Opinion ID: 6316564
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: We recount the facts as supportably found by the district court. Bolduc v. United States 402 F.3d 50, 52 (1st Cir. 2005); see also Gonzalez-Rucci v. INS, 539 F.3d 66, 67 (1st Cir. 2008) (As this case comes to us following a bench trial, we recount the relevant facts as found by the district court, consistent with record support.). Mr. Reyes worked for the USAO for the District of Puerto Rico as an Intelligence Specialist, from 2009 until he resigned in February 2015. Mr. Reyes's problems at work began in February 2012 when he gave a ballistic vest to an Assistant United States Attorney, who unbeknownst to Mr. Reyes had filed an employment discrimination claim against the office. Days later, he was called into a management meeting and chastised for supplying the vest to one of the office crazies and helping her become a victim. Mr. Reyes points to this as the moment when three years of retaliatory conduct by his supervisors against him began, creating a hostile work environment. He alleges that his supervisors micromanaged him, moved his office, and unjustly reprimanded him. Mr. Reyes also came under investigation in October 2013 by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General (OIG) after he accepted an invitation to attend a program in Russia hosted by an organization led by a known Russian spy. This investigation led - 4 - to the FBI restricting his access to FBI-controlled office space and information during its pendency. The restrictions caused Mr. Reyes to be furloughed during the 2013 government shutdown and, when he returned to work, he was reassigned to paralegal duties. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Reyes filed his first Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging retaliation. During this time, Mr. Reyes was reprimanded for posting an inappropriate picture of a security guard and gossiping about co-workers suspected of having an affair, and suspended for lack of candor and negligent performance of an assignment in which he was tasked with collecting and presenting statistics related to firearms cases prosecuted by the USAO. His supervisor asked him for a doctor's note when he took a full day's leave for a medical appointment after pictures of him on the beach that same day were posted on Facebook. He says his supervisors retaliated against him by heavily editing a memorandum he submitted to the chief of the Appellate Division. Mr. Reyes alleged that a move to a different building where he was assigned to work on Social Security fraud investigations was retaliatory. The OIG investigation resulted in a report that Mr. Reyes violated Department of Justice travel policy and showed poor judgment in accepting the Russian diplomat's invitation. - 5 - Mr. Reyes filed a second complaint with the department's Equal Employment Office in October 2014. The record suggests that the plaintiff had been considering a career transition for some time. He had been attending law school and, around the same time, he began looking for other jobs, speaking with a relative in Florida about an attorney position within his law firm. He sought to be reinstated as an intelligence specialist but he could not fulfill all the duties of that role. This was because, even though OIG finished its investigation and issued a report, his access to FBI physical space and information was still restricted, because the FBI had not completed its investigation. In February 2015, Mr. Reyes resigned his position with the USAO alleging the supposedly unfounded investigation of him as well as some of these incidents described above. Ultimately, Mr. Reyes accepted the position with his relative's law firm. Mr. Reyes sued his former employer under Title VII citing a single claim of discrimination and retaliation and seeking both money damages and equitable relief. Prior to the start of trial and in response to a proposed jury instruction on constructive discharge that Mr. Reyes requested, the government filed a motion to preclude evidence of front pay and back pay at trial on the ground that that issue was not a part of his case. The district court granted that motion, but held that in the event of a verdict in the plaintiff's favor, the court will permit further briefing - 6 - and argument on the availability of these remedies in equity and, if they are available, it will hold a post-trial evidentiary hearing on damages. After the close of evidence, Mr. Reyes again requested a constructive discharge instruction and a verdict form question on constructive discharge. The government objected; the district court decided to instruct the jury on constructive discharge, but limit the jury's decision on this issue to an advisory finding. Mr. Reyes did not object to this instruction. The jury returned a verdict for Mr. Reyes, awarded him $300,000 in damages, and rendered an advisory finding that Mr. Reyes had been constructively discharged. Post verdict, the government filed a Rule 50 motion, which the district court denied, and Mr. Reyes sought equitable relief of back and front pay on the constructive discharge advisory verdict. After inviting the parties to provide further argument and evidence, the district court determined that Mr. Reyes was not entitled to equitable relief on two grounds. It concluded first that Mr. Reyes's failure to assert a separate constructive discharge claim barred his claim to any equitable relief. The district court also independently reviewed the evidence at trial against the jury's advisory verdict and disagreed that it supported the jury's finding that he was constructively discharged. The court rejected the jury's advisory verdict and denied Mr. Reyes's request - 7 - for equitable relief; this appeal of our denial of equitable relief ensued.1