Diaz-Vazquez v. Alvarez-Rubio, 783 F.3d 905

Plaintiffs: 37 individuals appointed to SIFC "career managerial" positions between 2001–2008 who were later annulled after a 2009 audit.
Audit & annullments: After a change in Puerto Rico's governing party, SIFC audited personnel transactions from 2001–2008 and found 232 career-managerial appointments made via internal (closed) job postings rather than open competition, which SIFC concluded violated the merit principle; SIFC annulled those appointments regardless of party affiliation.
Procedural posture: Two consolidated § 1983 actions filed in federal district court (Aponte‑Ramos and Díaz‑Vázquez) alleging selective enforcement in violation of the Equal Protection Clause; district courts granted summary judgment to defendants for failure to identify similarly situated comparators; appeals followed.
Plaintiffs’ theory: Selective enforcement of the merit principle against them in violation of Fourteenth Amendment equal protection (plaintiffs expressly disavowed a First Amendment political‑discrimination claim).
Defendants’ position: Annulments applied uniformly to appointments in the audited period; many putative comparators were factually dissimilar (different time periods, different appointment processes, or union status) and thus not similarly situated for equal‑protection purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs proved an Equal Protection selective‑enforcement claim	Plaintiffs contend defendants selectively enforced the merit principle by annulling their appointments while allowing other invalid appointments to stand	Defendants argue plaintiffs failed to identify similarly situated individuals who received different treatment; annulments targeted appointments in the audited period	Court held plaintiffs failed to identify similarly situated comparators; summary judgment for defendants affirmed
Whether earlier or later appointments (1990s or post‑2009) are proper comparators	Plaintiffs point to appointments in the 1990s and post‑2009 union appointments as similarly invalid	Defendants stress those appointments differed in time, category, process, or were covered by collective‑bargaining obligations and thus not comparable	Court held those appointments were not similar in relevant respects and therefore not valid comparators
Whether the claim should be treated as a First Amendment political‑discrimination claim	Plaintiffs disavow a First Amendment claim and press an Equal Protection theory	Defendants argued the claim is essentially a First Amendment political‑discrimination claim and should be evaluated as such	Court noted overlap with First Amendment cases but resolved the case on Equal Protection grounds—plaintiffs’ selective‑enforcement theory fails as a matter of law

Reyes‑Pérez v. State Ins. Fund Corp., 755 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2014) (affirming summary judgment where annulment of similar appointments did not establish political‑discrimination First Amendment claim)
Klunder v. Brown Univ., 778 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment framed; facts viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Marrero‑Gutierrez v. Molina, 491 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007) (persons similarly situated must receive similar governmental treatment under Equal Protection)
Barrington Cove Ltd. P’ship v. R.I. Hous. & Mortg. Fin. Corp., 246 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (test for whether incidents are "roughly equivalent" for comparator analysis)
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1985) (Equal Protection principles governing like treatment of similarly situated persons)
Engquist v. Or. Dep't of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2008) (class‑of‑one equal‑protection theory is generally unavailable in public‑employment context)
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1955) (legislature may remedy one phase while neglecting others; Equal Protection bars only invidious discrimination)