958 F.3d 26
1st Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiff Antonio Borrás-Borrero, a long‑time employee of Puerto Rico's State Insurance Fund Corporation (SIFC), alleged that SIFC and individual administrators retaliated against him for internal and external reports about coworker misconduct.
- Relevant incidents: a 2010 demotion (separately litigated) and a 2014 series of physical altercations with coworker Juan Escobar; Borrás reported the incidents to Labor Relations and police.
- Borrás claims SIFC officials fabricated disciplinary charges, suspended him (with and then without pay), and produced his personnel file in criminal proceedings; he also alleged his wife was improperly transferred.
- He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First, Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendment theories) and asserted pendent Puerto Rico law claims.
- The district court dismissed federal claims with prejudice (12(b)(6)) and dismissed state claims with prejudice; Borrás appealed. The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of federal claims, vacated the state‑law dismissal with prejudice, and remanded to dismiss the state claims without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SIFC is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity or the PROMESA automatic stay | Borrás proceeded on the merits; implicitly disputes immunity | SIFC asserted arm‑of‑the‑state immunity and invoked PROMESA stay concerns | Court declined to resolve Eleventh/PROMESA defenses and decided the case on the merits instead |
| Whether §1983 First Amendment retaliation claim is actionable (public‑concern and causation) | Borrás: his whistleblowing is protected and Puerto Rico law grants broader protection not required under federal standard | Defendants: the speech concerned only internal coworker disputes (not public concern) and complaint lacks factual link showing speech motivated discipline | Court: applied First Circuit test—speech not on matter of public concern; complaint fails to plead non‑conclusory facts tying speech to adverse actions; §1983 claims dismissed |
| Whether the district court properly disposed of pendent Puerto Rico law claims | Borrás sought to keep and litigate state claims in federal court | Defendants: district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction after federal claims dismissed | Court: district court may decline jurisdiction; appellate court vacated the district court's dismissal with prejudice and remanded to dismiss the Puerto Rico claims without prejudice |
| Whether Borrás was denied due process via the Loudermill hearing or by denial of leave to amend | Borrás: hearing was biased; district court should have allowed amendment before dismissing with prejudice | Defendants: Loudermill requires only notice, explanation of evidence, and opportunity to respond; plaintiff failed to timely move to amend under Rule 15 | Court: Loudermill satisfied (no impartial‑adjudicator requirement); no due process violation for failure to allow amendment because Borrás did not timely amend or seek leave |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards: conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (distinguishing public‑concern speech from personal workplace grievances)
- Rosado‑Quiñones v. Toledo, 528 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (employee speech about internal workplace matters not public concern)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (pretermination due process requires notice, explanation, and opportunity to respond)
- Chmielinski v. Massachusetts, 513 F.3d 309 (1st Cir. 2008) (Loudermill does not require an impartial hearing officer)
- Fisher v. Kadant, Inc., 589 F.3d 505 (1st Cir. 2009) (a passing request to amend in opposition is insufficient if plaintiff fails to amend as of right before judgment)
- Carnegie‑Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (district courts should dismiss pendent state claims without prejudice when federal claims drop out early)