Garcia-Gonzalez v. Puig-Morales, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Garcia-Gonzalez v. Puig-Morales, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/45

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 2357

MANUEL A. GARC A- GONZLEZ,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

J UAN C. PUI G- MORALES,

Def endant , Appel l ee,

RAMN L. CRUZ- COLN,

Def endant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Dani el R. Dom nguez, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Li pez, and Kayat t a,Ci r cui t J udges.

J or ge Mar t nez- Luci ano, wi t h whom Pedr o E. Or t i z- l var ez andPedr o E. Or t i z- l var ez, LLC, wer e on br i ef f or appel l ant .

Mi chel l e Camacho- Ni eves, Assi st ant Sol i ci t or Gener al ,Depar t ment of J ust i ce, wi t h whom Mar gar i t a Mer cado- Echegar ay,Sol i ci t or Gener al , wer e on br i ef f or appel l ee Pui g- Mor al es.

August 1, 2014


2/45

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Thi s case i nvol ves due pr ocess

and pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on cl ai ms r el at ed t o t he pr ocur ement of

publ i c cont r act s by i ndependent cont r act or s. Pl ai nt i f f - Appel l ant

Manuel A. Gar c a- Gonzl ez ( "Gar c a" ) al l eges Fi r st and Four t eent h

Amendment vi ol at i ons and seeks compensat or y and puni t i ve damages

under 42 U. S. C. 1983 over t he r esci ssi on of a bi d awar d f or a

pot ent i al , but unexecut ed, i nsur ance br oker age cont r act wi t h t he

Puer t o Ri co gover nment ( t he "Commonweal t h" or t he "gover nment " ) .

Def endant - Appel l ee J uan C. Pui g- Mor al es ( "Pui g" ) was Puer t o Ri co' s

Secr et ar y of t he Tr easur y at t he t i me of t hese event s.

The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed summar y j udgment i n f avor of

Pui g on Garc a' s Four t eent h Amendment cl ai m, hol di ng that Garc a

had no const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed pr oper t y i nt er est i n t he i ni t i al

bi d awar d. Subsequent l y, t he di st r i ct cour t al so gr ant ed Pui g' s

mot i on f or summar y j udgment on Gar c a' s Fi r st Amendment cl ai m.

For t he r easons set f or t h bel ow, we af f i r m t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s grant of summar y j udgment on Gar c a' s Four t eenth Amendment

due pr ocess cl ai m, and we r ever se t he grant of summar y j udgment on

hi s Fi r st Amendment cl ai mf or pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on. We r emand

t hat cl ai m f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Over an ei ght - year per i od, f r om Apr i l 28, 2001, t hr ough

May 30, 2009, Garc a, a l i censed i nsurance br oker , hel d annual

-2-


3/45

cont r act s wi t h t he Puer t o Ri co Depar t ment of t he Tr easur y ( t he

"Treasur y") f or t he acqui si t i on of i nsur ance pol i ci es f or var i ous

gover nment agenci es. Garc a r ecei ved si zabl e commi ssi ons f or

br oker i ng t hese i nsur ance cont r act s.

On Oct ober 1, 2008, Garc a ent ered i nt o a one- year

pr of essi onal ser vi ces cont r act wi t h t he Tr easur y t o acqui r e

i nsur ance pol i ci es f or t he Commonweal t h' s Publ i c Bui l di ngs

Aut hor i t y, t he Amer i cas Por t Aut hor i t y, t he Admi ni st r at i on of

Gener al Ser vi ces, and t he "Por t al del Fut ur o" Publ i c Cor por at i on.

Pur suant t o t he agr eement si gned by Garc a and t he Treasur y, t he

pr of essi onal ser vi ces cont r act coul d be t er mi nat ed by ei t her par t y

upon t hi r t y days' wr i t t en not i ce.

Gar c a sel f - i dent i f i es as a member of t he Popul ar

Democr at i c Par t y ( "PDP") . For al l but t he f i nal f i ve mont hs of t he

ei ght - year per i od dur i ng whi ch Gar c a hel d cont r act s wi t h t he

Tr easur y, t he execut i ve br anch of t he Puer t o Ri co government was

cont r ol l ed by gover nor s f r om t he PDP.

On November 4, 2008, however , t he i ncumbent PDP gover nor

l ost a gener al el ect i on t o Lui s For t uo, a guber nat or i al candi dat e

f r omt he opposi ng New Pr ogr essi ve Par t y ( "NPP") . Gover nor For t uo

and hi s Treasur y Secr et ar y, Pui g, wer e bot h swor n i nt o t hei r new

of f i ces on J anuar y 2, 2009.

Less t han t hr ee mont hs l at er , i n a l et t er dat ed Mar ch 20,

2009, Pui g not i f i ed Gar c a t hat hi s exi st i ng br oker age cont r act - -

-3-


4/45

whi ch was schedul ed t o expi r e on Sept ember 30, 2009 - - woul d

i nst ead be t er mi nated ear l y, wi t h an ef f ect i ve end date of May 30,

2009. The l et t er f ur t her announced t hat Pui g' s of f i ce woul d

r ecei ve new pr oposal s f or i nsurance br oker age cont r act s bet ween

March 25, 2009, and Apr i l 17, 2009. On March 26, 2009, t he

Tr easur y publ i shed a Request f or Pr oposal s ( "RFP" ) r egar di ng t he

pr ovi si on of pr of essi onal ser vi ces f or t he acqui si t i on of i nsur ance

pol i ci es. The RFP document cont ai ned t he t er ms and condi t i ons t hat

wer e t o gover n the adj udi cat i on pr oceedi ngs f or sel ect i ng i nsur ance

br oker s. The RFP pr ovi ded, among other t hi ngs, t hat :

( 1) "[ t ] he Secretary [ of t he Tr easur y] f ul l y r eser ves t he

r i ght t o r evi se t hi s RFP, i n par t or whol e";

( 2) t he Tr easur y' s Agency f or Publ i c I nsur ance ( "API ")

"r eser ves t he absol ut e r i ght t o r ej ect any or al l pr oposal s

submi t t ed and t o l i mi t sel ect i ons t o a det er mi ned number of al l t he

best qual i f i ed Pr oducer [ s] deemed suf f i ci ent t o handl e the amount

of wor k i nvol ved" ;

( 3) "[ a] s par t of t he pr ocess, " API "wi l l eval uat e pr i or

per f or m[ ance] of t he Pr oducer , i f any, as wel l as t hei r

qual i f i cat i ons and exper i ence r ef l ect ed on t hei r pr oposal s";

( 4) t he gover nment "wi l l not be l i abl e i n any way

whatsoever f or any cost s or expenses i ncur r ed by any per son i n t he

pr epar at i on of pr oposal s i n r esponse t o t hi s RFP, nor f or t he

-4-


5/45

pr esent at i on of i t s pr oposal and/ or par t i ci pat i on i n any

di scussi ons or negot i at i ons";

( 5) t he sel ect i on of cont r act or s "shal l be f i nal , except

f or t he r i ght of t he Secr et ar y and API t o t er mi nat e any desi gnat i on

f or r easonabl e cause";

( 6) sel ect ed pr ovi der s wi l l be i nf or med "about t hei r

sel ect i on and what next st eps are t o be t aken i n r el at i on t o such

sel ecti on";

( 7) "[ a] f t er t he eval uat i on t akes pl ace and t he Secr et ar y

makes t he cor r espondi ng deci si ons, t he sel ect ed pr oposal s wi l l be

subj ect t o t he normal Gover nment ' s pr ocedur al appr oval s f or

pr of essi onal ser vi ces cont r act s";

( 8) " [ t ] he Pr oducer wi l l be compensat ed wi t h commi ssi ons

as st at ed on t he Pr of essi onal Ser vi ces Cont r act " ; and

( 9) "API r et ai ns t he r i ght t o t er mi nat e any cont r act ed

Producer at any t i me due to unaccept abl e per f ormance. "

Gar c a submi t t ed hi s pr oposal on Apr i l 15, 2009, wi t hi n

t he deadl i ne pr escr i bed by t he RFP. Hi s pr oposal was r ecei ved by

API on Apr i l 17, 2009. On May 15, 2009, t he Treasur y i ssued an

"Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on" l et t er t o Gar c a. The l et t er i nf or med

hi mt hat hi s pr oposal was " f avor abl y consi der ed" by the eval uat i ng

boar d t o "cont i nue t he pr ocess of f i nal i zi ng t he cont r act , " bef or e

he coul d ul t i mat el y si gn a pr of essi onal ser vi ces cont r act f or t he

pr ocur ement of i nsurance pol i ci es. The account s cont empl ated f or

-5-


6/45

Gar c a' s put at i ve cont r act wer e f or t he pur chase of i nsur ance

pol i ci es f or t he f ol l owi ng gover nment al i nst r ument al i t i es: ( a) t he

Cor r ect i ons Admi ni st r at i on, ( b) t he Admi ni st r at i on of J uveni l e

I nst i t ut i ons, ( c) t he Depar t ment of Educat i on, and ( d) t he Puer t o

Ri co Technol ogi cal I nst i t ut e. These pol i ci es account ed f or a t ot al

of $7, 881, 350 i n est i mated i nsurance pr emi ums, and Garc a asser t s

t hat t he br oker age cont r act woul d have yi el ded hi m appr oxi mat el y

$450, 000 i n commi ssi ons. The Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on r equest ed

t hat Gar c a si gn and r et ur n i t ; i t f ur t her out l i ned t he subsequent

st eps f or t he ul t i mat e execut i on of a f i nal pr of essi onal ser vi ces

cont r act bet ween t he par t i es.

Gar c a pr oceeded t o si gn t he Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on,

accept i ng al l of t he adj udi cat ed account s. On May 18, 2009, t he

Tr easur y r ecei ved Gar c a' s t i mel y acceptance of t he adj udi cat i on,

al ong wi t h the cor r espondi ng document s r equi r ed pr i or t o t he

execut i on of t he br oker age cont r act , pur suant t o t he speci f i cat i ons

of t he Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on. A f i nal cont r act , however , was

not execut ed by the par t i es.

On May 28, 2009, Garc a r ecei ved a Treasur y l et t er

r esci ndi ng t he Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on, expl ai ni ng t hat "[ t ] he

pr ocesses car r i ed out pr oduced count l ess er r or s i n i ssui ng [ hi s]

l et t er , as wel l as ot her l et t er s t hat wer e al so i ssued. " The

l et t er al so st at ed t hat Gar c a woul d soon r ecei ve a cor r ect ed

adj udi cat i on l et t er , or t hat he woul d be not i f i ed of a new dat e f or

-6-


7/45

t he di st r i but i on of cor r ected l et t er s. No f ur t her det ai l s wer e

pr ovi ded r egar di ng t he nat ur e of t he "count l ess er r or s" or whet her

t her e wer e pr ocedur es avai l abl e t o cont est t he Tr easur y' s

det er mi nat i ons.

Gar c a never r ecei ved a cor r ect ed adj udi cat i on l et t er .

I nst ead, Gar c a was pr esent ed wi t h a cont r act f or account s

di f f er ent f r om t hose t hat he had been or i gi nal l y awar ded. These

new account s r epr esent ed si gni f i cant l y l ower i nsur ance pol i cy

premi ums, and cor r espondi ngl y, much l ower commi ss i ons. Under t he

pr oposed new cont r act , Garc a' s expect ed commi ssi ons were ar ound

$15, 000 - - bet ween appr oxi mat el y t hr ee and f our per cent of t he

expect ed commi ssi ons f or t he account s i n hi s or i gi nal awar d.

Gar c a r ef used t o si gn t he cont r act .

B. Procedural History

On May 26, 2010, Garc a f i l ed a compl ai nt agai nst

Tr easur y Secr et ar y Pui g and Ramn L. Cr uz- Col n ( "Cr uz" ) , who was

t hen ser vi ng as t he I nsur ance Commi ssi oner . The compl ai nt sought

decl ar at or y and i nj unct i ve r el i ef pur suant t o 42 U. S. C. 1983 f or

al l eged pol i t i cal di scri mi nat i on and due pr ocess vi ol at i ons.

Gar c a al so sought compensat or y damages under Puer t o Ri co l aw.

On Febr uar y 9, 2011, Gar c a f i l ed a mot i on f or par t i al

summary j udgment i n connect i on wi t h hi s due pr ocess cl ai m, al l egi ng

t hat he had "a l egi t i mat e cl ai m of ent i t l ement t o t he si gni ng of

t he r el evant cont r act s" and t hat he "was ent i t l ed t o a

-7-


8/45

pr e- depr i vat i on pr oceedi ng bef or e [ Pui g] mat er i al l y changed the

t er ms of t he adj udi cat i on. "

Pui g, i n t ur n, opposed Gar c a' s mot i on f or par t i al

summar y j udgment on Apr i l 1, 2011, cl ai mi ng t hat gover nment

agenci es may r evoke t he award of a cont r act at any t i me pr i or t o

i t s execut i on. Pui g f ur t her cl ai med t hat Gar c a' s expect at i ons di d

not amount t o a vest ed pr oper t y i nt er est i n t he si gni ng of t he

br oker age cont r act , and that t he Par r at t - Hudson doct r i ne bar r ed

r el i ef under t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause because Garc a coul d have

avai l ed hi msel f of an adequat e post - depr i vat i on r emedy, but f ai l ed

t o do so. 1 I n hi s opposi t i on t o summary j udgment , Pui g r equest ed

t he di smi ssal of Gar c a' s due pr ocess cl ai m.

On J une 30, 2011, Gar c a f i l ed a not i ce vol unt ar i l y

di smi ssi ng al l cl ai ms agai nst Cr uz and r equest i ng t hat t hose cl ai ms

be di smi ssed wi t h pr ej udi ce.

On Sept ember 29, 2011, t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed Gar c a' s

Mot i on f or Par t i al Summar y J udgment and granted summar y j udgment i n

f avor of Pui g on Gar c a' s Four t eent h Amendment cl ai m. The di st r i ct

1 The Par r at t - Hudson doct r i ne est abl i shes t hat " a depr i vat i on ofa const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed pr oper t y i nt er est caused by a st at eempl oyee' s r andom, unaut hor i zed conduct does not gi ve r i se t o a 1983 pr ocedur al due pr ocess cl ai m, unl ess t he St at e f ai l s t o

pr ovi de an adequat e post depr i vat i on r emedy. " Zi nermon v. Bur ch,494 U. S. 113, 115 (1990) ( ci t i ng Hudson v. Pal mer , 468 U. S. 517( 1984) , and Par r at t v. Tayl or , 451 U. S. 527 ( 1981) , over r ul ed i npar t on ot her gr ounds by Dani el s v. Wi l l i ams, 474 U. S. 327 ( 1986) ) ;see al so San Ger ni mo Car i be Pr oj ect , I nc. v. Acevedo- Vi l , 687F. 3d 465, 478- 81 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( out l i ni ng t he Par r at t - Hudsondoctr i ne) .

-8-


9/45

cour t f ur t her gave Pui g si xt y days t o f i l e a di sposi t i ve mot i on as

t o Garc a' s Fi r st Amendment cl ai m. On Sept ember 30, 2011, Garc a

f i l ed a mot i on f or r econsi der at i on, whi ch Pui g opposed. On

December 2, 2011, Pui g f i l ed a mot i on f or summar y j udgment as t o

Garc a' s Fi r st Amendment cl ai m.

On Sept ember 27, 2012, t he di st r i ct cour t deni ed Gar c a' s

mot i on f or r econsi der at i on and gr ant ed Pui g' s mot i on f or summary

j udgment on t he Fi r st Amendment cl ai m. The di st r i ct cour t

di smi ssed Gar c a' s f eder al causes of act i on wi t h pr ej udi ce and

di smi ssed hi s cl ai ms under Puer t o Ri co l aw wi t hout pr ej udi ce. Thi s

appeal f ol l owed.

II. Discussion

We revi ew a di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of summary j udgment de

novo, cr edi t i ng t he evi dence f avorabl e t o t he nonmovi ng par t y and

dr awi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n f avor of t he nonmovant . See,

e. g. , East man Kodak Co. v. I mage Techni cal Ser vs. , I nc. , 504 U. S.

451, 456 ( 1992) ; Shaf mast er v. Uni t ed St ates, 707 F. 3d 130, 135

( 1st Ci r . 2013) . Summary j udgment shal l be gr ant ed i f " t he movant

shows t hat t her e i s no genui ne di sput e as t o any mat er i al f act and

t he movant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. " Fed. R.

Ci v. P. 56( a) . "A f act i s mat er i al i f i t car r i es wi t h i t t he

pot ent i al t o af f ect t he out come of t he sui t under t he appl i cabl e

l aw. " Newman v. Advanced Tech. I nnovat i on Cor p. , 749 F. 3d 33, 36

-9-


10/45

( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( quot i ng One Nat ' l Bank v. Ant onel l i s, 80 F. 3d 606,

608 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ) .

A genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act "must be bui l t on a

sol i d f oundat i on - - a f oundat i on const r uct ed f r om mat er i al s of

evi dent i ar y qual i t y. " Ni eves- Romer o v. Uni t ed St at es, 715 F. 3d

375, 378 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . "' [ C] oncl usor y al l egat i ons, empt y

r het or i c, unsuppor t ed specul at i on, or evi dence whi ch, i n t he

aggr egat e, i s l ess t han si gni f i cant l y pr obat i ve' wi l l not suf f i ce

t o ward of f a pr oper l y suppor t ed summary j udgment mot i on. " I d.

( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Rogan v. Ci t y of Bos. , 267 F. 3d

24, 27 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ) .

A par t y may asser t t hat a f act can, or cannot , be

genui nel y di sput ed by ci t i ng t o t he pr esence or absence of f act s

f ound i n "mat er i al s i n t he r ecor d, i ncl udi ng deposi t i ons,

document s, el ect r oni cal l y stored i nf or mat i on, af f i davi t s or

decl ar at i ons, st i pul at i ons . . . , admi ssi ons, i nt er r ogat or y

answer s, or ot her mat er i al s. " Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( c) ( 1) . When an

af f i davi t or decl ar at i on i s used f or t hese pur poses, i t "must be

made on personal knowl edge, set out f act s t hat woul d be admi ss i bl e

i n evi dence, and show t hat t he af f i ant or decl ar ant i s compet ent t o

t est i f y on t he mat t er s st at ed. " I d. 56( c) ( 4) . Rel at edl y, a par t y

may obj ect t hat t he mat er i al ci t ed "cannot be pr esent ed i n a f or m

t hat woul d be admi ssi bl e i n evi dence, " i d. 56( c) ( 2) , and " [ a]

wi t ness may t est i f y t o a mat t er onl y i f evi dence i s i nt r oduced

-10-


11/45

suf f i ci ent t o suppor t a f i ndi ng t hat t he wi t ness has per sonal

knowl edge of t he mat t er , " Fed. R. Evi d. 602.

Here, Gar c a seeks compensat or y and puni t i ve damages

under 42 U. S. C. 1983 f or al l eged const i t ut i onal vi ol at i ons under

t he Fi r st and Four t eent h Amendment s. Sect i on 1983 est abl i shes a

ci vi l cause of acti on f or t he depr i vat i on of const i t ut i onal r i ght s.

See 42 U. S. C. 1983. I n or der t o pr evai l on a 1983 cl ai m, a

pl ai nt i f f must demonst r at e: " ( i ) t hat t he conduct compl ai ned of has

been commi t t ed under col or of st at e l aw, and ( i i ) t hat t he al l eged

conduct wor ked a deni al of r i ght s secur ed by t he Const i t ut i on or

l aws of t he Uni t ed St at es. " Ceper o- Ri ver a v. Fagundo, 414 F. 3d

124, 129 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( quot i ng Romer oBarcel v.

Her nndezAgost o, 75 F. 3d 23, 32 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ) . Ther e must be

a causal connect i on bet ween t he def endant ' s conduct and t he al l eged

depr i vat i on: "onl y t hose i ndi vi dual s who par t i ci pat ed i n t he

conduct t hat depr i ved t he pl ai nt i f f of hi s r i ght s can be hel d

l i abl e. " I d.

We begi n wi t h Gar c a' s due pr ocess cl ai m under t he

Four t eent h Amendment and t hen t ur n t o hi s pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on

cl ai m under t he Fi r st Amendment .

A. Garca's Due Process Claim

Gar c a ar gues t hat t he Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on l et t er

"cr eated a l egi t i mate expect ancy" t hat he "woul d be engaged t o

pr ovi de i nsurance br oker age ser vi ces t o t he gover nment . "

-11-


12/45

Theref or e, i n hi s vi ew, he "was ent i t l ed t o some t ype of hear i ng

pr i or t o bei ng depr i ved of t he adj udi cat i on t o whi ch he was

sel ect ed. "

Gar c a concedes t hat , as a gener al mat t er , a cont r act ual

r el at i onshi p - - wi t hout mor e - - does not creat e a const i t ut i onal l y

pr ot ect ed pr oper t y i nt er est t hat can gi ve r i se t o damages under

1983. Yet he nonet hel ess ar gues t hat a l et t er mer el y of f er i ng t o

begi n negot i at i ons t o est abl i sh a cont r act ual r el at i onshi p does, i n

f act , est abl i sh such a pr ot ect ed i nt er est . As f ur t her expl ai ned

bel ow, based on cl ear pr ecedent , we r ej ect t hi s i l l ogi cal ar gument .

1. Procedural Due Process

The Due Pr ocess Cl ause of t he Four t eent h Amendment

pr ovi des t hat no st at e shal l "depr i ve any per son of l i f e, l i ber t y,

or pr oper t y, wi t hout due pr ocess of l aw. " U. S. Const . amend. XI V,

1. Accor di ngl y, "cer t ai n substant i ve r i ght s - - l i f e, l i ber t y,

and pr oper t y - - cannot be depr i ved except pur suant t o

const i t ut i onal l y adequat e pr ocedur es. " Cl evel and Bd. of Educ. v.

Louder mi l l , 470 U. S. 532, 541 ( 1985) . " ' [ T] he r oot r equi r ement ' of

t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause" i s t hat an i ndi vi dual must be pr ovi ded

not i ce and an oppor t uni t y t o be hear d pr i or t o bei ng " ' depr i ved of

any si gni f i cant pr oper t y i nt er est . ' " I d. at 542 ( quot i ng Boddi e v.

Connect i cut , 401 U. S. 371, 379 ( 1971) ) .

I n eval uat i ng a pr ocedur al due pr ocess cl ai m under t he

Four t eent h Amendment , we must determi ne "whether [ t he pl ai nt i f f ]

-12-


13/45

was depr i ved of a pr ot ect ed i nt er est , and, i f so, what pr ocess was

hi s due. " Logan v. Zi mmerman Br ush Co. , 455 U. S. 422, 428 ( 1982) .

Accor di ngl y, "[ t ] o est abl i sh a pr ocedur al due pr ocess vi ol at i on,

t he pl ai nt i f f ' must i dent i f y a pr ot ected l i ber t y or pr oper t y

i nt er est and al l ege t hat t he def endant s, act i ng under col or of

st at e l aw, depr i ved [ hi m] of t hat i nt er est wi t hout const i t ut i onal l y

adequat e pr ocess. ' " Gonzl ez- Dr oz v. Gonzl ez- Col n, 660 F. 3d 1,

13 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( second al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Apont e-

Tor r es v. Uni v. of P. R. , 445 F. 3d 50, 56 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ) ; see al so

Rocket Lear ni ng, I nc. v. Ri ver a- Snchez, 715 F. 3d 1, 11 ( 1st Ci r .

2013) ( "To est abl i sh a pr ocedur al due pr ocess vi ol at i on, a

pl ai nt i f f must show t hat ( 1) i t was depr i ved of a pr ot ect ed

pr oper t y i nt er est , and ( 2) t he pr ocedur es at t endant t o that

depr i vat i on wer e const i t ut i onal l y i nadequat e. ") . Ther ef or e, i f

Gar c a has f ai l ed t o est abl i sh t hat he had a pr ot ect ed pr oper t y

i nt er est i n t he r esci nded Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on, hi s due

pr ocess cl ai mmust f ai l . See Redondo- Bor ges v. U. S. Dep' t of Hous.

& Ur ban Dev. , 421 F. 3d 1, 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( "Because t he

pl ai nt i f f s i dent i f y no const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ected pr oper t y

i nt er est , i t i s unnecessar y to del ve any deeper i nt o t he sect i on

1983 i nqui r y. ") .

2. Property Interests and Bids for Government Contracts

We have st at ed t hat , t o demonst r at e a const i t ut i onal l y

pr ot ected pr oper t y i nt er est , a pl ai nt i f f must i dent i f y a

-13-


14/45

"l egi t i mat e cl ai m of ent i t l ement " t o t he pr oper t y i n quest i on and

must show more t han an abst r act need, desi r e, or uni l ater al

expect at i on of t hat pr oper t y. I d. at 8 ( quot i ng Bd. of Regent s of

St at e Col l s. v. Rot h, 408 U. S. 564, 577 ( 1972) ) ; see al so i d. at 9

( " [ D] ashed hopes of r ecei vi ng f ut ur e gover nment work, wi t hout more,

cannot yi el d a const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed pr oper t y i nt er est . ") ;

Cent r o Mdi co del Tur abo, I nc. v. Fel i ci ano de Mel eci o, 406 F. 3d 1,

8 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( same) . We have al so made cl ear t hat " [ a]ward

pr ocedur es ar e not assi gned t o est abl i sh pr i vat e ent i t l ement s t o

publ i c cont r act s but t o pr oduce t he best possi bl e cont r act s f or t he

gover nment . " Smi t h & Wesson v. Uni t ed Stat es, 782 F. 2d 1074, 1081

( 1st Ci r . 1986) .

Addi t i onal l y, we have repeat edl y hel d t hat "a si mpl e

br each of cont r act does not amount t o an unconst i t ut i onal

depr i vat i on of pr oper t y, " and t hat "t he exi st ence of a st at e

cont r act , si mpl i ci t er , does not conf er upon t he cont r act i ng par t i es

a const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed pr oper t y i nt er est . " Redondo- Bor ges,

421 F. 3d at 10. We have expl ai ned t hat t hi s r ul e "makes emi nent l y

good sense, " as " [ t ] o hol d ot her wi se woul d r un t he r i sk of

t r ansmogr i f yi ng vi r t ual l y ever y di sput e i nvol vi ng an al l eged br each

of cont r act by a st at e or a st at e agency i nt o a const i t ut i onal

case. " I d. I n Redondo- Bor ges, we al so hel d t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s'

i nt er est i n a r evoked bi d awar d di d "not r i se t o t he l evel of a

const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ected pr oper t y i nt er est . " I d. I n so hol di ng,

-14-


15/45

we caut i oned t hat t o reach t he opposi t e r esul t "woul d l ead us down

a sl i pper y sl ope t o an unt enabl e r esul t : t he const i t ut i onal i zat i on

of al l cont r act l aw i n cases i n whi ch a st at e act or i s a par t y. "

I d. at 11.

Whi l e a government cont r act does not per se cr eat e a

pr ot ect ed pr oper t y i nt er est , t her e may be cer t ai n "speci al

ci r cumst ances" t hat can j ust i f y an except i on t o t hi s gener al r ul e.

See i d. at 10. The Thi r d Ci r cui t , f or exampl e, has i dent i f i ed t wo

t ypes of cont r act s t hat can cr eat e pr ot ect ed pr oper t y r i ght s: ( 1)

wher e t he cont r act conf er s a pr ot ect ed st at us upon t he pl ai nt i f f ,

or ( 2) wher e the cont r act pr ovi des t hat t he gover nment ent i t y may

onl y t er mi nat e t he cont r act " f or cause. " Li nan- Faye Const r . Co. v.

Hous. Aut h. of Camden, 49 F. 3d 915, 932 ( 3d Ci r . 1995) , ci t ed i n

Redondo- Bor ges, 421 F. 3d at 10.

Al t hough t he RFP i s not a cont r act , Gar c a never t hel ess

hangs hi s hopes on t hi s second except i on. He notes t hat t he RFP

speci f i es t hat once t he i nsur ance br oker s wer e sel ect ed, such

sel ect i ons woul d onl y be set asi de " f or r easonabl e cause. " I n hi s

vi ew, t hi s "r easonabl e cause" l anguage gave hi ma const i t ut i onal l y

pr ot ect ed pr oper t y i nt er est i n t he cont r act s f or whi ch he bi d, and

f or whi ch t he Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on st at ed t hat he had been

" f avor abl y consi der ed. " Gar c a ar gues t hat " t he RFP cr eat ed a

l egi t i mat e expect ancy t hat , i f sel ect ed, a pr oponent woul d be

-15-


16/45

engaged t o pr ovi de i nsurance br oker age ser vi ces t o t he gover nment . "

We di sagr ee.

3. The Relevant Documents

Admi t t edl y, t he " I nt r oduct i on" sect i on of t he RFP does

stat e - - al bei t i n a subsect i on t i t l ed " I nqui r i es" - - t hat t he

sel ect i ons of i nsur ance br oker s "shal l be f i nal , except f or t he

r i ght of t he Secr et ar y and API [ t he Agency f or Publ i c I nsur ance] t o

t er mi nate any desi gnat i on f or r easonabl e cause. " However , t he RFP

al so pr ovi des t hat Pui g "f ul l y r eser ves t he r i ght t o r evi se t hi s

RFP, i n par t or whol e. " The RFP f ur t her st at es t hat t he gover nment

"r eser ves t he absol ut e r i ght t o r ej ect any or al l pr oposal s

submi t t ed. " Ther e i s no expr ess l anguage t empor al l y l i mi t i ng t hi s

"absol ut e r i ght " of r ej ecti on t o t he per i od pr i or t o adj udi cat i on

or sel ecti on.

Mor eover , t he RFP makes cl ear t hat t he i ni t i al sel ect i ons

of pr ovi der s wi l l t hen be subj ect t o t he gover nment ' s "nor mal . . .

pr ocedur al appr oval s" bef or e t he f i nal i zat i on of any cont r act ual

r el at i onshi p. Nei t her t he RFP nor t he Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on

makes any promi se or guarant ee r egardi ng t he out come of t hi s

appr oval pr ocess. I n a subsect i on t i t l ed "Goal s of t he Pr ogr am, "

t he RFP al so st at es t hat "[ t ] he Secr et ar y r eser ves t he r i ght t o

l i mi t i ndi vi dual Pr oducer par t i ci pat i on i n t he pr ogr am based on

cr i t er i a such as i t s capaci t y t o handl e a par t i cul ar amount of

busi ness, i t s number of qual i f i ed pr of essi onal [ s] , t he si ze of i t s

-16-


17/45

oper at i on or any ot her val i d cr i t er i a. " The f or egoi ng l anguage

r ei nf or ces t he gover nment ' s si gni f i cant di scr et i on i n t he bi ddi ng

and cont r act i ng pr ocess, such t hat pr ovi si onal l y successf ul bi dder s

do not have a guar ant eed r i ght t o pr of i t s f r om t hei r put at i ve

contracts.

The RFP' s st at ement t hat t he government r et ai ns t he

"absol ut e r i ght " t o r ej ect any pr oposal - - t oget her wi t h t he RFP' s

expl anat i on t hat successf ul bi dder s ar e r equi r ed t o pr ovi de

addi t i onal document s, submi t t o cont r act appr oval pr ocesses, and

engage i n cont r act negot i at i ons - - under mi nes Garc a' s argument

t hat sel ect ed bi dder s have a " l egi t i mat e expect ancy" of bei ng

"engaged t o pr ovi de i nsur ance br oker age ser vi ces t o t he government "

t hat i s suf f i ci ent t o engender const i t ut i onal pr ot ecti on. I n a

si mi l ar case, t he Sevent h Ci r cui t hel d t hat under I l l i noi s l aw, t he

expr ess r eser vat i on of t he r i ght t o r ej ect any and al l bi ds

pr ecl udes a f i ndi ng of a pr ot ect ed pr oper t y i nt er est . See Ki m

Const r . Co. v. Bd. of Tr s. of Mundel ei n, 14 F. 3d 1243, 1246 ( 7t h

Ci r . 1994) ( "[ W] hen a st at e ent i t y' s adver t i sement f or bi ds

cont ai ns expl i ci t l anguage r eser vi ng i t s r i ght t o r ej ect any and

al l bi ds, no bi dder can cl ai ma const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed pr oper t y

i nt er est i n bei ng awar ded t he cont r act . ") . Si mi l ar l y, f ol l owi ng

Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent , we have r ecogni zed t hat "a benef i t i s not

a pr ot ect ed ent i t l ement i f gover nment of f i ci al s may gr ant or deny

i t i n t hei r di scr et i on. " Cl ukey v. Town of Camden, 717 F. 3d 52, 56

-17-


18/45

( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ng Town of Cast l e Rock, Col o. v. Gonzal es,

545 U. S. 748, 756 ( 2005) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

The l anguage of t he Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on f ur t her

weakens Gar c a' s posi t i on. To be sur e, t hi s l et t er does i nf or m

Gar c a t hat he had "been f avor abl y consi der ed. " However , i n t he

next par agr aph, t he l et t er al so speci f i es t hat Gar c a or hi s

r epr esent at i ve must si gn t he l et t er "[ i ] n or der t o cont i nue wi t h

[ t he] pr ocess of f or mal i zi ng t he cont r act . " The l et t er cont i nues

t o descr i be addi t i onal pr ocedur es and requi r ement s necessar y bef or e

a cont r act coul d be execut ed bet ween t he par t i es. Nowher e i n t he

Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on i s t her e any suggest i on t hat t he

gover nment i s obl i gated t o execut e and appr ove a f i nal cont r act

wi t h Gar c a unl ess i t has " r easonabl e cause" t o cease negot i at i ons

or r ej ect t he cont r act .

Read t oget her , t he RFP and t he Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on

est abl i sh t hat Gar c a was not gr ant ed a r i ght t o a f i nal

pr of essi onal ser vi ces cont r act and i t s at t endant commi ssi ons, but

r at her was pr ovi si onal l y sel ect ed mer el y t o begi n cont r act

negot i at i ons and t o t ake par t i n a st andar d appr oval pr ocess wi t h

mul t i pl e requi r ement s pr i or t o si gni ng a cont r act wi t h t he

government . As Garc a r eadi l y concedes, no such cont r act was ever

execut ed. Nor does Garc a argue t hat t he RFP and t he Adj udi cat i on

Not i f i cat i on est abl i shed a cont r act ual r el at i onshi p - - such as a

"cont r act t o execut e a cont r act " - - bet ween hi mand t he gover nment .

-18-


19/45

Had a f i nal cont r act been execut ed, Garc a f ur t her

concedes t hat , under our pr ecedent , he woul d not have a pr ot ect ed

pr oper t y i nt er est i n t hat cont r act . Accept i ng t hi s concessi on, we

cannot see how t he gover nment ' s non- bi ndi ng of f er t o begi n cont r act

negot i at i ons and t he "nor mal " cont r act - appr oval pr ocess grant ed

Gar c a a const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed pr oper t y i nt er est .

Gar c a' s put at i ve economi c damages, he al l eges, consi st

of l ost commi ssi ons amount i ng t o approxi mat el y $450, 000. The

Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on speci f i es t he account s f or whi ch Gar c a

was " f avor abl y consi der ed" and t hei r cor r espondi ng pr emi ums, but i t

does not pr ovi de any i nf ormat i on r egardi ng commi ssi ons f or t hose

account s. And t he RFP cl ear l y st at es t hat a br oker ' s commi ssi ons

ar e t o be set by t he f i nal pr of essi onal ser vi ces cont r act . As no

cont r act was execut ed, Gar c a' s hoped- f or commi ssi ons and pr of i t s

were merel y specul at i ve. The l anguage of t he RFP al so cont empl at es

f ur t her "di scussi ons or negot i at i ons" bet ween t he par t i es pr i or t o

si gni ng a cont r act. For t hese r easons, Gar c a' s "cl ai m of

ent i t l ement , " Rot h, 408 U. S. at 577, t o any pr of i t s or commi ssi ons

woul d be st r onger i f a f i nal pr of essi onal ser vi ces cont r act had

been execut ed by t he par t i es. Gi ven Gar c a' s concessi on t hat he

woul d have no const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed ent i t l ement t o t he

commi ssi ons under such a cont r act , i t woul d def y l ogi c t o

nonet hel ess embr ace hi s ar gument t hat t he Const i t ut i on pr ot ect s hi s

weaker cl ai mt o t hose commi ssi ons by means of a uni l at er al of f er t o

-19-


20/45

begi n negot i at i ons and a cont r act - appr oval pr ocess. Cf . J ones v.

Ci t y of Bost on, 752 F. 3d 38, 56 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( hol di ng t hat a

pl ai nt i f f was not ent i t l ed t o due pr ocess because "[ i ] t i s cl ear

. . . t hat t he [ pr oper t y] i nt er est creat ed by a condi t i onal j ob

of f er can be no st r onger t han t hat cr eat ed by an uncondi t i onal j ob

of f er , and t hat t hi s i nt er est i n t ur n r i ses no hi gher t han t hat

possessed by someone who has r ecent l y begun wor k i n t he

posi t i on") . 2

Gar c a' s ar gument t hus f ai l s as a mat t er of l ogi c. As

expl ai ned bel ow, i t al so necessar i l y f ai l s under gover ni ng Puer t o

Ri co l aw.

4. Property Interests as Defined by Puerto Rico Law

The pr oper t y i nt er est s pr ot ect ed by t he Four t eent h

Amendment "are def i ned by st at e l aw. " Har r on v. Town of Fr ankl i n,

660 F. 3d 531, 537 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . The Supr eme Cour t of Puer t o

2 I n J ones, one pl ai nt i f f r ecei ved a condi t i onal j ob of f er vi a al et t er t hat r ead: "I f you successf ul l y pass t he medi cal exami nat i onand hai r dr ug t est i ng component s of t he scr eeni ng pr ocess, you wi l lbe t ender ed a f i nal of f er of empl oyment . " I d. I f t he pl ai nt i f fhad been hi r ed, she woul d have been subj ect t o "a si x- mont hpr obat i onary per i od dur i ng whi ch [ she woul d] not have t hepr ot ect i on f r omt er mi nat i on wi t hout j ust cause af f or ded t o tenur edempl oyees. " I d. I n Massachuset t s, such a pr obat i onary empl oyeewi t h a j ob t er mi nabl e wi t h or wi t hout cause does not a have a

pr ot ect ed pr oper t y i nt er est i n cont i nued empl oyment . I d. Wer easoned t hat "even had [ t he pl ai nt i f f ] begun t o wor k, she woul dhave had no cogni zabl e pr oper t y i nt erest i n cont i nued empl oymentdur i ng t he ent i r et y of her pr obat i onar y per i od. " I d. Ther ef or e,we concl uded t hat " [ a] f or t i or i , havi ng not begun wor k, [ t hepl ai nt i f f ] al so had no cogni zabl e pr oper t y i nt er est based on t hej ob of f er al one. " I d.

-20-


21/45

Ri co has expl i ci t l y hel d t hat a Puer t o Ri co gover nment "agency has

t he r i ght t o revoke t he awar d of a cont r act at any t i me bef or e t he

cor r espondi ng cont r act i s ent er ed i nt o, si nce a cont r act i s not

bi ndi ng on an agency unt i l [ t he] f or mal cont r act cont ai ni ng al l t he

l egal r equi r ement s f or t he per f or mance of t he wor k i s execut ed i n

wr i t i ng. " Cancel v. Muni ci pi o de San J uan, 101 P. R. Dec. 296, 300-

01, 1 P. R. Of f i c. Tr ans. 416, 422 ( 1973) ( quot i ng J ust i ni ano v.

Commonweal t h, 100 P. R. Dec. 334 ( 1971) ) ; see al so Rocket Lear ni ng,

I nc. v. Ri ver a- Snchez, 851 F. Supp. 2d 384, 395 ( D. P. R. 2012) ,

af f ' d on ot her gr ounds, 715 F. 3d 1 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( " [ U] nder Puer t o

Ri co l aw, a bi dder f or a cont r act wi t h t he government does not

acqui r e a pr oper t y i nt er est unt i l t he cont r act has been

f or mal i zed. ") .

Gar c a i dent i f i es no Puer t o Ri co l aw - - not a si ngl e case

or st at ut e - - demonst r at i ng t hat t he RFP and t he Adj udi cat i on

Not i f i cat i on gave hi m a pr ot ect ed pr oper t y i nt er est . Because t he

par t i es her e di d not execut e i n wr i t i ng a " f or mal cont r act

cont ai ni ng al l t he l egal r equi r ement s f or t he per f or mance of t he

work, " Puer t o Ri co l aw makes cl ear t hat Garc a di d not have a

pr ot ect ed pr oper t y i nt er est i n t he Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on. See

Cancel , 1 P. R. Of f i c. Tr ans. at 422; Rocket Lear ni ng, 851 F. Supp.

2d at 395. Ther ef or e, gi ven hi s f ai l ur e t o est abl i sh t hat he had

a pr ot ect ed pr oper t y i nt er est i n t he r esci nded Adj udi cat i on

Not i f i cat i on, Gar c a' s due pr ocess cl ai m must f ai l . See

-21-


22/45

Redondo- Bor ges, 421 F. 3d at 10 ( r ecogni zi ng t hat " [ a] r ecur r ent

t heme i n t hi s cour t ' s j ur i spr udence" suppor t ed a hol di ng t hat t he

pl ai nt i f f s' i nt er est i n a r esci nded bi d awar d "d[ i d] not r i se t o

t he l evel of a const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ected pr oper t y i nt er est ") ; i d.

at 11 ( hol di ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s' 1983 cl ai m f ai l ed due t o t he

l ack of a const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed pr oper t y i nt er est ) . 3

B. Garca's First Amendment Claim for Political Discrimination

The second i ssue bef or e us i s whet her t here i s a genui ne

i ssue of mat er i al f act pr ecl udi ng af f i r mance of summar y j udgment i n

f avor of Pui g as t o hi s l i abi l i t y under 42 U. S. C. 1983 f or

pol i t i cal di scri mi nat i on agai nst Gar c a. Gar c a al l eges t hat Pui g,

Secr et ar y of t he Tr easur y i n an NPP admi ni st r at i on, r esci nded hi s

bi d awar d because of Gar c a' s pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on wi t h an

opposi ng pol i t i cal par t y, t he PDP. Based on t he cumul at i ve wei ght

of t he l i mi t ed evi dence put f or t h by Garc a, we cannot say t hat

t her e i s no genui ne i ssue of mater i al f act on hi s Fi r st Amendment

cl ai m. Ther ef or e, as f ur t her expl ai ned bel ow, t he gr ant of summar y

j udgment i n f avor of Pui g on t hi s i ssue r equi r es r eversal .

3 Gi ven our concl usi on t hat Gar c a has f ai l ed t o demonst r at e aconst i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed pr oper t y i nt er est , we need not addr essPui g' s ar gument t hat Gar c a' s due pr ocess cl ai m woul d be bar r edunder t he Par r at t - Hudson doct r i ne based on Pui g' s asser t i on t hatPuer t o Ri co l aw pr ovi des adequate post - depr i vat i on r emedi es. See,e. g. , Gar dner v. Ci t y of Bal t . Mayor & Ci t y Counci l , 969 F. 2d 63,69 n. 1 ( 4t h Ci r . 1992) .

-22-


23/45

1. Political Discrimination in Public Contracting

"Sect i on 1983 i s t he convent i onal vehi cl e t hr ough whi ch

r el i ef i s sought f or cl ai ms of pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on by stat e

act or s. " Rodr guez- Reyes v. Mol i na- Rodr guez, 711 F. 3d 49, 54 ( 1st

Ci r . 2013) . "For t hi s pur pose, Puer t o Ri co i s t he f unct i onal

equi val ent of a st at e. " I d.

"The r i ght t o associ at e wi t h t he pol i t i cal par t y of one' s

choi ce i s an i nt egr al par t of t he basi c const i t ut i onal f r eedom t o

associ ate wi t h ot her s f or t he common advancement of pol i t i cal

bel i ef s and i deas pr ot ect ed by t he Fi r st Amendment . " Car r asqui l l o

v. Puer t o Ri co ex r el . J ust i ce Dep' t , 494 F. 3d 1, 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2007)

( ci t i ng Kusper v. Pont i kes, 414 U. S. 51, 56- 57 ( 1973) ) . The Fi r st

Amendment t her ef ore bars government of f i ci al s f r om t aki ng adver se

empl oyment act i on on t he basi s of a per son' s pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on,

"unl ess pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on i s an appr opr i at e r equi r ement f or t he

posi t i on. " MndezApont e v. Boni l l a, 645 F. 3d 60, 64 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) ) ; see al so Wel ch v. Ci ampa, 542 F. 3d 927, 938 ( 1st Ci r .

2008) . 4 The Supreme Cour t has hel d t hat Fi r st Amendment

pr ot ect i ons al so ext end t o i ndependent cont r act or s wi t h pr eexi st i ng

commer ci al r el at i onshi ps wi t h t he gover nment , "wher e [ t he]

4 Pui g does not ar gue t hat t he i nsur ance br oker i ndependentcont r act or posi t i on sought by Gar c a i s a pol i cymaki ng posi t i on ora posi t i on f or whi ch "pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on i s an appr opr i at er equi r ement . " See MndezApont e, 645 F. 3d at 64; see al so Foot e v.Town of Bedf or d, 642 F. 3d 80, 83 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Thus, we neednot consi der whet her t hi s except i on appl i es her e.

-23-


24/45

gover nment r et al i at es agai nst a cont r act or , or a r egul ar pr ovi der

of ser vi ces, f or t he exer ci se of r i ght s of pol i t i cal associ at i on or

t he expr essi on of pol i t i cal al l egi ance. " O' Har e Tr uck Ser v. , I nc.

v. Ci t y of Nor t hl ake, 518 U. S. 712, 715 ( 1996) ; i d. at 726 ( "We

decl i ne t o dr aw a l i ne excl udi ng i ndependent cont r act or s f r om t he

Fi r st Amendment saf eguar ds of pol i t i cal associ at i on af f or ded t o

empl oyees. " ) ; see al so Bd. of Cnt y. Comm' r s, Wabaunsee Cnt y. , Kan.

v. Umbehr , 518 U. S. 668, 681- 84 ( 1996) ( expr essi ng some skept i ci sm

of t he pr act i ces of pat r onage and pol i t i cal bi as i n gover nment

cont r act i ng) ; i d. at 685 ( concl udi ng t hat "i ndependent cont r act or s

do enj oy some Fi r st Amendment pr ot ect i on" ) .

To dat e, we have not f ound i t necessar y t o r ul e on

whet her such pr ot ect i ons ext end t o f i r st - t i me bi dder s or appl i cant s

f or new government cont r act s. See Cent r o Mdi co, 406 F. 3d at 9;

Pr i sma Zona Expl or at or i a de P. R. , I nc. v. Cal der n, 310 F. 3d 1, 7

( 1st Ci r . 2002) ; see al so Umbehr , 518 U. S. at 685 ( "Because

Umbehr ' s sui t concer ns t he t er mi nat i on of a pr e- exi st i ng commer ci al

r el at i onshi p wi t h the gover nment , we need not addr ess t he

possi bi l i t y of sui t s by bi dder s or appl i cant s f or new gover nment

cont r act s who cannot r el y on such a r el at i onshi p. " ) . Nor does t hi s

case pr esent such an oppor t uni t y.

Al t hough Gar c a i s pr ot est i ng hi s f ai l ed bi d f or an

unexecut ed gover nment cont r act , t he r ecord al so shows t hat Garc a

hel d var i ous annual cont r act s wi t h t he Tr easur y f or sever al year s

-24-


25/45

pr i or t o 2008. I ndeed, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat Gar c a had a

pat t er n of annual cont r act i ng wi t h t he Tr easur y dur i ng t he ei ght -

year per i od begi nni ng on Apr i l 28, 2001, and endi ng on May 30,

2009. Thi s per i od was i nt er r upt ed onl y by a t wo- mont h gap i n 2003.

On t hat basi s, t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat Gar c a had a

pr eexi st i ng commer ci al r el at i onshi p wi t h t he Tr easur y.

Fur t her mor e, i t i s undi sput ed t hat Gar c a and t he

Tr easur y enter ed i nt o a one- year pr of ess i onal ser vi ces cont r act on

Oct ober 1, 2008 - - a cont r act whi ch t he depar t ment t er mi nated

i mmedi at el y pr i or t o t he RFP and t he Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on at

i ssue. I n t he wr i t t en not i ce t he Tr easur y sent t o Gar c a i nf or mi ng

hi m t hat hi s exi st i ng cont r act woul d be cancel l ed, t he depar t ment

al so speci f i ed t hat i f he was "i nt er est ed i n cont i nui ng t o

par t i ci pat e i n t he Pr ogr am, " he coul d appl y i n wr i t i ng by

r espondi ng t o t he RFP. Al t hough pr evi ousl y we have " t ake[ n] no

vi ew" on whet her " t he pr otect i ons r ecogni zed i n Umbehr . . . ext end

t o unsol i ci t ed bi ds f or new gover nment cont r act s, " Cent r o Mdi co,

406 F. 3d at 10 ( emphasi s added) , t hi s case i nvol ves a r equest f or

pr oposal s r at her t han an "unsol i ci t ed" bi d f or a new cont r act . I n

essence, Gar c a was sol i ci t ed t o reappl y f or an exi st i ng cont r act

- - a cont r act si mi l ar t o t he annual cont r act s he hel d ever y year

si nce 2001.

We t her ef or e f i nd t hat , under t hese par t i cul ar

ci r cumst ances, Gar c a had a pr eexi st i ng commer ci al r el at i onshi p

-25-


26/45

wi t h t he Commonweal t h and i s t hus subj ect t o Fi r st Amendment

pr ot ect i ons agai nst ret al i at i on f or hi s pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on. See

O' Har e Truck, 518 U. S. at 715; Umbehr , 518 U. S. at 685; Pr i sma

Zona, 610 F. 3d at 7; Cent r o Mdi co, 406 F. 3d at 9; cf . Rut an v.

Republ i can Par t y of I l l . , 497 U. S. 62, 75 ( 1990) ( "[ P] r omot i ons,

t r ansf er s, and r ecal l s af t er l ayof f s based on pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on

or suppor t are an i mpermi ss i bl e i nf r i ngement on t he Fi r st Amendment

r i ght s of publ i c empl oyees. ") .

As an addi t i onal pr el i mi nar y mat t er , we pause t o not e

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t cl ear l y er r ed by appl yi ng t he bal anci ng

t est ar t i cul at ed i n Pi cker i ng v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. Hi gh Sch.

Di st . 205, Wi l l Cnt y. , I l l . , 391 U. S. 563 ( 1968) , i nst ead of t he

pr i nci pl es est abl i shed by t he l i ne of cases f ol l owi ng El r od v.

Bur ns, 427 U. S. 347 ( 1976) , and Br ant i v. Fi nkel , 445 U. S. 507

( 1980) . The Pi cker i ng bal anci ng t est appl i es t o f r ee speech cases,

"wher e a gover nment empl oyer t akes adver se act i on on account of an

empl oyee or servi ce pr ovi der ' s r i ght of f r ee speech. " O' Har e

Tr uck, 518 U. S. at 719. Because Gar c a' s Fi r st Amendment cl ai m i s

pr emi sed sol el y on di scr i mi nat i on f or hi s pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on,

and does not i nvol ve f act ual al l egat i ons of unconst i t ut i onal

i nf r i ngement upon hi s f r eedom of speech, 5 t he Pi cker i ng t est i s

5 Gar c a' s compl ai nt capt i ons hi s "Fi r st Cause of Act i on" as"Fr eedom of Speech/ Associ at i on" and al l eges t hat t he def endant s'act i ons "vi ol at e pl ai nt i f f ' s r i ght s t o f r eedom of speech andf r eedom of associ at i on. " However , f or t hi s cause of act i on, t hespeci f i c f actual al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt per t ai n sol el y t o

-26-


27/45

i nappl i cabl e. See i d. ; see al so Acevedo- Del gado v. Ri ver a, 292

F. 3d 37, 45 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( "Pi cker i ng i s i napposi t e t o t hi s case,

whi ch does not i nvol ve an asser t ed st at e i nt er est t hat al l egedl y

was compromi sed by an empl oyee' s st at ement s. " ) . Havi ng di sposed of

t hese t hr eshol d mat t ers, we now t ur n t o exami ne t he el ement s of

Gar c a' s pr i ma f aci e cl ai mf or pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on, begi nni ng

wi t h a summary of t he r el evant evi dence.

2. Evidence Relevant to Garca's First Amendment Claim

At t he out set of t hi s i nqui r y, we not e t hat sever al f act s

on whi ch Gar c a rel i es, i ncl udi ng whi ch bi dder s gai ned and l ost

cont r act s, ar e l i kel y i nadmi ssi bl e hear say. However , Pui g di d not

obj ect t o t hese st at ement s bel ow, and evi dent i ar y obj ect i ons not

di scri mi nat i on based on pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on. The compl ai ntst at es t hat Gar c a "bel ongs t o a pol i t i cal par t y t hat espousesphi l osophi es and i deas di f f er ent t o those of t he def endant s,somet hi ng t hat was known t o def endants when t hey deci ded t o t ake

adver se empl oyment act i ons agai nst hi m, moved and/ or mot i vated bypl ai nt i f f ' s af f i l i at i on t o t he PDP. "Gar c a' s opposi t i on t o summary j udgment and br i ef s al so make

no speci f i c f act ual al l egat i ons r egar di ng any pr ot ect ed speech orvi ol at i ons of hi s f r eedom of speech, but i nst ead addr ess onl y acl ai mof di scr i mi nat i on based on pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on. Mor eover ,i n hi s appel l at e br i ef , Gar c a stat es that "[ i ] t i s pl ai n f r omt hef ace of t he compl ai nt and f r om ever y si ngl e document f i l ed by t hepar t i es thereaf t er t hat pl ai nt i f f ' s cl ai m f or vi ol at i on of hi sFi r st Amendment r i ght s st ems f r oma pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on theor yof l i abi l i t y under t he so- cal l ed El r od/ Br ant i r ubr i c . . . . "

For t hese r easons, we see no reason t o const r ue Garc a' s

"Fi r st Cause of Act i on" as i ncl udi ng t wo causes of act i on so as t of i nd t hat he pl eaded a f r eedom- of - speech cl ai m i n addi t i on t o hi sf r eedom- of - associ at i on cl ai m. See, e. g. , EBI , I nc. v. Gat orI ndus. , I nc. , 807 F. 2d 1, 4- 5 ( 1st Ci r . 1986) ( f i ndi ng t hat t hepl ai nt i f f had not asser t ed a cl ai m f or br each of cont r act when t hecompl ai nt ' s br each- of - cont r act capt i on was " t ot al l y unsuppor t ed byany f act ual al l egat i ons whi ch woul d si gnal " such a cl ai m) .

-27-


28/45

r ai sed bef ore t he di st r i ct cour t are deemed wai ved on appeal . See,

e. g. , Dor pan, S. L. v. Hot el Mel i , I nc. , 728 F. 3d 55, 67 n. 14 ( 1st

Ci r . 2013) . We f ur t her not e t hat sever al pi eces of evi dence

pr of f er ed by Gar c a ar e, i n i sol at i on, of quest i onabl e val ue.

Nonet hel ess, i n t he aggr egat e, t he cumul at i ve wei ght of Gar c a' s

evi dence - - t oget her wi t h t he r easonabl e i nf er ences dr awn t her ef r om

- - i s suf f i ci ent t o def eat summar y j udgment .

I n suppor t of hi s t heor y of t he case as t o pol i t i cal

di scri mi nat i on, Gar c a of f er s t he f ol l owi ng evi dence: ( 1) hi s

deposi t i on t est i mony st at i ng t hat he spoke t o mul t i pl e cont r act or s

af f i l i at ed wi t h t he PDP who al so had t hei r i ni t i al bi d awar ds

r esci nded; ( 2) hi s deposi t i on t est i mony t hat he per sonal l y knew of

NPP- af f i l i at ed br oker s who wer e awar ded t he cont r act s or i gi nal l y

adj udi cat ed t o hi m; ( 3) a copy of a cont r act awar ded t o an al l eged

NPP- af f i l i at ed br oker ; ( 4) a t abl e out l i ni ng t he Tr easur y' s

numer i cal eval uat i on of t he f i f t y- f our i ndependent cont r act or s who

submi t t ed pr oposal s t hr ough t he RFP; ( 5) a cer t i f i cat i on f r om t he

Tr easur y denyi ng t hat i t has any documents concer ni ng t he al l eged

er r or s i nvol ved wi t h t he or i gi nal Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on; and

( 6) Pui g' s deposi t i on t est i mony ( i n anot her case) t hat he had t he

aut hor i t y to make t he f i nal det er mi nat i ons r egar di ng t he awar di ng

of t he Tr easur y cont r act s. Each cat egor y of evi dence i s exami ned

i n more det ai l bel ow.

-28-


29/45

Fi r st , when asked at hi s deposi t i on whet her he knew any

of t he ot her cont r act or s who had r ecei ved t he l et t er r esci ndi ng t he

or i gi nal adj udi cat i on, Gar c a r epl i ed, "I know al l of t hem. Af t er

t hi r t y- f i ve year s i n t hi s busi ness, I t hi nk I know al l of t hem,

except t he new ones . . . . " He t est i f i ed t hat , af t er r ecei vi ng

t he l et t er i nf or mi ng hi m of t he "count l ess er r or s" i n t he

Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on, he r eached out t o sever al ot her

i nsur ance br oker s he knew t o be af f i l i at ed wi t h t he PDP, i ncl udi ng:

Benj am n Hernndez, Consuel o Revuel t a, Rober t o Fonseca, and Ti t o

Casel l as. He l at er saw t hr ee of t hese br oker s at t he Tr easur y

Depar t ment on May 26, 2009, and he conf i r med wi t h them t hat t hey

had r ecei ved t he l et t er . Toget her , t hey sur mi sed t hat t her e was an

i mpr oper "ext er nal mot i vat i on" f or t he r esci ssi on of t he

adj udi cat i ons - - namel y, t hei r af f i l i at i on wi t h t he PDP.

Second, when asked about hi s al l egat i on t hat al l t he

cont r act s t hat or i gi nal l y had been adj udi cat ed t o hi m wer e l at er

awar ded t o NPP i nsur ance br oker s, Gar c a expl ai ned i n hi s

deposi t i on t hat he per sonal l y knew of f i ve di f f er ent NPP- af f i l i at ed

cont r actor s t hat wer e awarded such cont r act s: Lone St ar Producer s,

I nc. ( "Lone St ar ") , Chr i st i ansen I nsur ance, I nc. , J or ge Ur r ut i a

Val l s, I kon Gr oup, and Lui s Bonnet . Gar c a st at ed t hat " [ a] l l I

know i s t hat t hey wer e on May 15, al l of t hem wer e i n t he

adj udi cat i on and what happened af t er May 15, was t hat al l t hat wer e

not [ NPP] peopl e, [ t hey wer e] st r i cken out . . . si gni f i cant l y t he

-29-


30/45

amount of account s t hat were gi ven, and t hose account s were

di st r i but ed among those [ NPP- af f i l i at ed br oker s] who al r eady had

account s. " I n cont ext , t hi s deposi t i on t est i mony i mpl i es t hat

Gar c a - - based on hi s per sonal r el at i onshi ps bui l t over t he cour se

of hi s t hi r t y- f i ve year s of exper i ence i n t he i ndust r y - - knew t he

pol i t i cal af f i l i at i ons of most of t he i nsur ance br oker s i nvol ved i n

t he bi ddi ng pr ocess. I t f ur t her i mpl i es t hat he knew t hat t he

r eal l ocat i on of t he r esci nded bi d awar ds f avor ed br oker s af f i l i at ed

wi t h t he NPP over t hose af f i l i at ed wi t h t he PDP.

Thi r d, Gar c a pr ovi ded a copy of t he cont r act awar ded t o

Lone St ar , one of t he NPP- af f i l i at ed cont r act or s he i dent i f i ed i n

hi s deposi t i on. The cont r act was awarded on May 25, 2009, f or a

t ot al amount of $1, 363, 813. 02; t he si gni ng par t i es wer e Andr s

Gui l l emard f or Lone St ar and Secr et ary Pui g f or t he gover nment . We

need not r el y sol el y on Gar c a' s deposi t i on t est i mony f or t he

pr oposi t i on t hat Lone St ar i s af f i l i at ed wi t h t he NPP. I nst ead,

Gar c a poi nt s us t o pol i t i cal di scri mi nat i on cases f i l ed by Lone

St ar and i t s pr i nci pal s, i n whi ch t hey sel f - i dent i f i ed as NPP

members and wer e awar ded $4. 7 mi l l i on i n 1983 damages f or

pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on by t he pr ecedi ng PDP admi ni st r at i ons.

See, e. g. , Gui l l emar d- Gi nor i o v. Cont r er as- Gmez, 585 F. 3d 508, 510

( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( st at i ng t hat pl ai nt i f f s- appel l ees Andr s

Gui l l emar dGi nor i o and hi s wi f e, Mar a Nobl eFer nndez, each f i f t y-

percent owners of Lone St ar , are bot h "pr omi nent members of t he

-30-


31/45

NPP, havi ng cont r i but ed subst ant i al t i me and f i nanci al suppor t t o

NPP candi dates" ) . Thus, t her e i s some evi dence t hat an NPP-

af f i l i at ed br oker was awar ded a hi gh- val ue cont r act i n t he wake of

t he r esci nded Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on.

Four t h, Gar c a poi nt s t o a t abl e det ai l i ng t he numer i cal

eval uat i on scor es gi ven t o al l f i f t y- f our cont r act or s who

par t i ci pat ed i n t he RFP; he asser t s t hat t he hi gher numer i cal

scor es wer e gi ven t o t he most qual i f i ed br oker s. The PDP-

af f i l i at ed cont r act or s i dent i f i ed by Gar c a wer e gi ven t he

f ol l owi ng scor es: ( 1) Consuel o Revuel t a - 57. 5; ( 2) Ti t o Casel l as

& Co. - 52. 5; ( 3) Gar c a hi msel f - 47. 5; and ( 4) Benj am n Her nndez

- 45. 5. By compar i son, t he cont r act or s Gar c a i dent i f i ed as

af f i l i at ed wi t h t he NPP r ecei ved t he f ol l owi ng scor es: ( 1) Lui s

Bonnet - 56; ( 2) Lone St ar - 46; ( 3) Ni col s Muoz - 41; ( 4)

Chr i st i ansen I nsur ance - 40; ( 5) I kon Gr oup - 36; and ( 6) J or ge

Ur r ut i a Val l s - 31. Al l f our PDP pr ovi der s i n t he f or mer group

had hi gher scor es t han al l but t wo NPP pr ovi der s i n t he l at t er

gr oup. Nonet hel ess, Gar c a asser t s that al l of t he PDP cont r act or s

wer e "vi ct i ms of t he pur por t ed ' er r or s' i n t he or i gi nal

adj udi cat i on" and had t hei r cont r act awar ds r educed, despi t e havi ng

hi gher scores t han sever al NPP pr ovi der s. 6

6 Thi s t abl e, Gar c a' s expl anat i on of i t , and hi s al l egat i onsconcer ni ng a subset of t he pr oducer s l i st ed t her ei n ar e f ar f r omcompl et e, cl ear , and concl usi ve. Nonet hel ess, t he t abl e pr ovi dessome suppor t and cor r obor at i on f or Gar c a' s asser t i ons i n hi sdeposi t i on t est i mony, par t i cul ar l y i n l i ght of t he Tr easur y' s

-31-


32/45

Fi f t h, Gar c a i nt r oduced a cer t i f i cat i on f r om t he

Tr easur y, sent i n r esponse t o hi s subpoena, st at i ng t hat t he

depar t ment has no document s or r ecor ds concerni ng: ( 1) any

i nvest i gat i ons i nt o i r r egul ar i t i es i n t he or i gi nal adj udi cat i on of

bi ds submi t t ed i n r esponse t o the Apr i l 2009 RFP; ( 2) t he l et t er s

not i f yi ng al l bi dder s of pr obl ems or i r r egul ar i t i es wi t h t he

i ni t i al adj udi cat i ons; ( 3) any measur es t aken by t he Tr easur y t o

cor r ect t he al l eged er r or s i n t he adj udi cat i on pr ocess; or ( 4)

Secr et ar y Pui g' s second adj udi cat i on of cont r act s under t he RFP.

To dat e, t he Tr easur y has of f er ed no expl anat i on of t he al l eged

"count l ess er r or s" t hat pr ompt ed t he r esci ssi on of Gar c a' s

or i gi nal Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on.

Fi nal l y, Gar c a pr ovi ded an excer pt of t he t r anscr i pt of

a deposi t i on of Pui g t aken i n a di f f er ent case on August 19, 2011.

I n t hat deposi t i on, Pui g t est i f i ed t hat he was r esponsi bl e f or t he

sel ect i on of i ndependent cont r act or s f or t he Tr easur y, and t hat hi s

"aut hor i t y i s t hat of havi ng t o make a det er mi nat i on as t o who i s

goi ng t o be gr ant ed cer t ai n pr of essi onal servi ces cont r act s and who

i s not . "

3. The Elements of a Political Discrimination Claim

A pl ai nt i f f seeki ng t o est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e cl ai m of

pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on under t he Fi r st Amendment must show f our

f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de addi t i onal document s i n r esponse t o Gar c a' ssubpoena.

-32-


33/45

el ement s: " ' ( 1) t hat t he pl ai nt i f f and def endant have opposi ng

pol i t i cal af f i l i at i ons, ( 2) t hat t he def endant i s awar e of t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s af f i l i at i on, ( 3) t hat an adver se empl oyment acti on

occur r ed, and ( 4) t hat pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on was a subst ant i al or

mot i vat i ng f act or f or t he adver se empl oyment act i on. ' "

Tor r es- Sant i ago v. Muni ci pal i t y of Adj unt as, 693 F. 3d 230, 236 ( 1st

Ci r . 2012) ( quot i ng MndezApont e, 645 F. 3d at 64) . 7

On de novo r evi ew, i f t her e i s no genui ne i ssue of f act

on t he summar y j udgment r ecord wi t h r espect t o any of t hese

el ement s, t hen Gar c a' s Fi r st Amendment cl ai m must f ai l . See Fed.

R. Ci v. P. 56( a) . For pur poses of summary j udgment , we consi der

onl y "mat er i al s of evi dent i ar y qual i t y. " Hannon v. Bear d, 645 F. 3d

45, 49 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Accor di ngl y, "bot h af f i davi t s and

7 Af t er a pl ai nt i f f has est abl i shed a pr i ma f aci e case f orpol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on by showi ng t hese f our el ement s, t he bur den

shi f t s t o t he def endant t o " ' pr ove by a pr eponder ance of t heevi dence that t he adver se act i on woul d have been t aken r egardl essof any di scri mi nat or y pol i t i cal mot i vat i on. ' " Ceper o- Ri ver a, 414F. 3d at 132 ( quot i ng LaRou v. Ri dl on, 98 F. 3d 659, 661 ( 1st Ci r .1996) ) ; see al so Mt . Heal t hy Ci t y Sch. Di st . Bd. of Educ. v. Doyl e,429 U. S. 274, 287 ( 1977) ; Bar r y v. Moran, 661 F. 3d 696, 703- 04 ( 1stCi r . 2011) . At t hi s st age of t he l i t i gat i on, however , Pui g hasadvanced no evi dence or ar gument t hat t he adver se act i on woul d havebeen t aken absent any di scr i mi natory mot i ve; i ndeed, Pui g hasof f er ed no expl anat i on of t he "count l ess er r or s" i n t headj udi cat i on pr ocess t hat al l egedl y pr ompt ed r esci ssi on of t heor i gi nal awar d. Accor di ngl y, f or pur poses of t he cur r ent appeal ,

we need not consi der t he bur den shi f t and we may conf i ne ouri nqui r y t o t he el ement s of t he pr i ma f aci e case. See, e. g. , J ones,752 F. 3d at 54- 55 ( decl i ni ng t o consi der , i n t he f i r st i nst ance, apost - bur den- shi f t def ense not yet consi der ed by t he t r i al cour t ) ;i d. at 55 ( "Feder al appel l at e cour t s have di scr et i on i n deci di ngwhet her t o t ake up quest i ons not consi der ed bel ow, but t heygener al l y shoul d not do so. " ) .

-33-


34/45

deposi t i on t est i mony ar e ef f ect i ve i n opposi ng summary j udgment

onl y when t hey ar e gi ven on per sonal knowl edge, set out f act s t hat

woul d be admi ssi bl e i n evi dence, and show t hat t he af f i ant or

deponent ( as t he case may be) i s compet ent t o t est i f y about t he

mat t er i n quest i on. " I d.

Wi t h t hese pr i nci pl es i n mi nd, we addr ess each el ement of

Gar c a' s pr i ma f aci e case i n t ur n. 8

a. Opposing Political Affiliations

To sur vi ve summar y j udgment , Gar c a must f i r st

demonst r ate t hat t her e i s a genui ne i ssue of f act as t o whet her he

and Pui g have opposi ng pol i t i cal af f i l i at i ons. See

Tor r es- Sant i ago, 693 F. 3d at 236. He has done so. Fi r st , Gar c a

has pr ovi ded deposi t i on t est i mony t hat he i s af f i l i at ed wi t h t he

PDP. The nat ur e of hi s own pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on i s cer t ai nl y

8 We note t hat , on appeal , Pui g has squarel y pr esent ed chal l engest o Gar c a' s pr oof on onl y t he f i r st t wo el ement s: ( 1) whet her t hepar t i es have opposi ng pol i t i cal af f i l i at i ons, and ( 2) whet her Pui gwas awar e of Gar c a' s pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on. Pui g has t husarguabl y wai ved any ar gument concerni ng t he f i nal t wo el ement s.See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990)( " [ I ] ssues adver t ed t o i n a per f unct ory manner , unaccompani ed bysome ef f or t at devel oped argument at i on, are deemed wai ved. I t i snot enough merel y t o ment i on a possi bl e argument i n t he mostskel et al way, l eavi ng t he cour t t o do counsel ' s wor k, cr eat e t he

ossatur e f or t he ar gument , and put f l esh on i t s bones. " ( i nt er nalci t at i ons omi t t ed) ) . Nonet hel ess, as we may af f i r m t he di st r i ctcour t ' s "ent r y of summar y j udgment on any basi s made mani f est byt he recor d, " Demel o v. U. S. Bank Nat ' l Ass' n, 727 F. 3d 117, 121( 1st Ci r . 2013) , we wi l l exami ne the summary j udgment evi dence wi t hr espect t o al l f our el ement s of Gar c a' s pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i oncl ai m.

-34-


35/45

wi t hi n Gar c a' s per sonal knowl edge and coul d serve as proper t r i al

t est i mony.

Ther ef or e, f or Pui g t o demonst r at e t hat t here i s no

genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act as t o the par t i es' opposi ng

pol i t i cal af f i l i at i ons, he woul d have t o est abl i sh t hat t her e i s no

basi s i n t he recor d f or r easonabl y concl udi ng that Pui g i s a member

of an opposi ng pol i t i cal par t y. Thi s Pui g has f ai l ed t o do, as

" [ t ] he NPP and PDP ar e opposi ng pol i t i cal par t i es i n Puer t o Ri co, "

Gui l l emar d- Gi nor i o, 585 F. 3d at 511, and t he f act s of t hi s case

per mi t a r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat Pui g i s af f i l i at ed wi t h t he NPP.

We f i nd Pui g' s ar gument s t o t he cont r ar y unavai l i ng.

Admi t t edl y, Garc a does not per sonal l y know Pui g and has pr esent ed

no document ary evi dence t hat Pui g bel ongs t o t he NPP. And, i n an

unswor n "St at ement Under Penal t y of Per j ury" si gned on December 5,

2011 ( t he "Unsworn St at ement " ) , Pui g decl ared t hat he was not

per sonal l y af f i l i at ed wi t h t he NPP. I n Pui g' s vi ew, t hi s i s

suf f i ci ent t o demonst r at e t hat "t he uncont est ed f act s est abl i sh

t hat Pl ai nt i f f and Def endant di d not bel ong t o opposi ng pol i t i cal

par t i es. "

Pui g ar gues t hat "t he onl y reason" f or Gar c a' s bel i ef

t hat Pui g i s a member of t he NPP consi st s of an assumpt i on gr ounded

upon Pui g' s nomi nat i on and servi ce as t he Secr et ar y of t he Tr easur y

under Gover nor For t uo' s NPP admi ni st r at i on. Thi s assumpt i on,

however , i s suf f i ci ent f or pr esent pur poses. Revi ewi ng t he gr ant

-35-


36/45

of summary j udgment , we must r esol ve al l r easonabl e i nf er ences f r om

t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o Gar c a. See

Shaf mast er , 707 F. 3d at 135. No par t y di sput es t hat Gover nor

For t uo was a member of t he NPP or t hat Pui g, as Secr etary of t he

Tr easur y, was a hi gh- r anki ng of f i ci al i n an NPP admi ni st r at i on.

And "[ i ] t i s no secr et t hat pol i t i cal l eader s most of t en choose

pol i t i cal al l i es to f i l l i mpor t ant pol i cymaki ng posi t i ons. "

Gr aj al es v. P. R. Por t s Aut h. , 682 F. 3d 40, 47 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . I t

i s t her ef or e r easonabl e t o i nf er t hat Pui g was af f i l i at ed wi t h t he

NPP dur i ng t he r el evant per i od. See i d. at 47- 48 ( r easoni ng t hat

"a pl ausi bl e i nf er ence can be dr awn t hat t he pl ai nt i f f , who was

named t o a pr est i gi ous t r ust posi t i on by a PDP hi er arch under a PDP

admi ni st r at i on, was a member of t he PDP, " and remarki ng that a

cour t i s not r equi r ed "t o bl i nd i t sel f t o what i s obvi ous") .

b. Puig's Awareness of Garca's Affiliation

To est abl i sh t he second el ement of a pol i t i cal

di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m, Garc a woul d have t o show t hat Pui g was aware

of Gar c a' s pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on. See Tor r es- Sant i ago, 693 F. 3d

at 236. Pui g ar gues t hat t her e i s no genui ne i ssue of f act

r egar di ng t hi s el ement , because ( 1) t her e i s no evi dence showi ng

t hat Pui g was awar e t hat Gar c a was a member of t he PDP, and (2)

Pui g' s Unswor n St at ement concl usi vel y r esol ves t he i ssue i n Pui g' s

f avor .

-36-


37/45

I ndeed, t her e i s some suppor t f or Pui g' s posi t i on. I t i s

uncont est ed t hat Gar c a has never r un f or or hel d publ i c of f i ce as

a PDP candi dat e and t hat he has not wor ked f or t he campai gn of a

PDP candi dat e. He has not appear ed on t el evi si on or r adi o i n

suppor t of t he PDP. Fur t her more, i n hi s Unsworn St atement , Pui g

decl ared that : ( 1) he di d not know who Garc a was; ( 2) he di d not

know of Gar c a' s pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on; ( 3) he had not seen Gar c a

par t i ci pat e i n pol i t i cal act i vi t i es f or t he PDP; and ( 4) he had no

knowl edge of Gar c a bei ng an act i ve member of t he PDP.

Gar c a, f or hi s par t , t est i f i ed i n hi s deposi t i on t hat he

was, i n f act , af f i l i at ed wi t h t he PDP. He el abor at ed t hat he

publ i cl y di spl ayed hi s PDP af f i l i at i on by t al ki ng wi t h hi s f r i ends

and at t endi ng pol i t i cal r al l i es, meet i ngs, gat her i ngs, and cockt ai l

event s f or t he 2008 el ect i on. He st at ed t hat he cont r i but ed

f i nanci al l y t o t he campai gns of sever al PDP candi dat es, i ncl udi ng

t he then- i ncumbent PDP governor who l ost t o Governor For t uo i n t he

2008 el ect i on.

I n hi s deposi t i on, Gar c a f ur t her t est i f i ed t hat he and

Cr uz - - t he I nsurance Commi ssi oner ser vi ng under Pui g at t he t i me

- - wer e f r i ends and had wor ked t oget her f or sever al year s. Gar c a

t est i f i ed t hat Cr uz "absol ut el y" knew hi s pol i t i cal "col or " because

t hey had "t al k[ed] about i t . " Pui g, i n hi s st at ement of

uncont est ed mat er i al f act s, agr ees t hat Gar c a "has had an

excel l ent r el at i onshi p wi t h t he I nsur ance Commi ssi oner Ramn L.

-37-


38/45

Cr uz- Col n and consi der s hi m t o be hi s f r i end. " Pui g does not

di sput e t hat he and Cr uz worked t ogether i n t he For t uo

admi ni st r at i on dur i ng t he r el evant per i od, or t hat Cr uz

par t i ci pat ed i n t he RFP adj udi cat i on pr ocess at i ssue. Pui g

decl ar ed, however , t hat Cr uz had never i nf or med hi m of Gar c a' s

pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on.

Vi ewi ng t hese f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o

Gar c a, and dr awi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n hi s f avor , see

Shaf mast er , 707 F. 3d at 135, we concl ude t hat t here was a genui ne

i ssue of mat er i al f act as t o whet her Pui g was awar e of Gar c a' s

pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on, see Tor r es- Sant i ago, 693 F. 3d at 236. I n

hi s deposi t i on, Gar c a t est i f i ed t hat he made no secr et of hi s

pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on and t hat he act i vel y suppor t ed PDP candi dat es

wi t h f i nanci al cont r i but i ons and hi s pr esence at campai gn r al l i es

and ot her event s. Gi ven Gar c a' s f r i endshi p wi t h Cr uz, t hei r

wor ki ng r el at i onshi p, and Gar c a' s t est i mony t hat t hey t al ked about

pol i t i cs and Cr uz knew t hat he was a member of t he PDP, i t i s

r easonabl e t o concl ude t hat Cr uz knew of Gar c a' s pol i t i cal

af f i l i at i on.

Accept i ng as t r ue Gar c a' s t est i mony t hat hi gh- scor i ng

i nsur ance br oker s associ at ed wi t h t he PDP had thei r cont r act awar ds

r educed whi l e t he awar ds f or l ower - scor i ng br oker s associ at ed wi t h

t he NPP wer e ei t her unchanged or i ncr eased, t he f act f i nder coul d

i nf er t hat whoever was maki ng t he deci si on must have been doi ng so

-38-


39/45

based l ar gel y on par t y af f i l i at i on. Pui g does not di sput e on

appeal t hat he was t he deci si on maker who was ul t i mat el y

r esponsi bl e f or t he r esci ssi on of t he i ni t i al awar ds and t hei r

subsequent r eal l ocat i on. 9 Nor has he pr ovi ded any expl anat i on f or

t he appar ent cor r el at i on bet ween r esul t s and par t i san af f i l i at i on,

or f or t he supposed "er r or s" t hat l ed t o t he i ni t i al awar d t o

Gar c a. Gi ven t hat appar ent cor r el at i on bet ween r esul t s and

par t i san af f i l i at i on, and t he unexpl ai ned r easons f or t he changes,

a r easonabl e j ur y coul d i nf er t hat Pui g l i kel y l ear ned of Gar c a' s

pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on, an i nf er ence t hat i s al l t he mor e pl ausi bl e

because Pui g had a r eady sour ce f or t hat knowl edge: Cr uz.

For al l t hese r easons, t her e i s a genui ne i ssue of f act

as t o whet her Pui g knew of Gar c a' s pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on.

Answer i ng t hi s quest i on cal l s f or "[ c] r edi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons,

t he wei ghi ng of t he evi dence, and t he dr awi ng of l egi t i mat e

9 Si mi l ar l y, we not e t hat Pui g has wai ved any argument t hat he wasnot per sonal l y i nvol ved i n t he deci si on t o r esci nd Gar c a' s bi dawar d. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Del l osant os, 649 F. 3d 109, 126n. 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( f i ndi ng an appel l at e ar gument wai ved due t ot he gover nment - appel l ee' s "per f unct ory t r eatment " of a case and" l ack of devel oped argument at i on" ) . Moreover , on t hi s summaryj udgment r ecor d, any such ar gument woul d f ai l . Gar c a put f or t hevi dence of Pui g' s per sonal i nvol vement , i ncl udi ng t hat t he RFP' st er ms provi de t hat Pui g was r esponsi bl e f or sel ect i ng t he i nsur ancebr oker s t o r ecei ve cont r act s, t hat Pui g gave deposi t i on t est i mony

i n another case st at i ng t hat he chose the i nsurance companypr ovi der s, and t hat Pui g hi msel f si gned t he l et t er t er mi nat i ngGar c a' s 2008- 2009 cont r act ear l y. Under t hese ci r cumst ances, suchevi dence i s suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh a genui ne i ssue of mat er i alf act as t o whet her Pui g per sonal l y "par t i ci pat ed i n t he conduct "t hat al l egedl y depr i ved Gar c a of hi s r i ght s. See Ceper o- Ri ver a,414 F. 3d at 129.

-39-


40/45

i nf er ences f r om t he f act s" - - al l t asks f or t he j ur y, not t he

j udge. Ander son v. Li ber t y Lobby, I nc. , 477 U. S. 242, 255 ( 1986) ;

see al so Rodr guez v. Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan, 659 F. 3d 168, 175

( 1st Ci r . 2011) . 10

c. Adverse Action

Wi t h r espect t o the thi r d el ement of a pr i ma f aci e

pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m, Gar c a woul d have t o pr ove t hat an

adver se act i on occur r ed. See Tor r es- Sant i ago, 693 F. 3d at 236. I n

order t o show an adver se act i on, Garc a need not show a r i ght t o a

deni ed gover nment benef i t . The f act t hat a pl ai nt i f f has "no l egal

ent i t l ement " t o a val uabl e gover nment benef i t i s " i mmat er i al " t o

such a Fi r st Amendment cl ai m. Rut an, 497 U. S. at 72 ( ci t i ng Per r y

v. Si nder mann, 408 U. S. 593, 596- 98 ( 1972) ) . Rat her , " [ t ] he Fi r st

Amendment prevent s t he government , except i n t he most compel l i ng

ci r cumst ances, f r om wi el di ng i t s power t o i nt er f er e wi t h i t s

empl oyees' f r eedomt o bel i eve and associ at e, or t o not bel i eve and

not associ at e. " Rut an, 497 U. S. at 76.

We need not l i nger l ong upon t hi s t hi r d el ement of t he

anal ysi s. Pui g does not ser i ousl y cont est t hat no adver se act i on

occur r ed. Nor coul d he. Thr ough hi s deposi t i on t est i mony and t he

10 We al so not e t hat even i f Pui g i s t el l i ng t he t r ut h and di d notper sonal l y know Gar c a' s pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on, he coul d st i l l bel i abl e i f he t ol d Cr uz t o r esci nd awar ds t o PDP- af f i l i at ed bi dder sand t hat i nst r uct i on r esul t ed i n t he r evocat i on of Gar c a' s awar d.

-40-


41/45

var i ous l et t er s he r ecei ved f r omt he Tr easur y, Gar c a has put f or t h

evi dence t hat he suf f er ed an adver se act i on.

Fi r st , Gar c a has pr ovi ded t he l et t er f r omPui g not i f yi ng

hi mof t he ear l y t er mi nat i on of hi s 2008- 2009 cont r act . Gar c a has

al so aver r ed t hat he st ood t o pr of i t by appr oxi matel y $450, 000 i n

commi ssi ons f r omt he cont r act s or i gi nal l y awar ded i n t he resci nded

Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on. He has f ur t her pr ovi ded deposi t i on

t est i mony t o the f act t hat t he subst i t ut e cont r act s of f er ed by t he

Tr easur y woul d r esul t i n commi ssi ons of appr oxi mat el y $15, 000 - -

l ess t han f our per cent of t he expect ed commi ssi ons f or hi s or i gi nal

awar d. These f act s - - t he ear l y t er mi nat i on of Gar c a' s exi st i ng

cont r act , t he r esci ssi on of t he Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on, and t he

si gni f i cant r educt i on i n commi ssi ons f r omhi s or i gi nal bi d awar d t o

t he f i nal cont r act s of f er ed hi m - - t oget her can be consi der ed t o

const i t ut e an adver se act i on. Pui g has of f er ed no ar gument t o t he

contrary.

d. Causation

Fi nal l y, i n or der t o meet t he f our t h el ement f or a pr i ma

f aci e pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on cl ai m, Gar c a must show t hat hi s

pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on wi t h t he PDP was a subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng

f act or f or t he adver se act i on. See Tor r es- Sant i ago, 693 F. 3d at

236; see al so Vzquez v. Lpez Rosar i o, 134 F. 3d 28, 36 ( 1st Ci r .

1998) ; LaRou, 98 F. 3d at 661.

-41-


42/45

Whi l e "unsuppor t ed and specul at i ve asser t i ons r egar di ng

pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on wi l l not be enough t o sur vi ve summar y

j udgment , " Vzquez, 134 F. 3d at 36, we have al so made cl ear t hat

"one r ar el y f i nds ' smoki ng gun' evi dence i n a pol i t i cal

di scr i mi nat i on case, " Ocasi o- Her nndez v. For t uo- Bur set , 640 F. 3d

1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Lamboy- Or t i z v. Or t i z- Vl ez, 630

F. 3d 228, 240 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ) , and t hat "ci r cumst ant i al evi dence

must , at t i mes, suf f i ce, " i d.

Consi der i ng al l of t he evi dence on t he summar y j udgment

r ecor d, we f i nd t hat Gar c a has pr esent ed evi dence suf f i ci ent t o

est abl i sh a genui ne i ssue of f act as t o causat i on. I ndeed,

Gar c a' s evi dence pr esent s a credi bl e nar r at i ve of a par adi gmat i c

pol i t i cal di scr i mi nat i on case. He had an ei ght - year t enur e as an

i ndependent cont r act or f or t he Puer t o Ri co government under PDP

admi ni st r at i ons, onl y to have hi s exi st i ng cont r act t er mi nat ed

ear l y, l ess t han t hr ee mont hs i nt o a new NPP admi ni st r at i on. He

was t hen awarded a l ucr at i ve set of new cont r act s i n t he

Adj udi cat i on Not i f i cat i on, onl y t o have t hat awar d r esci nded on t he

basi s of "count l ess" - - but unspeci f i ed and as yet unsubst ant i at ed

- - er r or s. Ul t i mat el y, he was of f er ed cont r acts f or dr ast i cal l y

l ower amount s: l ess t han f our per cent of hi s or i gi nal awar d. He

of f er s some evi dence t hat PDP- af f i l i at ed br oker s had t hei r awar ds

r educed, whi l e t he awar ds of NPP- af f i l i at ed br oker s wer e ei t her

unchanged or i ncr eased.

-42-


43/45

To dat e, t he gover nment has never expl ai ned t he nat ur e of

t he al l eged er r or s pr ompt i ng t he r esci ssi on of t he or i gi nal awar d.

Pui g' s r ef usal t o pr ovi de any expl anat i on r egar di ng t he "count l ess

er r or s" l eadi ng t o t he adver se act i on pr ovi des some ci r cumst ant i al

evi dence of causat i on. See i d. ( pr ovi di ng t hat ci r cumst ant i al

evi dence may be suf f i ci ent i n a pol i t i cal di scri mi nat i on case) .

Moreover , " t emporal pr oxi mi t y bet ween a change of admi ni st r at i on

and an adverse empl oyment act i on, " as happened here, " i s r el evant

t o whet her pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on was a subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng

f act or i n t hat adver se empl oyment deci si on. " Tor r es- Sant i ago, 693

F. 3d at 240; see al so Gr aj al es, 682 F. 3d at 50 ( " [ T] he cl ose

t empor al proxi mi t y bet ween the r egi me change and t he [ adver se

act i on] , coupl ed wi t h t he absence of any l egi t i mat e reason f or much

of t he of f endi ng conduct , per mi t s a pl ausi bl e i nf er ence . . . t hat

pol i t i cal ani mus was a mot i vat i ng f act or behi nd t he [ conduct ] . ") .

And a "pol i t i cal l y char ged empl oyment at mospher e" r esul t i ng f r oma

maj or shi f t i n power f r om one pol i t i cal par t y t o anot her , t oget her

wi t h evi dence t hat a pl ai nt i f f and def endant ar e f r om opposi ng

par t i es, may be pr obat i ve of di scr i mi nat or y ani mus.

Tor r es- Sant i ago, 693 F. 3d at 240 ( quot i ng Ocasi oHer nndez, 640

F. 3d at 17- 18) .

Vi ewi ng t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o Gar c a,

and dr awi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences t her ef r om, see Shaf mast er ,

707 F. 3d at 135, we cannot say - - wi t h r espect t o t he f i nal el ement

-43-


44/45

of causat i on - - t hat Gar c a' s posi t i on i s based mer el y on

"concl usory al l egat i ons" or "unsuppor t ed specul at i on, " see Rogan,

267 F. 3d at 27. Rat her , we concl ude t hat t her e i s a genui ne i ssue

of mat er i al f act as t o whet her Gar c a' s pol i t i cal af f i l i at i on was

a subst ant i al or mot i vat i ng f act or f or t he adver se act i on. See

Tor r es- Sant i ago, 693 F. 3d at 236.

4. Summary

Whi l e the summary j udgment r ecord her e i s r el at i vel y

spar se, maki ng t hi s a cl ose case, we f i nd t hat Garc a has met hi s

bur den of demonst r at i ng a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act on the

pr i ma f aci e el ement s of hi s pol i t i cal di scri mi nat i on cl ai m. See

Mont f or t - Rodr guez v. Rey- Her nndez, 504 F. 3d 221, 222 ( 1st Ci r .

2007) ( "Al t hough t he r ecord i s meager and t he case i s t her ef ore

cl ose, we concl ude t hat appel l ant s met t hei r bur den to gener at e a

genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act on t he el ement s of t hei r cl ai m. ") .

The i ndi vi dual l y weak pi eces of evi dence r el i ed upon by Gar c a ar e

nonet hel ess, i n t he aggr egat e, suf f i ci ent t o def eat summar y

j udgment . See Gonzl ez- de- Bl asi ni v. Fami l y Dep' t , 377 F. 3d 81, 86

( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( r ecogni zi ng t hat a pr i ma f aci e pol i t i cal

di scr i mi nat i on case may be bui l t on ci r cumst ant i al evi dence i f a

pl ai nt i f f has shown "' t he speci f i c f act s necessar y t o t ake t he

asser t ed cl ai m out of t he r eal m of specul at i ve, gener al

-44-


45/45

al l egat i ons' " ( quot i ng Kauf f man v. P. R. Tel . Co. , 841 F. 2d 1169,

1173 n. 5 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) ) ) . 11

III. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we af f i r mt he di st r i ct cour t ' s

grant of summar

Garcia-Gonzalez v. Puig-Morales, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents

Transcript of Garcia-Gonzalez v. Puig-Morales, 1st Cir. (2014)