NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1491
JORGE E. CANCEL-LUGO, et al.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
CARLOS ALVARADO, et al.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Carmen C. Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Circuit Judge,
Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
Victor P. Miranda Corrada on brief for appellant.
Carlos Lugo-Fiol, Solicitor General, Edda Serrano-Blasini, Deputy
Solicitor General, and Edgardo Rodriguez-Quilichini, Assistant
Solicitor General, Department of Justice, on brief for appellee.
May 8, 1997
Per Curiam. Jorge Cancel-Lugo appeals the district
court's rejection, following a bench trial, of his claims
against Carlos Alvarado as Executive Director of Cancel-
Lugo's employer, the Puerto Rican Electric Power Authority
(PREPA). Cancel-Lugo argues that he was transferred within
PREPA because of his political party affiliation in violation
of 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Puerto Rican Constitution, 29
L.P.R.A. 136 and 146, and 3 L.P.R.A. 1334; and that his
due process rights were transgressed because he was
transferred without a hearing. After reviewing the parties'
briefs and the record, we affirm for substantially the
reasons given by the district court after addressing one
point not covered in the opinion below.
On appeal, Cancel-Lugo contends that the district
court's finding that Alvarado had no discriminatory intent
and did not cause Cancel-Lugo's transfer is not enough to
support the dismissal of his claims under 29 L.P.R.A. 136
and 146, which prohibit discrimination in employment on the
basis of political affiliation. Cancel-Lugo argues that
Alvarado could be held vicariously liable for the acts of his
subordinates under 31 L.P.R.A. 5142. However, our cases,
reading the Puerto Rican statutes in light of the Eleventh
Amendment, refuse to impose vicarious liability on
supervisory government officials under 29 L.P.R.A. 136 and
146. Jusino v. Zayas, 875 F.2d 986, 993 (1st Cir. 1989);
-2-
-2-
Marin-Piazza v. Aponte-Roque, 873 F.2d 432, 436-37 (1st Cir.
1989).
Affirmed.
-3-
-3-