Cordero-Suarez v. Rodriguez
689 F.3d 77
1st Cir.2012Background
- Wanda Cordero-Suárez, a PR Treasury Department employee, alleged political discrimination by supervisor Orlando Rodríguez (NPP vs PDP) and others.
- Rodríguez allegedly disparaged Cordero’s political affiliation, altered her schedule, and made threats and harassment.
- Incidents include a 2006 physical/verbal altercation and a 2007 gun-incident, plus scheduling abuses and pay deductions.
- Cordero transferred in 2008 to a new bureau but continued to face Rodríguez’s harassment despite no longer sharing supervision.
- In 2009 Cordero filed a federal §1983 complaint; after partial dismissal, only Rodríguez, Serrano, and Fas in personal capacities remained, alleging a continuing hostile-work-environment claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment, concluding the action was time-barred or the conduct not sufficiently severe to constitute hostile environment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the action is timely under the continuing-violation doctrine | Cordero argues ongoing incidents within the year before filing render pre-2008 acts actionable. | Post-transfer acts are not actionable; continuing-violation doctrine does not apply. | No timely anchoring violation within period; continuing-violation doctrine not applying. |
| Whether Fas and Serrano are liable for harassment | Fas and Serrano failed to prevent or stop Rodríguez’s harassment. | Fas and Serrano had no direct involvement; liability hinges on active participation. | Fas and Serrano not liable; no direct involvement shown. |
| Whether Rodríguez’s conduct constitutes a hostile-work-environment action | Severe, repeated harassment including threats and a gun incident shows hostility. | Conduct not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute actionable hostile environment. | Pre-transfer incidents potentially severe; post-transfer conduct insufficient to sustain claim. |
| Whether the district court properly analyzed timeliness on the hostile-work-environment claim | Court erred by excluding evidence and misapplying timeliness rules. | Court correctly analyzed timeliness and properly granted summary judgment. | Even with closer review, summary judgment appropriate; merits supported by timeliness ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santana-Castro v. Toledo-Dávila, 579 F.3d 109 (1st Cir. 2009) (one-year limit; applies to timeliness in §1983 claims)
- O'Rourke v. City of Providence, 235 F.3d 713 (1st Cir. 2001) (continuing-violation doctrine; anchoring violation required)
- Martinez-Vélez v. Rey-Hernández, 506 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2007) (hostile-work-environment standard; severity factor)
- Dressler v. Daniel, 315 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2003) (continuing-violation doctrine; timely acts in same practice)
- Marrero v. Goya of Puerto Rico, Inc., 304 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2002) (hostile-work-environment; aggregation of acts)
- Peguero-Moronta v. Santiago, 464 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2006) (political discrimination framework; four elements)
- Rodríguez v. Municipality of San Juan, 659 F.3d 168 (1st Cir. 2011) (liability of supervisors; shift burden if same action would occur regardless)
- Galera v. Johanns, 612 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2010) (summary-judgment standards; favorable view to movant on record)