Rivera Colon, Radames v. Municipio De San Juan
KLAN202300896
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Jul 24, 2024Background
- Radamés Rivera Colón, a municipal police officer in San Juan, faced a 90-day suspension which was later modified to termination by an administrative commission (CIPA), but this decision was reversed by the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals, ordering his immediate reinstatement.
- Upon reinstatement, Rivera experienced significant delays, lack of assigned duties, issues with payment of back wages, improper salary deductions, and delays in processing reasonable accommodation requests for a medical condition.
- Rivera and his spouse filed suit against the Municipality and the then-Mayor, alleging political discrimination, unlawful retaliation under Ley 115 (Puerto Rico's Anti-Retaliation Act), and sought damages including lost wages, emotional distress, and attorney’s fees.
- The trial court found for Rivera, awarding $45,000 for emotional and economic damages, a statutory double penalty on lost wages ($40,581.21), and $5,000 in attorney fees, finding the Municipality acted with temerity.
- The Municipality appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for retaliation, the calculation and basis of damages, the doubling of back pay already paid, and the award to Rivera’s spouse and marital society.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for retaliation under Ley 115 | Municipality’s conduct post-reinstatement was retaliatory | Rivera failed to meet the burden; delays were ordinary, not pretext | Sufficient evidence supported retaliation (affirmed) |
| Damages for emotional distress and economic loss | Suffered substantial tangible and intangible damages | Damages excessive, lacked proof, required expert testimony | Amount reasonable, expert proof not indispensible |
| Double compensation of back pay already paid | Law mandates double penalty for proven retaliation | Double compensation improper as back pay already settled | Doubling applies under statute despite settlement |
| Award to spouse and marital community | Family entity suffered collateral emotional/economic harm | Law 115 shields only the direct employee, not family | Award proper as damages affected family unit |
| Attorney’s fees for temerity | Municipality’s behavior warranted statutory penalty | No temerity; actions not egregious | Fees affirmed due to Municipality’s conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Argüello v. Argüello, 155 D.P.R. 62 (P.R. 2001) (trial courts get deference for credibility findings)
- Hernández Maldonado v. Taco Maker, 181 D.P.R. 281 (P.R. 2011) (appellate courts generally defer to trial court fact-finding)
- S.L.G. Rivera Carrasquillo v. A.A.A., 177 D.P.R. 345 (P.R. 2009) (Liberal interpretation of protective labor statutes)
- Velázquez Ortíz v. Mun. de Humacao, 197 D.P.R. 656 (P.R. 2017) (Standard for retaliation under Ley 115)
- Rivera Menéndez v. Action Service, 185 D.P.R. 431 (P.R. 2012) (Prima facie cases and standards under Ley 115)
- Feliciano Martes v. Sheraton, 182 D.P.R. 368 (P.R. 2011) (Causality and employee activity as protected conduct)
- Nieves Díaz v. González Massas, 178 D.P.R. 820 (P.R. 2010) (Nature of emotional and economic damages in Puerto Rico law)