Caban-Rodriguez v. Jimenez-Perez ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                  Not for Publication in West’s Federal Reporter
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 12-2130
    ILIANA CABÁN-RODRÍGUEZ,
    Plaintiff, Appellant,
    v.
    JAVIER D. JIMÉNEZ-PÉREZ, Mayor of the Municipality of San
    Sebastián; AGUSTÍN SOTO-CRUZ, Interim Director of the Human
    Resources Office; ZORAIDA VERA Director of Human Resources;
    MUNICIPALITY OF SAN SEBASTIÁN; MARÍA MARTELL, Director of Office
    of Faith Initiatives and Communities,
    Defendants, Appellees.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
    [Hon. Gustavo A. Gelpí, U.S. District Judge]
    Before
    Thompson, Baldock,* and Lipez,
    Circuit Judges.
    Jose Martinez-Custodio, with whom Kenneth Colón was on brief,
    for appellant.
    Susana I. Peñagarícano-Brown, Assistant Solicitor General,
    with whom Margarita L. Mercado-Echegaray, Solicitor General, was on
    brief, for individual appellees.
    Pedro R. Vázquez for municipal appellee.
    March 12, 2014
    *
    Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.             Plaintiff Iliana Cabán-Rodríguez
    appeals    the      district    court’s    grant   of   summary    judgment    to
    Defendants, namely the Municipality of San Sebastián (MSS), Javier
    D.   Jiménez-Pérez,      Agustín    Soto-Cruz,     Zoraida   Vera,     and   María
    Martell,       on    Cabán’s     First     Amendment    claim     of   political
    discrimination/retaliation.             The district court held Cabán failed
    to present evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find
    Cabán’s political affiliation was a substantial or motivating
    factor    in    what   she     labels    adverse   employment     action.      Our
    jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
    We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the
    same legal standard as the district court.                   See Ruiz-Rosa v.
    Rullán, 
    485 F.3d 150
    , 155 (1st Cir. 2007).               Accordingly, we will
    affirm only if Defendants have shown “that there is no genuine
    dispute as to any material fact and the [Defendants are] entitled
    to judgment as a matter of law.”            Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).       That is
    to say, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Cabán,
    we ask whether a jury properly could render a verdict in her favor
    upon the evidence presented.            See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
    
    477 U.S. 242
    , 252 (1986).          We answer that question no, and affirm.
    -2-
    I.
    In July 2001, Cabán commenced employment with Defendant MSS as
    secretary to the Clerk of the Municipal Assembly.1          In August 2003,
    Cabán accepted a career position as an accounting clerk at the
    Department of Public Works.2      Justo Medína of the New Progressive
    Party (NPP) was Mayor of MSS at the time.            Cabán described her
    duties at public works as “prepar[ing] purchase orders in the
    attendance roster area” and “record[ing] purchase orders issued by
    the department.”       Aplt’s App. at 104.
    Medína did not run for reelection in 2004. Defendant Jiménez,
    also a member of the NPP, was elected Mayor that year and assumed
    office in January 2005.       Cabán supported Jiménez’s candidacy.         A
    year later, in January 2006, MSS notified Cabán that her services
    were needed in the Purchases Office. Cabán described her duties in
    the Purchases Office as “keep[ing] a record book, or logbook for
    purchases   at   the    department,”    and   “earmarking   budgeted   items
    1
    As we embark upon our factual recitation, we note counsel
    for Cabán’s near-total failure to cite to the record in violation
    of Fed. R. App. P. 28(e). Cabán’s opening brief cites the record
    but once and that makes this Court’s job all the more difficult.
    See Aplt’s Br. at 9. As a result, MSS argues Cabán has waived all
    arguments on appeal. While we choose not to invoke waiver in this
    particular instance, we admonish counsel for his malfeasance, lest
    he think it acceptable to violate the applicable rules of procedure
    in the future.
    2
    To qualify for the position of accounting clerk with MSS,
    a candidate must have graduated “from high school supplemented by
    a course in bookkeeping from an accredited institution.” Aplt’s
    App. at 417.
    -3-
    according to the purchase orders.”      
    Id. at 115.
    Eleven months later, in December 2006, Cabán received a letter
    from Jiménez’s office indicating her services were then needed in
    the Early Head Start (EHS) Program.      In a letter to Jiménez dated
    January 2007, Cabán objected to the transfer.         Cabán labeled her
    transfer to EHS as “persecution” (for what she did not say),
    stating that “if the real need of service existed in the Office of
    Purchases . . . there was no reason for transfer to the [EHS]
    Program.”   
    Id. at 775.
      Cabán received no response, and reported to
    her new position that same month.       Cabán described her duties at
    EHS as “record[ing] information about the budget,” “performing bank
    statement reconciliation,” and “mak[ing] entries into the voucher
    system, among other things.”     
    Id. at 128.
    After her transfer to EHS, Cabán decided to support Jiménez’s
    opponent in the March 2008 NPP primary election for Mayor.
    Jiménez’s opponent was former Mayor Medína.        Jiménez prevailed in
    both the primary and general elections, and was reelected Mayor of
    MSS.    Cabán described her participation in Medína’s campaign as
    “a poll watcher” at a school.    
    Id. at 199–200.
       Cabán also appeared
    in motorcades, and, “[o]n one occasion,” in a radio program about
    a group of youngsters supporting Medína’s candidacy.       
    Id. at 201.
    Cabán’s “piece” in the program lasted around “two minutes.”        
    Id. Throughout the
    mayoral election campaign and thereafter, Cabán
    continued to work at EHS without any reduction in salary or
    -4-
    benefits.
    On August 31, 2009, twenty months after the primary election,
    MSS decided to discontinue sponsoring the EHS Program.        Of the
    twenty-three or so individuals working at EHS, all but Cabán, a
    career employee, were laid off.        On October 9, 2009, Jiménez
    received a letter from Nereida Oquendo, Acting Director of the Head
    Start Program (of which the EHS Program had been a part), stating
    Cabán had “no duties under her charge” and requesting she “be
    relocated to the position for which she was appointed.”       
    Id. at 410.
    That same day, Jiménez also received a letter from Defendant
    Martell, Director of the Faith and Community Initiatives Office
    (FCIO).    Martell’s letter stated in relevant part:
    The work with cancer survivors, addicts, homeless people
    and bedridden patients take me enough time. For that
    reason, Your Honor, I am asking you, to the extent that
    you can, that you assign a person to me to perform the
    work at the Homeless Center. The Center is preparing
    daily, monthly and quarterly reports of the participants.
    It also has to prepare quarterly price quotations for the
    purchase of foods and inventories.      At present, I am
    performing that work.
    By assigning a person to perform that work, I would be
    able to devote more time to our patients.
    
    Id. at 411.
    On October 15, 2009, Cabán received a letter from Defendant
    Soto in his capacity as Interim Director of the Department of Human
    Resources.    During a two-week period in October 2009, Soto served
    -5-
    as   Interim   Director   while    Defendant   Vera,   Director   of    Human
    Resources, was on leave.          Soto’s letter informed Cabán of her
    transfer to the Emergency Shelter Program at the Homeless Center:
    You were on detail at the [EHS] Program of which our
    Municipality was a sponsor.   Since last September 30,
    2009, this program no longer is administered by      the
    [MSS]. Mrs. Nereida Oquendo, Acting Director of the Head
    Start Program, has informed us that you do not have
    functions at this time.
    The Emergency Shelter Program for Homeless Persons
    (Homeless Center) does not have an Accounting Clerk;
    therefore it is urgent for us to have a person who can
    collaborate in this Department.
    Therefore . . . we hereby notify you that effective
    Monday, October 19, 2009, you will go on to exercise your
    functions as Accounting Clerk in the Emergency Shelter
    Program for Homeless Persons (Homeless Center) under the
    direct supervision of Mrs. Maria Martell . . . .
    
    Id. at 780.
    Rather than reporting to work at the Homeless Center, Cabán
    took a leave of absence and sought “medical, psychological and
    psychiatric    treatment”   from    the    State   Insurance   Fund    (i.e.,
    workman’s compensation) Office.           
    Id. at 17.
       Over three months
    later, on February 2, 2010, Cabán reported to Vera at the Human
    Resources Office. In a meeting with Vera and Martell, Cabán “asked
    if they could, please, relocate [her] to some other office.”              
    Id. at 159.
      Cabán acknowledged that during the meeting, Martell spoke
    to Cabán about her duties at the Center:
    Q    What were those duties that Ms. Martell told
    you to perform.
    A    She spoke to me about inventories, price quotes,
    and some reports.
    -6-
    Q     Did you perform the duties that Ms. Martell told
    you that you were going to be doing?
    A     None.
    Q     Why not?
    A     Because they were not in harmony with my duties.
    
    Id. at 160.
    One month later, Cabán sent Jiménez a letter dated March 3,
    2010.    Therein, Cabán expressed concern for her safety given the
    shelter’s clientele and state of disrepair.        Cabán expressed
    overall frustration with her employment situation.      The letter
    concluded:
    [A]s of the moment of this communication I have not been
    provided the necessary equipment and materials, nor much
    less have I been advised or trained in the works that I
    am going to carry out with the functions in accordance to
    my position that were going to be delegated to yours
    truly after the transfer for alleged need of service . .
    . .
    I hereby request reconsideration and to be placed in an
    area where I can exercise my functions in accordance with
    my position.
    
    Id. at 759.
    Martell responded to Cabán on March 9, 2010, by outlining in
    a letter the tasks Cabán was to perform “as part of [her] duties as
    accounting clerk in the Homeless Center:”
    •     Participants’ Daily Registry;
    •     Keep the records updated and orderly;
    •     Prepare weekly report of participants;
    •     Prepare weekly food inventory;
    •     Prepare weekly report of food consumption;
    •     Receive   and   file   documentation   on   service
    authorizations for participants of the Center sent
    by Faith Communities Office;
    •     Prepare requisitions, price quotations and purchase
    orders related to work at the Center;
    -7-
    •    Keep files, employee payrolls and volunteers who
    work water, electric power, sanitary license and
    fire department endorsement.
    
    Id. at 419.
       Martell reminded Cabán that one of her duties as an
    accounting clerk was “[t]o complete and keep records and registries
    containing    the   corresponding    information   related   to   the   work
    produced in the office.”       
    Id. Other duties
    described in the
    “position classification” of accounting clerk include, but are not
    limited to, “maintaining general controls over each municipal
    program allocation and line item,” and “[e]nter[ing] information
    into the system related to the functions performed in the office.”
    
    Id. at 416.
    Cabán would hear none of it.           On April 5, 2010 she wrote
    Jiménez another letter:
    In communication dated March 9, 2010, I was delegated
    some tasks which are not part of my description of duties
    as Accounting Clerk . . . .
    The tasks delegated to yours truly in the communication
    mentioned above mostly involve functions of lesser and
    inferior complexity . . . .
    
    Id. at 763
    (emphasis added).        Cabán informed Jiménez that most of
    the tasks described in Martell’s letter were to be performed either
    by an official buyer, a warehouse manager, or the cook.                 As a
    result, “no real need of immediate service of the undersigned in
    the Homeless Center arises.”        
    Id. And for
    the first time, Cabán
    accused Jiménez of political retaliation: “Without a doubt, your
    actions clearly show ill will, persecution and decisions made in
    -8-
    retaliation against yours truly for not supporting your political
    candidacy in the past internal primaries of the New Progressive
    Party (NPP).”    Id at 764.    Six months later, Cabán filed this §
    1983 action.
    II.
    The only federal cause of action Cabán alleges in her amended
    complaint based on the foregoing facts arises under the First
    Amendment.     In this context, we see no distinction between a
    political discrimination and political retaliation claim.            See
    Pierce v. Cotuit Fire Dist., 
    741 F.3d 295
    , 301 (1st Cir. 2014)
    (First Amendment political discrimination includes “retaliation for
    a contrary political opinion”). To establish a prima facie case of
    political discrimination/ retaliation, first Cabán must demonstrate
    that she engaged in protected First Amendment conduct.           
    Id. at 301–02.
      Second, Cabán must demonstrate that her conduct was a
    substantial or motivating factor in an adverse employment action,
    that action being Defendants’ decision to transfer her to the
    Homeless Center.    
    Id. at 302.
    The district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary
    judgment. The court implicitly recognized that Cabán’s support for
    Mayor   Jiménez’s   2008   primary    opponent   constituted   protected
    political conduct. The court ruled, however, that Cabán “failed to
    point to evidence” sufficient to establish the second prong of her
    prima facie case:
    -9-
    Plaintiff has failed to point to evidence that would
    allow a reasonable fact-finder to find that Plaintiff’s
    political affiliation was a substantial or motivating
    factor for her transfer. Plaintiff references her own
    deposition on many occasions in an attempt to raise a
    factual dispute, however, such testimony merely amounts
    to a legal conclusion. . . . Other than Plaintiff’s own
    statements claiming discrimination, Plaintiff points to
    no facts that would allow a reasonable jury to infer that
    Defendants discriminated against her due to her support
    for Medína. After reviewing the facts, the court cannot
    locate any facts that support Plaintiff’s assertion.
    Aplt’s App. at 813.
    On appeal, Cabán claims the record evidence is sufficient to
    establish that her support for past Mayor Medína in the 2008
    primary election was a substantial or motivating factor in her
    transfer to the Homeless Center.      To be sure, Cabán’s tenure at the
    Homeless   Center    appears   to   have   been   unpleasant.   Working
    conditions at the Homeless Center were far from ideal.          Cabán’s
    complaints to the MSS Fire Department and to the Puerto Rico
    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the
    condition of the Center were not unwarranted.        An OSHA inspection
    of the Homeless Center in late July 2010 revealed the presence of
    vermin, an excessive gathering of dust, dirt, and cobwebs, and
    leaks in the roof.    See 
    id. at 766–68.
        This inspection and other
    problems led MSS to permanently close the Homeless Center on
    November 1, 2010.3
    3
    MSS subsequently transferred Cabán to the FCIO located in
    the municipal library. Cabán stated that since her most recent
    transfer, she has not complained about any duties Martell assigned
    her:   “I have not complained, because I have performed them
    -10-
    Cabán’s work (or lack thereof) and her surroundings at the
    Homeless Shelter undoubtedly were not to her liking.            And, in some
    instances,    an   employee’s   transfer    may   amount   to   an   adverse
    employment action for the purpose of establishing a prima facie
    case of discrimination. See Rodríguez-García v. Miranda-Marín, 
    610 F.3d 756
    , 766 (1st Cir. 2010) (explaining that “[a]ctions short of
    dismissal or demotion,” including transfers, are “adverse” if they
    “result in a work situation unreasonably inferior to the norm for
    the position” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
    But less than ideal employment conditions, absent a showing of
    improper     motivation,   do    not     constitute     First     Amendment
    discrimination.      Cabán’s transfer to the Homeless Shelter came
    twenty months after the primary election in which she participated,
    so temporal proximity lends her discrimination claim no support.
    See Torres-Santiago v. Municipality of Adjuntas, 
    693 F.3d 230
    , 240
    (1st Cir. 2012) (“While mere temporal proximity between a change of
    administration and an adverse employment action is insufficient to
    establish discriminatory animus, . . . it is relevant to whether
    political affiliation was a substantial or motivating factor in
    that adverse employment decision.”).         Moreover, Cabán’s transfer
    came only after MSS decided to close the EHS Program and lay off
    all non-career employees of the Program.          Additionally, Cabán was
    not without duties at the Homeless Center at least arguably related
    voluntarily, to keep myself busy.”         Aplt’s App. at 177.
    -11-
    to the job description of a low-level accounting clerk; regardless,
    she    obstinately   refused   to   perform   those    duties   after     her
    objections to the transfer fell on deaf ears.
    As the district court recognized, Cabán has offered little
    evidence apart from her own say-so that Defendants, individually or
    collectively, had any political motivations in their treatment of
    her.   That Cabán answered “none” to an interrogatory asking her to
    identify the witnesses she intended to call at trial illustrates
    the point.   Aplt’s App. at 285.     Cabán’s subjective beliefs simply
    are not evidence sufficient to counter Defendants’ well-supported
    motion for summary judgment.         See Pilgrim v. Trustees of Tufts
    College, 
    118 F.3d 864
    , 871 (1st Cir. 1997).      Cabán “may not prevail
    simply by asserting an inequity and tacking on the self-serving
    conclusion    that   the   [D]efendant[s]     w[ere]     motivated   by    a
    discriminatory animus.”     Santiago v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., 
    138 F.3d 1
    , 5 (1st Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).             This,
    however, appears to be precisely what Cabán attempts to do.
    Cabán asserts that while discovery was ongoing in the case,
    she witnessed Martell on June 14, 2011, writing a letter at her
    FCIO computer, printing the same, signing it, photocopying it, and
    then placing the original signed letter in the wastebasket.          Cabán
    removed the letter from the wastebasket.              According to Cabán,
    “[t]his letter had the date of October 9, 2009 and was pretending
    to be a request from Martell to have someone assigned to perform
    -12-
    food inventory duties at the Homeless Center.”           Aplt’s Amend. Op.
    Br. at 7.       In other words, Cabán says “the alleged necessity of
    [her] services at the Homeless Center was fabricated via a letter
    dated October 9, 2009 which was created by Martell on June 14,
    2011.”       
    Id. at 9.
    Unfortunately for Cabán, the record before us contains no
    evidence to support her assertion that Martell fabricated the
    October 9, 2009 letter to Jiménez after the fact.         The letter Cabán
    claims to have removed from Martell’s wastebasket is not part of
    the record, so neither are its contents. At oral argument, Cabán’s
    counsel reluctantly acknowledged the letter as Cabán says she found
    it on June 14, 2011, is not before us.           So all we have is Cabán’s
    word.    We well recognize that at the summary judgment stage, “we
    need not exclude all interested testimony, specifically testimony
    that    is    uncontradicted   by   the    nonmovant.”   Dennis   v.   Osram
    Sylvania, Inc., 
    549 F.3d 851
    , 856 (1st Cir. 2008).          But, the “Best
    Evidence Rule requires that a party seeking to prove the ‘content’
    of a writing must introduce the original or a ‘duplicate’ of the
    original” if the original is unavailable through no fault of the
    proponent.       Airframe Sys., Inc. v. L-3 Commc’ns Corp., 
    658 F.3d 100
    , 107 n.9 (1st Cir. 2011).             Cabán simply has not proven the
    contents of the letter she says she retrieved from Martell’s
    wastebasket.
    On top of that, Defendants have contradicted Cabán’s claim
    -13-
    that Martell’s October 9, 2009 letter was fabricated after the
    fact.    Defendants have made part of the record a July 2012 report
    of a professional inspection of Martell’s computer.     According to
    the report of electrical engineer Ricardo Acevedo, proprietor of
    TEK Solutions, Inc.:
    The purpose of the [inspection] was to check creation and
    modification date of the document “letter to Mayor.”
    After reviewing details of date and location of the
    document “letter to Mayor,” I found that it was created
    and modified on Friday, October 9, 2009 at 11:23 am with
    a size of 21k. This document “Letter Mayor” was found to
    be located in the server whose address is P\MyDocuments\
    letters, additionally a copy of the same was found on the
    local hard disk Dell Optoplex 330 in the location
    “Documents and settings\mmartell\ MyDocuments\letters”
    with the same above date. [I] did not find any other
    document with the same name at another date modified or
    created.
    Aplt’s App. at 806.     Cabán’s failure to introduce the letter so
    critical to her cause sounds her case’s death knell.4
    Because Cabán failed in the district court to establish a
    prima facie    case   of political   discrimination/retaliation,   the
    court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants on her First
    4
    The only evidence that even remotely suggests political
    discrimination against Cabán is contained in the affidavit of her
    husband, Orlando Ortiz. Ortiz, a long time MSS employee, states
    Jiménez “told to Mayor Echevarria [of the Municipality of Aguada]
    that we [Ortiz and Cabán] should not participate in the primary on
    behalf of Mayor Medina.” 
    Id. at 754.
    Interestingly, Cabán does
    not mention this statement anywhere in her appellate argument. Nor
    did she to our record knowledge ever follow the statement’s lead by
    questioning Jiménez about it or deposing Ortiz or Echevarria.
    Perhaps this is because the statement appears to constitute
    inadmissible double hearsay.
    -14-
    Amendment claim was proper.   As a result, the court acted well
    within its discretion, despite Cabán’s ongoing protestations, in
    dismissing Cabán’s commonwealth claims without prejudice.
    AFFIRMED.
    -15-