Court Opinion

ID: 9479165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:10:34.387908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:52.214068
License: Public Domain

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part; dissenting in part).10
I concur in Part I of this decision but respectfully dissent as to the balance of the opinion.
I am forced to dissent not only because I am of the view that no reasonable person could conclude that “party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office [here] involved,” Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 518, 100 S.Ct. 1287, 1294, 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980), that of a fifth level employee engaged in non-partisan civil defense activities, but more specifically because no reasonable person would have concluded that discharging this office holder “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).
As the majority acknowledges in a footnote, ante at p. 1118 n. 6, it is a crime under the law of Puerto Rico for any person who, “[b]eing an employee of any civil defense organization participates in politico-partisan activities and exerts political pressure while in the discharge of his work.” 25 L.P.R.A. § 171y(d). If appel-lee’s position is subject to such specific partisan prohibitions, how could one conclude that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of his office? How can partisan considerations even be of potential concern under these circumstances?
By its decision today, this court has politicized a position which was deliberately intended by the Legislature of Puerto Rico to be non-partisan.
I dissent.

. I take note of the fact that this is the second interlocutory appeal of this case to this court. See Mariani Giron v. Acevedo Ruiz, 834 F.2d 238 (1st Cir.1987). I believe this practice of piecemeal interlocutory appeals should be discouraged, not only because it is an unnecessary drain on our limited judicial resources, but also because it places an undue burden upon an economically unequal litigant.