Gonzalez v. Otero
864 F.3d 45
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Vicente González (Chief) and Víctor Franco (investigator) were DACP civilian employees at Fort Buchanan who alleged a coworker/supervisor conspiracy (2007) to block González from promotion, suspend them, and instigate a criminal probe based on false statements.
- CID investigated; no criminal charges resulted. Plaintiffs were placed on paid administrative leave; González had his security clearance revoked for months and later restored; Franco filed an EEO complaint but did not exhaust appeal rights; González did not file a formal EEO complaint.
- In 2008 the plaintiffs sued twelve individuals in their personal capacities alleging constitutional violations (Bivens) and civil RICO claims; many defendants were later dismissed for improper service (unchallenged on appeal).
- District court dismissed remaining claims as precluded by the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) and Title VII and, alternatively, on immunity grounds; plaintiffs appealed.
- First Circuit affirmed, holding that CSRA and Title VII together preclude implied constitutional (Bivens) and RICO causes of action for federal-sector employment disputes and that other asserted claims were not non-precluded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal employees can sue supervisors/coworkers for constitutional torts (Bivens) arising from workplace discrimination/adverse personnel actions | González/Franco: Bivens supplies a constitutional damages remedy; CSRA/Title VII do not provide equivalent relief (e.g., punitive damages, full remedies) | Defendants: CSRA and Title VII provide comprehensive remedies and procedures; Bivens should not be extended into federal employment context | Court: Denied extension of Bivens; CSRA and Title VII are alternative remedial schemes and special factors counsel hesitation; claims precluded |
| Whether plaintiffs may pursue civil RICO claims based on alleged conspiratorial misconduct in federal employment | Plaintiffs: RICO provides an independent statutory avenue for redress for the alleged scheme to fabricate investigations | Defendants: RICO claims are precluded by CSRA/Title VII exclusivity for federal employment disputes | Court: RICO claims precluded; CSRA/Title VII occupy the field and RICO is not among statutes preserved by 5 U.S.C. §2302(d) |
| Whether the district court's six-plus year delay in ruling on the motion to dismiss requires vacation of judgment | Plaintiffs: Delay was excessive and warrants vacatur | Defendants: Substantive correctness of dismissal renders delay harmless; no relief warranted | Court: Delay regrettable but not a basis to vacate a correct judgment |
| Whether the district court erred by not ruling on plaintiffs' summary judgment motion after dismissal | Plaintiffs: Court should have ruled on summary judgment | Defendants: Dismissal mooted summary judgment | Court: Motion for summary judgment was moot after dismissal; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied damages action for Fourth Amendment violation)
- Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (Bivens-type remedy for gender-based firing of congressional employee)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (Bivens-type remedy under Eighth Amendment for failure to provide medical care)
- Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (CSRA and related statutes preclude constitutional tort suit by federal employee)
- Fausto v. Lipscomb, 484 U.S. 439 (CSRA is a comprehensive review scheme precluding other remedies for personnel actions)
- Elgin v. Department of the Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (CSRA's coverage of federal personnel actions and review scheme)
- Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 (procedural routes for mixed cases under CSRA and Title VII)
- Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820 (Title VII as exclusive remedy for federal employment discrimination in certain contexts)