n t he i mpl ement at i on of any admi ni st r at i on' s

ur ban pl anni ng pol i ci es. " I t i s cer t ai nl y not di f f i cul t t o f at hom

how di f f er ent pol i t i cal f act i ons coul d di sagr ee on t hese pol i ci es,

and i t i s t her ef or e evi dent t hat ARPE' s f unct i ons ent ai l

deci si on- maki ng on pol i t i cal l y cont ent i ous i ssues.

Li kewi se, AEP i s an agency r esponsi bl e f or i mpl ement i ng

pol i t i cal l y sensi t i ve pol i ci es. The AEP i s a publ i c cor por at i on

whose seven- member boar d i ncl udes f our peopl e appoi nted by t he

Gover nor of Puer t o Ri co. Sot o Padr v. Pub. Bl dgs. Aut h. , 675 F. 3d

1, 2 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . The AEP di r ect s t he pr epar at i on of pl ans f or

-18-


19/24

al l bui l di ngs and ot her f aci l i t i es r el at ed t o t he pr ovi si on of

gover nment servi ces, such as school s and hospi t al s, and i s

empower ed to cont r act wi t h pr i vat e ent i t i es t o own, l ease, f i nance,

or repai r such f aci l i t i es. P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 22, 903. I n

J uarbe- Anguei r a v. Ar i as, 831 F. 2d 11, 15 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) , we hel d

t hat t he AEP' s mi ssi on "at l east pot ent i al l y . . . concer n[ ed]

pol i t i cal l y- char ged i ssues" and gr ant ed AEP' s Admi ni st r at or

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y on pl ai nt i f f ' s pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m.

Si nce t hi s deci si on, we have wi t nessed a number of devel opment s at

t he AEP and can now f i r ml y st ate t hat t he agency' s mi ssi on

def i ni t el y, not mer el y pot ent i al l y, concer ns pol i t i cal l y char ged

i ssues. Most si gni f i cant of t hese devel opment s i s a 2006 amendment

t o t he agency' s enabl i ng st at ut e, P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 22, 902,

t hat mandat ed, as a mat t er of publ i c pol i cy, al l gover nment al

ent i t i es t o "pr omot e and suppor t t he cont r act i ng of t he ser vi ces of

t he [ AEP] i n or der t o f ul f i l l t he desi gn, const r uct i on, r emodel i ng,

i mpr ovement s, operat i ons and mai ntenance needs of t he st r uct ur es

needed f or r ender i ng [ t hei r ] ser vi ces. "7 As gover nment al

or gani zat i ons ar e now obl i gat ed t o use t he AEP ser vi ces, t he agency

has absol ut e aut hor i t y over t he amount of money and resour ces t hat

wi l l be al l ocat ed f or var i ous r epai r , const r uct i on, and mai nt enance

7 The amendment does not appl y to gover nment al or gani zat i ons whi cht r adi t i onal l y used t hei r own empl oyees or out si de cont r act or s t osat i sf y such needs.

-19-


20/24

pr oj ect s. The pol i t i cal di sposi t i on of a gi ven admi ni st r at i on may

t hus gr eat l y f act or i nt o t he scope of such AEP pr oj ect s.

As i t i s cl ear t o us t hat bot h agenci es' f unct i ons ent ai l

deci si on- maki ng on pol i t i cal l y char ged i ssues, we move t o t he

second pr ong of t he t est - - t hat i s, t o eval uat e whet her O' Connel l ' s

par t i cul ar r esponsi bi l i t i es r esembl ed t hose of a pol i cymaker .

J i mnez- Fuentes v. Tor r es- Gazt ambi de, 807 F. 2d 236, 242 ( 1st Ci r .

1986) ( ci t i ng Tomczak v. Ci t y of Chi cago, 765 F. 2d 633, 640 ( 7t h

Ci r . 1985) ) . I n maki ng t hi s det er mi nat i on, we l ook f i r st t o t he

posi t i on' s j ob descr i pt i on r at her t han t he empl oyee' s act ual de

f act o r esponsi bi l i t i es, f i ndi ng t hi s t o be "t he best , and somet i mes

[ a] di sposi t i ve, sour ce f or det er mi ni ng t he posi t i on' s i nher ent

f unct i ons. " Rol dn- Pl umey, 115 F. 3d at 62. We al so consi der t he

posi t i on' s "r el at i ve pay, t echni cal compet ence, power t o cont r ol

ot her s, aut hor i t y t o speak i n t he name of pol i cymaker s, publ i c

per cept i on, i nf l uence on pr ogr ams, cont act wi t h el ect ed of f i ci al s,

and r esponsi veness t o par t i san pol i t i cs and pol i t i cal l eader s. "

O' Connor v. St eeves, 994 F. 2d 905, 910 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( i nt er nal

ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

O' Connel l ' s of f i ci al j ob descr i pt i on at ARPE cal l ed f or

( 1) per f or mi ng dut i es r el at ed t o "t he di r ect i on, coor di nat i on,

super vi si on and eval uat i on of t he act i vi t i es conduct ed i n t he

var i ous sect i ons of t he Human Resour ces of f i ce" ; ( 2) ensur i ng

"appl i cat i on and compl i ance of t he l aws and r egul at i ons r el at ed t o

-20-


21/24

t he mer i t syst em and t o per sonnel admi ni st r at i on"; and ( 3)

pr epar i ng conf i dent i al r epor t s and par t i ci pat i ng i n t he f or mul at i on

and i mpl ement at i on of publ i c pol i cy r egar di ng t he admi ni st r at i on of

human r esour ces i n t he agency. 8 As t he AEP' s Human Resour ces

Di r ect or , she woul d have been i n char ge of " t he enact ment and

i mpl ement at i on of t he l abor management pol i cy, as wel l as t he

pl anni ng, coor di nat i on, and super vi si on of t he pr ogr ams and

act i vi t i es t hat are devel oped i n t he Human Resour ces and Labor

Af f ai r s Of f i ce. "

Accordi ng to both j ob descr i pt i ons, t he Human Resour ces

Di r ect or posi t i ons at t he agenci es have i nher ent pol i cymaki ng, or

at t he ver y l east , pol i cy i mpl ement at i on aut hor i t y. As not ed by

t he di st r i ct cour t , bot h posi t i ons ar e t he hi ghest human r esour ces

posi t i ons i n t hei r r espect i ve agenci es, and bot h ar e t r ust

posi t i ons whi ch answer onl y to t he agenci es' admi ni st r at or s.

Mor eover , t he j ob descri pt i ons ei t her expl i ci t l y st at e or

i mpl i ci t l y suggest t hat t he Human Resour ces Di r ect or has access t o

conf i dent i al i nf or mat i on. Cr uci al l y, bot h posi t i ons ar e t he

condui t bet ween t he agenci es' admi ni st r at or s and st af f . Even i f

t he Human Resour ces Di r ect or of ei t her agency onl y r el ays pol i cy

f r omt he admi ni str at or t o t he st af f , she i s st i l l i n a posi t i on t o

8 Def endant s accompani ed t hei r summar y j udgment mot i on wi t hcopi es of t he of f i ci al j ob descr i pt i ons of O' Connel l ' s posi t i ons atARPE and AEP. O' Connel l r ai sed no obj ect i on i n connect i on wi t ht hose exhi bi t s.

-21-


22/24

i mpl ement pol i cy, whi ch the Supr eme Cour t has noted i s j ust as

i mpor t ant as pol i cymaki ng. Br ant i v. Fi nkel , 445 U. S. 507, 530

( 1980) . Moreover , t he Human Resour ces Di r ect or of bot h agenci es

has aut hor i t y t o speak on behal f of pol i cymaker s, as wel l as

i nf l uence t o car r y out t he pr ogr ams of t hei r super i or s. As such i t

appears evi dent t hat t he second pr ong of t he Rosenber g i nqui r y i s

sat i sf i ed, and pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on i s an appr opr i at e r equi r ement

f or empl oyment , si nce bot h Human Resour ces Di r ect or posi t i ons

cl ear l y resembl e t op l evel pol i cymaker s i n t hei r r espect i ve

agenci es.

O' Connel l at t empt s t o si dest ep t hese r eal i t i es by

cl ai mi ng t hat Law 7 l i mi t ed her i nher ent r esponsi bi l i t i es so as t o

st r i p her of di scr et i on over any human r esour ces pol i cymaki ng or

i mpl ement at i on. However , Law 7 onl y cal l ed f or a t wo- year

suspensi on of sel ect r esponsi bi l i t i es, t empor ar i l y pr event i ng t he

Human Resour ces Di r ect or f r omt aki ng cer t ai n per sonnel act i ons such

as pr omot i ons, demot i ons, r el ocat i ons and t r ansf er s. Law 7 di d not

el i mi nat e or al t er t he Human Resour ces Di r ect or ' s j ob descr i pt i on.

See P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 3, 8802( a) ( 1) - ( 27) . Even assumi ng t hat

O' Connel l ' s pol i cy- r el at ed dut i es wer e l i mi t ed by Law 7, t hi s

l i mi t at i on woul d onl y be t empor ar y, and her i nher ent dut i es woul d

r emai n unchanged f or t he pur poses of t he Rosenberg anal ysi s.

I n al l event s, Law 7' s maj or pr ovi si ons per t ai n t o human

r esour ces, and O' Connel l was t he empl oyee char ged wi t h t he

-22-


23/24

i mpl ement at i on of t hi s l aw f or ARPE' s ent i r e wor kf or ce ( and woul d

have been char ged wi t h Law 7' s i mpl ement at i on at AEP) . Such

r esponsi bi l i t y i s i n l i ne wi t h t hat of a hi gh- l evel t r ust empl oyee,

whose pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on woul d be r el evant t o an agency' s

ef f i ci ent f unct i oni ng. Thus O' Connel l ' s cont ent i ons mi ss t he

mar k. 9

To t he ext ent t hat O' Connel l cl ai ms t hat Law 7 st r i pped

her of pol i cymaki ng aut hor i t y, yet mai nt ai ns t hat Mar er r o

di scr i mi nated agai nst her because of t hei r di sagr eement over how t o

i mpl ement Law 7 at ARPE, her argument s ar e sel f - def eat i ng. I n

maki ng t hese cl ai ms, O' Connel l essent i al l y admi t s t hat she ret ai ned

some l evel of aut hor i t y over how Law 7 was car r i ed out , and that

her use of t hi s aut hor i t y caused t he conf l i ct bet ween her and

Mar r er o. Thi s onl y demonst r at es t hat her posi t i on di d i n f act

r et ai n i nf l uence over pol i cy i mpl ement at i on, r egar dl ess of any

al l eged l i mi t at i ons i nst i t ut ed by Law 7.

I n sum, because t her e ar e no genui ne di sput es of mater i al

f act s, and because t he Human Resour ces Di r ect or posi t i ons at ARPE

and AEP do not enj oy Fi r st Amendment prot ect i on, j udgment i n f avor

of Def endant s i n connect i on wi t h O' Connel l ' s f r eedomof associ at i on

cl ai m i s pr oper as a mat t er of l aw.

9 As t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y poi nt ed out , t he f act t hatO' Connel l pl eads i nt r a- par t y pol i t i cal di scri mi nat i on does notal t er t hi s hol di ng. See, e. g. , Rodr guez- Rodr guez v. Muoz- Muoz,808 F. 2d 138, 145 ( 1st Ci r . 1986) .

-23-


24/24

II. Conclusion

For t he f or goi ng r easons, we af f i r mt he di st r i ct cour t ' s

deci si ons at bot h the pl eadi ng st age and t he summar y j udgment

st age.

-24-

o'connell v. marrero recio, 1st cir. (2013)

Documents