Reyes-Caparros v. Garland, 26 F.4th 516

Reyes worked as an Intelligence Specialist for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Puerto Rico from 2009 until he resigned in February 2015 and alleged a multi-year campaign of retaliation and a hostile work environment beginning in 2012.
Incidents included increased supervision/micromanagement, office moves, reprimands, an OIG/FBI investigation after attending a program in Russia, reassignment of duties, suspensions, and restrictions on FBI-controlled access.
Reyes sued under Title VII for retaliation (and sought equitable relief based on constructive discharge); a jury found liability for retaliation and awarded $300,000, and returned an advisory finding that Reyes had been constructively discharged.
Before trial the district court excluded front/back pay evidence but allowed a post-verdict equitable hearing if the plaintiff prevailed; at trial the court instructed the jury that the constructive-discharge question would be advisory and Reyes did not object.
Post-trial the district court rejected the advisory jury finding after independent review, concluded Reyes had not proven constructive discharge (noting timing, continued title/salary, and his planned career change), and denied front/back pay; Reyes appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Reyes may now treat the jury's constructive-discharge finding as a binding verdict	Reyes: jury’s finding on constructive discharge was part of his retaliation claim and should be binding, entitling him to equitable relief	Govt: court properly submitted constructive-discharge issue only as advisory; Reyes never objected and thus waived any claim it should have been binding	Court: Reyes waived the argument by failing to object below; advisory submission was within court’s discretion and not an abuse
Whether the district court clearly erred in rejecting the advisory jury finding and denying equitable relief (front/back pay)	Reyes: district court erred in refusing to accept the advisory verdict and awarding equitable remedies for constructive discharge	Govt: district court independently reviewed the record, applied the constructive-discharge standard, and correctly found the evidence insufficient	Court: district court’s independent factual findings were not clearly erroneous; affirmed denial of equitable relief

United States v. Shields, 649 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) (advisory jury practice and district court discretion)
Landrau–Romero v. Banco Popular De P.R., 212 F.3d 607 (1st Cir. 2000) (standard for constructive discharge)
Simas v. First Citizens’ Fed. Credit Union, 170 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 1999) (constructive discharge must show intolerable working conditions)
Blackie v. Maine, 75 F.3d 716 (1st Cir. 1996) (examples of actions constituting adverse employment actions for constructive discharge)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (clear-error standard for factual findings)
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) (definition of clearly erroneous standard)
Cumpiano v. Banco Santander P.R., 902 F.2d 148 (1st Cir. 1990) (appellate deference to district court factual findings)
Schaffart v. ONEOK, Inc., 686 F.3d 461 (8th Cir. 2012) (review of advisory jury practice and abuse-of-discretion standard)