Gomez Marrero v. Aponte Roque

Citations: 666 F. Supp. 7; 41 Educ. L. Rep. 531; 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13865Docket: Civ. 86-0367(RLA)

Court: District Court, D. Puerto Rico; June 30, 1987; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case Mercedes Gomez Marrero et al. v. Awilda Aponte Roque et al., the plaintiffs, former transitory employees of the Commonwealth Department of Education, allege wrongful termination based on political affiliation with the New Progressive Party, claiming violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. The defendants filed motions to dismiss state law claims and for partial summary judgment based on qualified immunity. However, the Court, acting sua sponte, dismissed the complaint for failure to state a valid Section 1983 claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

The dismissal was based on two key findings: first, the plaintiffs did not adequately plead a constitutionally protected property interest in their employment renewal, thus negating any due process violation for not receiving a hearing prior to non-renewal. The Court referenced the precedent set by Cheveras Pacheco v. Rivera González, which supports this determination. Second, the Court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient factual support for their First Amendment claims regarding politically motivated non-renewals, as established in Dewey v. University of New Hampshire.

Regarding procedural due process, the Court emphasized that the plaintiffs, identified as transitory employees, lacked a valid property interest that would warrant the notice and hearing they claimed were due. Although some plaintiffs had been employed for several years, the classification as transitory employees precluded the assumption of a property interest unless expressly or implicitly established, which the plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead. Thus, the Court concluded that the proceedings were correctly dismissed without further analysis of the due process implications.

In *Board of Regents v. Roth*, the court found that plaintiffs lacked a sufficient basis for claiming a property interest in their employment, as they only expressed a subjective expectation of permanent employment without providing evidence of promises or workplace policies supporting this expectation. The court noted that under Puerto Rico law, transitory employees could be removed at any time, and merely asserting an expectation does not establish a property interest. Consequently, the plaintiffs' due process claims were dismissed.

Regarding the First Amendment claims, the court emphasized that dismissal based on political beliefs is not justified by a lack of property interest in employment. However, the plaintiffs failed to allege specific actions by the defendants, the Secretary of Public Education and the Secretary for Personnel, demonstrating their involvement in the alleged politically motivated discharges. The court reiterated that Section 1983 claims require clear factual allegations rather than subjective assertions. The plaintiffs only made vague claims that their discharges were politically motivated due to their affiliation with the New Progressive Party, without providing adequate details to support their allegations. Thus, the lack of factual specificity led to the dismissal of the plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants were aware of their political affiliations when taking certain actions, but this claim lacks substantive evidence of discrimination. Defendants pointed out that plaintiffs did not assert they were replaced by members of the defendants' political party, which would suggest political discrimination. Instead, plaintiffs merely repeated unsubstantiated claims in their opposition to the motion to dismiss. They also emphasized their qualifications and expectations of continued employment, yet their status as transitory employees means they could be removed at any time regardless of qualifications. The plaintiffs' reliance on vague assertions and subjective claims fails to establish a clear basis for Section 1983 liability against the defendants. This deficiency in factual pleading regarding politically motivated discrimination necessitates the dismissal of the complaint. Consequently, the court orders the complaint to be dismissed.