Court Opinion

ID: 2964720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:05.039342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:58.153789
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                 ___________________
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1491

                            JORGE E. CANCEL-LUGO, et al.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                               CARLOS ALVARADO, et al.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                     [Hon. Carmen C. Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________

                            Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Victor P. Miranda Corrada on brief for appellant.
            _________________________
            Carlos Lugo-Fiol,  Solicitor General, Edda Serrano-Blasini, Deputy
            ________________                      ____________________
        Solicitor   General,   and  Edgardo   Rodriguez-Quilichini,  Assistant
                                    ______________________________
        Solicitor General, Department of Justice, on brief for appellee. 

                                 ____________________

                                     May 8, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.   Jorge  Cancel-Lugo  appeals the  district
                 ___________

            court's  rejection, following  a bench  trial, of  his claims

            against Carlos  Alvarado  as Executive  Director  of  Cancel-

            Lugo's employer,  the Puerto Rican  Electric Power  Authority

            (PREPA).   Cancel-Lugo argues that he  was transferred within

            PREPA because of his political party affiliation in violation

            of  42 U.S.C.     1983,  the  Puerto Rican  Constitution,  29

            L.P.R.A.     136 and 146, and 3 L.P.R.A.   1334; and that his

            due  process  rights   were  transgressed   because  he   was

            transferred without a hearing.   After reviewing the parties'

            briefs  and  the  record,  we affirm  for  substantially  the

            reasons  given by  the  district court  after addressing  one

            point not covered in the opinion below. 

                 On  appeal,  Cancel-Lugo  contends  that   the  district

            court's finding  that Alvarado  had no  discriminatory intent

            and  did not  cause Cancel-Lugo's transfer  is not  enough to

            support  the dismissal of his claims under 29 L.P.R.A.    136

            and 146,  which prohibit discrimination in  employment on the

            basis  of  political affiliation.    Cancel-Lugo argues  that

            Alvarado could be held vicariously liable for the acts of his

            subordinates under 31 L.P.R.A.    5142.  However, our  cases,

            reading the Puerto  Rican statutes in  light of the  Eleventh

            Amendment,   refuse   to   impose   vicarious   liability  on

            supervisory government officials under 29 L.P.R.A.    136 and

            146.  Jusino  v. Zayas, 875  F.2d 986,  993 (1st Cir.  1989);
                  ______     _____

                                         -2-
                                         -2-

            Marin-Piazza v. Aponte-Roque, 873  F.2d 432, 436-37 (1st Cir.
            ____________    ____________

            1989).

                 Affirmed. 
                 ________

                                         -3-
                                         -3-