Diaz-Bigio v. Santini
2011 WL 2557003
1st Cir.2011Background
- Diaz-Bigio, a medical social worker for the Municipality of San Juan, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation.
- She publicly accused the Health Department's Executive Director Alfredo Escalera of conflicts of interest in August 2004, citing contracts and private interests.
- The city conducted an internal investigation; Diaz-Bigio refused to testify and the investigation concluded the allegations were false and groundless.
- Diaz-Bigio was given an administrative pre-termination hearing and was terminated on December 6, 2004, for making false accusations and for not complying with summons.
- The termination letter cited violations of Governmental Ethics Regulation and Municipal Conduct and Disciplinary Actions Regulation, and noted prior disciplinary history.
- The district court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity; the First Circuit reversed, granting defendants qualified immunity and directing judgment for them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Diaz-Bigio's termination violated the First Amendment after investigation. | Diaz-Bigio argues firing violated protected speech. | Officials contend the termination was permissible under Pickering/Garcetti balancing and misconduct findings. | Qualified immunity; termination did not violate the First Amendment. |
| Whether the right at issue was clearly established such that a reasonable official would know it violated the First Amendment. | The right was clearly established given public concern speech and retaliation claims. | The law on Pickering balancing is fact-intensive and not clearly established in these circumstances. | Yes, officials could have believed no violation; qualified immunity attaches. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808 (U.S. 2009) (two-prong qualified-immunity test)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech by public employee on matters of public concern)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (unlawfulness must be apparent at time of violation)
- O'Connor v. Steeves, 994 F.2d 905 (1st Cir. 1993) (fact-intensive balancing in qualified immunity context)
- Fabiano v. Hopkins, 352 F.3d 447 (1st Cir. 2003) (Pickering balancing rarely clearly established)
- Dirrane v. Brookline Police Dep't, 315 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2002) (administrative transfers and speech-related immunity context)