Garcia-Gonzalez v. Puig-Morales
761 F.3d 81
1st Cir.2014Background
- García-González held eight years of Treasury insurance-broker contracts; March 2009 RFP announced, with a provisional adjudication favoring García; May 28, 2009, García’s adjudication was rescinded and replaced with lower accounts; no final contract was executed; García claimed due process and political discrimination under §1983; district court granted summary judgment for Puig on due process and later on First Amendment claim; on appeal, court affirms due process dismissal but reverses on First Amendment claim and remands for further proceedings.
- García had a prior pattern of government contracting and a 2008–2009 one-year professional services contract that was terminated early; the RFP reserved broad government discretion and stated it would not be liable for bid costs; the Adjudication Notification stated García had been “favorably considered” but required further steps to formalize a contract; no final contract was signed.
- The RFP and Adjudication Notification afforded significant governmental discretion and did not guarantee a final contract or commissions; Puerto Rico law provides that a contract is not binding until a formal, written contract is executed; thus García did not obtain a protected property interest in the award.
- The government’s “countless errors” explanation was never substantiated; García’s prospective commissions were contingent on a final contract that never materialized.
- The district court found a lack of protected property interest for due process, but García presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on whether his First Amendment rights were violated through political discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether García had a constitutionally protected property interest in the bid award. | García argues a legitimate entitlement arose from the Adjudication Notification. | Puig contends no protected property interest existed; final contract not executed; RFP reserved discretion. | Fourteenth Amendment claim rejected; no protected property interest established. |
| Whether there was evidence of political discrimination in García's bid rescission. | García argues his PDP affiliation and timing of actions show retaliatory decision. | Puig argues no proven awareness of PDP affiliation and no adverse action tied to politics. | First Amendment claim survived summary judgment; genuine issue of material fact for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roth v. Board of Regents of State Colleges, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (establishes legitimate entitlement standard for property interests)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (due process requires notice and hearing before depriving property interest)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982) (due process inquiry; protected interest and process required)
- Redondo-Borges v. U.S. Dept. of Hous. & Urban Dev., 421 F.3d 1 (2005) (no protected property interest in revocation of bid award; state law defines interests)
- O'Hare Truck Serv., Inc. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996) (First Amendment protection for independent contractors in certain government relationships)
- Umbehr v. Board of County Comm'rs, 518 U.S. 668 (1996) (First Amendment protection for independent contractors against political discrimination)
- Centro Médico del Turabo, Inc. v. Feliciano de Melecio, 406 F.3d 1 (2005) (extends protection in certain contracting contexts; says contract-like interests not always protected)
- Méndez–Aponte v. Bonilla, 645 F.3d 60 (2011) (First Amendment protections in public employment contexts)