O'Connell v. Marrero Recio
724 F.3d 117
1st Cir.2013Background
- O'Connell, a long-time NPP affiliate, served as HR Director at ARPE; Marrero-Recio and García-Faneytti were ARPE leaders.
- In May 2009, political rivalry arose after O'Connell supported a different NPP candidate, leading Marrero to bar off-office political activities and spy on her.
- A clandestine ARPE newsletter accused O'Connell of a parallel private-sector job; Marrero controlled content.
- During Law 7, which downsized employees, Marrero urged O'Connell to falsify years of service; she refused, citing illegality.
- García attempted to push similar improper calculations; O'Connell again refused and warned of legal consequences.
- O'Connell ultimately resigned, then briefly joined AEP where Méndez-Rodríguez terminated her employment after Marrero threatened retaliation; an ARPE newsletter announced her termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether O'Connell's retaliation claim is protected speech. | O'Connell argues her refusals were protected First Amendment speech. | Speech arose from official duties and is not protected. | No protection; speech tied to official duties. |
| Whether Law 426 whistleblowing claim was plausibly pled. | Orders to alter years-of-service and related actions fall within whistleblowing. | Plaintiff did not allege disclosure to an investigating forum of improper use of funds. | Plaintiff failed to plead disclosure; Law 426 claim fails. |
| Whether O'Connell's First Amendment freedom of association claim survives. | HR Director roles are protected by the First Amendment against political discrimination. | Positions are policy-making/trust roles not protected; Law 7 limits discretion but not essential function. | No First Amendment protection; roles resemble policymaker duties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (speech tied to official duties not protected)
- Decotiis v. Whittemore, 635 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2011) (public employee speech test)
- Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balance speech vs. government interests)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Rosenberg v. City of Everett, 328 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2003) (two-prong test for politically motivated discharges)
- Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1980) (policymaker distinction for First Amendment)
- Juarbe-Angueira v. Arias, 831 F.2d 11 (1st Cir. 1987) (agency mission and politically charged issues)
- Rivera-Gómez v. de Castro, 843 F.2d 631 (1st Cir. 1988) (litigant must present arguments squarely to district court)
- O'Connor v. Steeves, 994 F.2d 905 (1st Cir. 1993) (consideration of job description in policymaker analysis)