Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset
640 F.3d 1
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Fourteen PDP maintenance and domestic workers allege unconstitutional termination from La Fortaleza after Fortuño took office in 2009.
- Defendants include Governor Fortuño (nominating authority), First Lady Vela, Chief of Staff Blanco, and Administrator Berlingeri, in both official and individual capacities.
- Allegations: increased NPP presence at La Fortaleza, inquiries into employees' political affiliations, and public statements suggesting staff changes were politically motivated.
- Terminations occurred in Feb/March 2009 and were followed by replacements with NPP-affiliated workers; plaintiffs were not known NPP members.
- District court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) after applying Twombly/Iqbal; First Circuit vacates dismissal as to political discrimination claim and remands.
- Court emphasizes a two-pronged plausibility standard: plead factual content showing entitlement to relief beyond mere speculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did plaintiffs plausibly plead knowledge of affiliation by all four defendants? | Ocasio-Hernández argues defendants knew plaintiffs' PDP ties. | Fortuño, Vela, Blanco, and Berlingeri contend lack of specific ties to terminations. | Yes; allegations show knowledge of affiliations by all four. |
| Was political affiliation a substantial or motivating factor in the terminations? | Plaintiffs contend affiliation drove layoffs and staffing changes. | Defendants argue no causal link between affiliation and termination. | Yes; allegations support plausible discriminatory motive. |
| Did the district court properly apply Twombly/Iqbal standards at dismissal? | Plaintiffs argue proper two-prong plausibility approach was misapplied. | District court relied on overly strict, factually sparse pleading. | No; dismissal vacant; pleadings are plausibly sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard; reject mere conclusory allegations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (two-pronged approach; separate factual from legal conclusions)
- Leatherman v. Tarrant Cty. Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1993) (heightened pleading not required; notice pleading)
- Lamboy-Ortiz v. Ortiz-Velez, 630 F.3d 228 (1st Cir. 2010) (political discrimination claims; relevance of political atmosphere)
- Acevedo-Díaz v. Aponte, 1 F.3d 62 (1st Cir. 1993) (political discrimination considerations; causal inferences)
- Peguero-Moronta v. Santiago, 464 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2006) (evidence of workplace knowledge of affiliations)
- Sepúlveda-Villarini v. Dep't of Educ. of P.R., 628 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010) (make-or-break standard; plausibility remains central)
- Mercado-Berríos v. Cancel-Alegría, 611 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2010) (role of political motivation in employment decisions)