Case Information
*2 LIPEZ, Circuit Judge
. Luis M. Medina-Velázquez, Juan J. Méndez-Cruz, and Héctor R. Cruz-Medina ("appellants") -- employees of Puerto Rico's Department of Transportation and Public Works ("DTOP") [1] and members of Puerto Rico's Popular Democratic Party ("PDP") -- appeal the district court's dismissal of their claims of political discrimination in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Marlene J. Paredes, the spouse of Medina-Velázquez, and Mayra Méndez-Quiñones, the spouse of Méndez- Cruz, also appeal, seeking the reinstatement of their derivative causes of action.
We agree with appellants that they stated plausible First Amendment claims against the appellees who received appellants' cease and desist letters. Hence, we vacate the dismissal of the First Amendment and derivative claims against those appellees.
I.
In reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss, we recite the facts as alleged in the complaint and documents incorporated by reference into the complaint. Grajales v. P.R. Ports Auth., 682 F.3d 40, 44 (1st Cir. 2012). Here the Second Amended Complaint is the operative complaint.
Medina-Velázquez and Méndez-Cruz each served as a DTOP regional Auxiliary Director I -- Medina-Velázquez for the Humacao *3 Region and Méndez-Cruz for the Aguadilla Region. Cruz-Medina served as the DTOP Storage Supervisor for the Ponce Region. All three appellants were active PDP members. All appellants worked in trust positions during past PDP administrations, and Cruz-Medina attended PDP events and participated in party activities, such as the "Concilio de Populares." Appellants claim that appellees, NPP members, knew of their political activity.
Even though appellants performed their DTOP duties "in excellent fashion," appellees, upon the change in political administration to the NPP, discriminated against appellants on the basis of political affiliation by relieving them of their job responsibilities and eliminating their travel allowances. Appellants lost supervisory authority -- their subordinates having been instructed to report to others -- and were not permitted to attend meetings. Ultimately, appellants were left without any staff to supervise and without tasks, except for occasional menial assignments. Cruz-Medina was also subjected to negative comments regarding his political affiliation. He attended meetings to discuss his allegations, but nothing changed.
Appellants sent letters to appellees requesting resolution of the adverse employment actions. [2] Medina-Velázquez sent his letter to Rubén A. Hernández-Gregorat, the Secretary of *4 DTOP, copying Juan A. Avilés-Hernández, the Executive Director of DTOP; María M. Trinidad-Quiñones, the Human Resources Director of DTOP; and Woldetrudis Cruz-Torres, the Humacao Regional Director of DTOP. Méndez-Cruz wrote to Luz C. del Roldán-Sotomayor, the Aguadilla Regional Director of DTOP, copying Hernández-Gregorat and Avilés-Hernández. Cruz-Medina sent his letter to Trinidad- Quiñones, copying Hernández-Gregorat; Avilés-Hernández; and Amilcar González-Ortiz, the Auxiliary Secretary for Administration. [3] Receiving no redress and no responses to their letters, appellants subsequently brought suit along with six other plaintiffs, claiming, inter alia, that the defendants discriminated on the basis of political affiliation in violation of the First Amendment. The spouses of appellants and their co-plaintiffs also brought derivative claims. [4]
II.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). They argued, inter alia, that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged two elements of a First Amendment political discrimination claim -- (1) that the defendants had knowledge of the plaintiffs' political affiliation and (2) that political affiliation was a substantial or motivating factor for the adverse employment actions.
In response to that motion, pursuant to the proposition
in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
The court then turned to the particular allegations pertaining to each plaintiff. The complaint included allegations that plaintiffs' letters, which demanded plaintiffs be assigned tasks commensurate with their positions, identified their political affiliation. However, the allegations did not specify to which defendants the letters were sent. Unable to determine from the face of the complaint which defendants had knowledge of plaintiffs' political affiliation and whether this knowledge could have been a motivating factor for defendants' decision to alter or fail to reinstate plaintiffs' employment duties, the court ordered plaintiffs to supply the letters.
After reviewing the letters, the court concluded that appellants' letters described dissatisfaction with reduced duties but did not identify appellants' political affiliation or refer to discriminatory conduct based on political animus. Hence, the court dismissed appellants' First Amendment claims and their spouses' derivative claims.
Conversely, the court found that the remaining six plaintiffs successfully pleaded political discrimination claims against certain defendants. For plaintiff Eric E. Camacho-Resto, the court found two allegations in the operative complaint -- (1) that a particular defendant openly discussed Camacho-Resto's political affiliation and (2) that another defendant threatened Camacho-Resto's future employment -- sufficient to allege the *7 knowledge element of a political discrimination claim against those two defendants. The court also found the letters of the six plaintiffs sufficient to allege that the respective defendants who received the letters both had, or should have had, knowledge of the respective plaintiffs' political affiliation and committed, or failed to take any action to rectify, the discriminatory acts. Therefore, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amendment claims of those six plaintiffs against the respective defendants who received the letters.
After discovery as to the remaining six plaintiffs, the district court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding those plaintiffs' First Amendment political discrimination claims. These six plaintiffs and the defendants then reached a settlement agreement, which the district court approved.
Appellants subsequently filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter the district court's judgment on defendants' earlier motion to dismiss. Appellants argued that relief was warranted because it had become clear through discovery that the agency had a politically charged environment and that political animus motivated personnel decisions. The district court denied appellants' motion to alter the judgment, finding relief unwarranted and untimely. The court ruled that appellants were not entitled to "a second bite at the apple, simply because co- *8 plaintiffs who properly plead[ed] claims [were] able to engage in discovery," and appellants could not "piggyback on settling plaintiffs' success and evidence obtained." Order Denying Motion to Alter Judgment, Medina-Velázquez v. Hernández-Gregorat, No. 09- 1692 (GAG) (D.P.R. Oct. 25, 2012). The court also observed that since appellants' motion was premised on the discovery in the surviving plaintiffs' cases, appellants could have brought their motion at least by the time discovery closed and should not have waited until almost a year after the remaining plaintiffs settled.
Each appellant appeals the district court's dismissal of his First Amendment claim against only those appellees who received his respective letter expressing dissatisfaction with the reduced job responsibilities. [5] Hence, we limit our review to whether the district court properly dismissed the First Amendment claim of (1) Medina-Velázquez against the recipients of his letter -- Hernández- Gregorat, Avilés-Hernández, Trinidad-Quiñones, and Cruz-Torres; (2) Méndez-Cruz against the recipients of his letter -- Roldán- Sotomayor, Hernández-Gregorat, and Avilés-Hernández; and (3) Cruz- Medina against the recipients of his letter -- Trinidad-Quiñones, Hernández-Gregorat, Avilés-Hernández, and González-Ortiz.
III.
We review de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of appellants' claims. Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2011). We examine whether the operative complaint states a claim for which relief can be granted when we construe the well-pleaded facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, id., accepting their truth and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs' favor, Grajales, 682 F.3d at 44. We may supplement those facts and inferences with information from documents incorporated by reference into the complaint. Id.
In resolving a motion to dismiss, we use a two-step approach. Ocasio-Hernández, 640 F.3d at 12. First, we "must separate the complaint's factual allegations (which must be accepted as true) from its conclusory legal allegations (which need not be credited)." A.G. ex rel. Maddox v. Elsevier, Inc., 732 F.3d 77, 80 (1st Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, we "must determine whether the remaining factual content allows a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
The complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to
state a plausible claim. Grajales,
An analysis of plausibility is "'a context-specific task
that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense,'" Grajales,
IV.
The First Amendment prohibits government officials from
taking adverse actions against public employees on the basis of
political affiliation, unless political association is an
appropriate factor for employment, Ocasio-Hernández,
The adequacy of allegations to support the first and third elements of appellants' political discrimination claims is not at issue. [6] Hence, we must analyze whether appellants' complaint adequately supports an inference that appellees had knowledge of appellants' political affiliation and that appellants' *12 political affiliation was a substantial or motivating factor for the adverse employment actions.
A. Appellees' Knowledge
In determining whether the complaint sufficiently supports the inference that appellees knew of appellants' political affiliation, we address the allegations in the complaint and those made in the letters that are properly incorporated by reference into the complaint.
Appellants allege that the fact that they are members of
the PDP was "known to defendants at all times relevant to this
action." If the allegations of the complaint and the letters had
stopped there, the district court would have been correct to
dismiss appellants' claims. As we have repeatedly explained, we do
not credit "allegations that merely parrot the elements of the
cause of action." Ocasio-Hernandez, 640 F.3d at 12; see also
Rodríguez-Vives v. P.R. Firefighters Corps of P.R.,
This is not a case in which a single employee was fired or reassigned, and then sought to blame his supervisor for acting with an animus based on party affiliation. Rather, the complaint in this case alleges that, after a change in party control from the PDP to the NPP, there commenced a systematic and more or less simultaneous effort to essentially reassign and eliminate all the duties and responsibilities of the nine plaintiffs, all active PDP members who held trust positions during PDP administrations and non-trust supervisory positions at the start of the new NPP administration. The common modus operandi alleged in the complaint required the active and sustained participation of the plaintiffs' superiors on multiple levels. The same modus operandi was employed with regard to nine different people in numerous regions of the department. The defendants were all higher up officials who belonged to the NPP and who had responsibility for personnel and personnel transactions within their respective regions or across the department. The complaint alleges that defendant Hernandez-Gregorat, the senior official who appointed, or appointed the person who appointed, four of the other defendants, was personally involved in giving direct instructions that the subordinates of two of the plaintiffs be reassigned to other supervisors who lacked the qualifications to perform that *14 supervision. Cf. Travers v. Flight Servs.& Sys., Inc., 737 F.3d 144, 147 (1st Cir. 2013) (reasonable jury could infer that subordinates acted to please their CEO).
Moreover, as noted, appellants allege that they all held
trust positions in previous PDP administrations. Puerto Rico
"'trust' employees participate in policymaking and can be hired and
fired on political grounds." Uphoff Figueroa v. Alejandro, 597
F.3d 423, 430 n.7 (1st Cir. 2010). We have recognized that
"political affiliation is an appropriate requirement for . . .
effective performance" in such trust positions. Id. at 429
(omission in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Hence,
we have previously held that defendants' knowledge of a plaintiff's
political affiliation was inferable where the defendant was aware
that the plaintiff previously served in a trust position. See
Grajales,
Finally, each defendant received at least one letter from
one plaintiff (and generally more) claiming that their duties were
being eliminated in a manner that could not happen without the
active efforts of that plaintiff's superiors. Collectively, all of
this is enough to raise a plausible inference that a fairly wide-
*15
ranging and deliberate purge of high profile PDP members was
occurring, and that it must have been known to these defendants.
Cf. García-González v. Puig-Morales, No. 12-2357,
B. Causation
For pleading purposes, appellants "need not establish"
causation. Rodríguez-Reyes, 711 F.3d at 56. "[T]he facts
contained in the complaint need only show that the claim of
causation is plausible." Id. "'Smoking gun' proof of
discrimination is rarely available, especially at the pleading
stage," and is unnecessary. Grajales,
As in Rodríguez-Reyes, appellants alleged that they had
always performed their duties in an "excellent fashion."
Nevertheless, they lost job responsibilities and subordinates
"systematically" "[u]pon the change of administration to the NPP."
Cruz-Medina alleged that he experienced "negative comments"
regarding his political affiliation and that he was told "he needs
to understand that there has been a change in the political party
that rules the government." Plaintiff Camacho-Resto claimed that
appellee Cruz-Torres openly discussed Camacho-Resto's political
affiliation and that defendant Jose Villegas threatened his
continued employment.
[8]
These allegations support an inference that
the atmosphere in appellants' workplace was politically charged, as
was the situation in Rodríguez-Reyes. Moreover, "the close
proximity between the regime change and the onset of pervasive
cross-party harassment, coupled with the absence of any legitimate
reason for much of the offending conduct, permits a plausible
inference at the pleading stage that political animus was a
*17
motivating factor behind the harassment." Grajales,
Our inquiry, however, does not end here. We must also assess whether the allegations in the complaint and in appellants' letters incorporated therein sufficiently allege causation with respect to each appellee. See Ocasio-Hernández, 640 F.3d at 16 ("[W]e must determine whether, as to each defendant, a plaintiff's pleadings are sufficient to state a claim on which relief can be granted." (internal quotation marks omitted)). The question is whether the appellees who received a particular appellant's letter are "plausible defendant[s]" with respect to that appellant's claim. Id.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, "[p]ublic officials may be held
liable . . . for a constitutional violation only if a plaintiff can
establish that his or her constitutional injury resulted from the
direct acts or omissions of the official, or from indirect conduct
that amounts to condonation or tacit authorization." Ocasio-
Hernández,
We recognize that "precise knowledge of the chain of
events leading to the constitutional violation may often be
unavailable to a plaintiff" when a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is
filed; therefore, "we take to heart the Supreme Court's call to
'draw on our "judicial experience and common sense" as we make a
contextual judgment about the sufficiency of the pleadings.'"
Ocasio-Hernández, 640 F.3d at 16 (quoting Sanchez v. Pereira-
Castillo,
On its own, the complaint does not specifically connect the appellees to the adverse employment actions. Each appellant, however, does claim that he "placed in writing his concern" regarding the negative employment actions but that the "communication went unanswered." The district court properly requested these letters, which were incorporated by reference into the complaint, and supplemented the allegations with the identity of the recipient defendants.
We have recognized that a letter may be used as evidence
at trial to show for purposes of § 1983 liability that the named
recipient personally knew of the writer's employment situation.
See Rodriguez-García v. Municipality of Caguas,
Although the district court ascertained the named
recipients of the letters, it found that the letters "fail[ed] to
identify the writer's political affiliation, and [did] not mention
any discriminatory conduct based on political animus." The
district court, however, required too much from the letters.
[9]
The
*20
letters provided the link to specific defendants. Each appellant's
letter asked the recipients, individuals in positions of authority
over employees of DTOP, to cease and desist from continuing the
adverse employment actions and/or to resolve them. As in
Rodríguez-García, the letters support the claim that the named
recipients were put on notice of the alleged violations. See 610
F.3d at 768. Under our precedent, once the officials were notified
of the adverse employment actions, "it is reasonable to infer that
the failure to take" affirmative steps necessary to resolve the
problem "constitutes a choice" not to act. Lipsett,
V.
In conclusion, we hold that appellants' allegations support reasonable inferences of knowledge and causation, such that each appellant stated a plausible First Amendment claim against the appellees who received that appellant's letter. Hence, we vacate the district court's dismissal of (1) Medina-Velázquez's First Amendment claim and Paredes's derivative claim against Hernández- Gregorat, Avilés-Hernández, Trinidad-Quiñones, and Cruz-Torres; (2) Méndez-Cruz's First Amendment claim and Méndez-Quiñones's derivative claim against del Roldán-Sotomayor, Hernández-Gregorat, and Avilés-Hernández; and (3) Cruz-Medina's First Amendment claim against Trinidad-Quiñones, Hernández-Gregorat, Avilés-Hernández, and González-Ortiz. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Vacated and remanded. Costs to appellants.
Notes
[1] We follow the district court's convention in using the Spanish acronym.
[2] Like the district court, we deem these letters incorporated by reference into the complaint.
[3] Cruz-Medina also copied attorney Celso Feliciano Rivera, who is not a defendant.
[4] Appellants' spouses appeal the district court's dismissal of these derivative claims. We do not separately address the spouses' derivative claims. Any conclusion we draw as to the sufficiency of appellants' First Amendment claims will dictate the same result for the derivative claims. We have acknowledged that "[u]nder Puerto Rico law, close relatives of one who has suffered the slings and arrows of employment discrimination may invoke Article 1802 as a vehicle for prosecuting a cause of action." Cabán-Hernández v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 486 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31 § 5141). "[S]uch a cause of action is wholly derivative and, thus, its viability is contingent upon the viability of the underlying employment discrimination claim." Id. at 12-13.
[5] While appellants initially appealed the dismissal of their First Amendment claims against all defendants, each appellant, by way of a joint filing after oral argument, withdrew that appeal as to any defendants who did not receive his respective letter.
[6] Appellees have not developed, and thereby waive, any
argument regarding the first element, see United States v. Zannino,
[7] Although we hold that appellants' allegations are sufficient to support an inference of appellees' knowledge, appellants are certainly aware of the specific trust positions that they held, and it was unwise for appellants not to identify them.
[8] We must determine whether the complaint "'in toto'" renders
the claims plausible. See Rodríguez-Reyes,
[9] We also disagree with certain of the district court's assessments of the letters. Méndez-Cruz, in his letter, did identify his affiliation and allege it to be the cause of the adverse employment actions: "I do not agree with the manner in which I am being discriminated because I have political beliefs that are contrary to those of the new administration." Although Cruz-Medina's letter alleged "a violation of guaranteed constitutional rights," the court was correct that neither Cruz- Medina nor Medina-Velázquez explicitly identified party affiliation; however, as explained above, the complaint sufficiently alleged facts to support an inference of appellees' knowledge.
[10] Our holding makes it unnecessary to reach appellants' second argument that the district court improperly denied their Rule 59(e) motion to alter the judgment of dismissal.