Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to lst Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 02-1809
LUIS A. LUGO, ROSA VEGA-CONCEPCION,
AND THEIR CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
MIGUEL A. CORDERO, RAMON OCASIO-NAVARRO,
CANDELARIA CUELLO-SUAREZ, NYDIA VERGE, MAGALY ALVERIO,
ELSIE LLOMPART, AND FELICIA RECIO-MANDES,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Circuit Judge,
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Selya, Circuit Judge
Alice Net Carlo for appellants.
Beatriz M. Rodriguez-Burgos and Jaime Mercado-Almodovar,
Assistant Solicitor General, with whom Fiddler, Gonzalez &
Rodriguez, PSC, Roberto J. Sanchez-Ramos, Solicitor General, and
Vanessa Lugo Flores, Deputy Solicitor General, were on brief for
appellees.
April 11, 2003
Per curiam. Plaintiffs-appellants Luis A. Lugo, his wife,
and their conjugal partnership appeal from the district court's
decision granting summary judgment to defendants-appellees on
appellants' political discrimination claims. We review the
district court's decision de novo, see ATC Realty, LLC v. Town of
Kingston, 303 F.3d 91, 94 (1st Cir. 2002), but find no error.
Appellant Lugo was the Supervisor of Internal Auditing in the
Internal Auditing Office of the Puerto Rico Electric Power
Authority (PREPA) in 1997, when a reorganization caused him to be
transferred to a supervisory position in a different department, at
a higher pay grade with generally the same responsibilities, but at
a lower classification level. Appellants alleged that the
reorganization was effectuated in order to demote Lugo due to
hostility to his affiliation with the Popular Democratic Party
(PDP) by management aligned with the New Progressive Party. The
court held that, assuming Lugo's transfer was a demotion,
appellants had not produced evidence to show that appellees knew
of, much less were motivated by, Lugo's political persuasion in
causing his transfer.
On appeal, appellants make three arguments. First, they
contend that they provided sufficient evidence to allow a
reasonable fact finder to determine that appellees were aware of
Lugo's political affiliation. Second, they argue that they adduced
sufficient evidence to show that the reorganization was not
-2-
legitimate. Third, appellants suggest that the district court
erred in making a factual finding that the 1997 reorganization was
approved by PREPA's Governing Board.
The district court appropriately began its analysis from the
premise that appellants "would have to point to evidence in the
record, that if credited, would permit the rational fact finder to
conclude that the challenged adverse action occurred and stemmed
from a politically based discriminatory animus," in order to
overcome appellees' summary judgment motion, citing Rivera-Cotto v.
Rivera, 38 F.3d 611, 613-14 (1st Cir. 1994). The court
specifically addressed the first two contentions made by appellants
on appeal, holding that they did not produce sufficient evidence
for a fact finder to conclude either that appellees knew of Lugo's
PDP affiliation or that the reorganization was illegitimate.
Reviewing the record, we agree with the district court and find no
need to elaborate on its thorough treatment of these two points.
Appellants' final argument is that the court incorrectly held
that the 1997 reorganization was approved by the Governing Board.
The district court precisely held that the Governing Board had
approved the reorganization plan promulgated in February 1994.
Reviewing this finding for clear error, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a),
we find none, as it is evidenced by the Governing Board's Resolve
Number 2487, appended to appellees' motion for summary judgment.
Although appellants characterize the 1997 reorganization, not
-3-
separately approved by the Governing Board, as distinct from the
1994 plan, the 1997 reorganization appears to have been the full
implementation of the 1994 plan.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the district
court is AFFIRMED.
-4-