Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 1996, Cordero began working as an agent in the Internal Revenue Division of the Puerto Rico Treasury Department. Her supervisor, Rodríguez, was brother of the mayor of Mayagüez, who was head of the Popular Democratic Party's city office. Politically, Cordero affiliates with the New Progressive Party. Cordero says that on many occasions Rodríguez made disparaging comments about the NPP within her earshot. She also claims that Rodríguez took many subtle steps to inconvenience her, such as repeatedly changing her schedule and falsely claiming that she left early so he could deduct ten minutes of pay from her check. She also claims that Rodríguez "physically and verbally assaulted" her and that there were several other incidents, including incidents after she received a transfer. The district court rejected her suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The First Circuit affirmed, finding the allegations “troubling” but untimely. Although the continuing violation doctrine can render otherwise time-barred conduct actionable, the doctrine still requires some anchoring violation within the limitations period, and none of Rodríguez's post-transfer conduct meets that test. Cordero's transfer occurred more than a year before she filed suit, and none of Rodríguez's conduct within that one-year limitations period was actionable. View "Cordero-Suarez v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Palmquist, a veteran, injured in a helicopter crash that caused residual brain injury, was entitled to preference in federal employment, 5 U.S.C. 2108(3)(C), 3309(1), 3313(2)(A). The VA hired him as a medical support assistant. Aichner was his supervisor. Palmquist applied for promotion but did not receive an interview. He believed that the VA had not honored his preference, and told Aichner that he was going to complain to the equal employment opportunity specialist and his congressman. He did so. Aichner and Palmquist maintained a generally positive relationship for the next two years, but Palmquist was sometimes preoccupied, left the unit during working hours to do personal business, distracted other employees, and used his computer for personal purposes. Palmquist sought a new position. An interview went well. Interviewers warned Palmquist against unsolicited post-interview contact, but he e-mailed both to reiterate his qualifications. Aichner gave a generally favorable recommendation, but the recommendation was one factor in Palmquist not getting the job. The court rejected his claim under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701-796. The First Circuit affirmed. The Act does not entitle a plaintiff to relief when retaliation for complaints about disability discrimination is a motivating factor in, but not the “but-for” cause of, adverse employment action. View "Palmquist v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Alvarado began working for the U.S. Postal Service in 1991. His recurrent schizoaffective disorder was first diagnosed in 1992. According to Alvarado, the medication made him drowsy and slowed his work pace, at times making him late with his mail delivery, but made him able to perform competently. Alvarado claims to have been subjected to harassment and discrimination after he told his superiors of his medical condition. He complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity office. In time, Alvarado ran into problems relating to his work performance, particularly his slow work pace. At one point he was suspended for 14 days for improper conduct and delay of mail. Later, when he returned to the USPS branch at approximately 6:00 PM after completing his delivery route and found it closed, he felt anxious and humiliated, did not return to work, and officially resigned his post. Since his resignation, Alvarado has been found permanently disabled and eligible for disability benefits. Alvarado exhausted EEO administrative proceedings. The district court dismissed his suit under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 791. The First Circuit affirmed.View "Alvarado v. Potter" on Justia Law

Gove worked for TDC, which had a contract with Loring. TDC employees were informed that CSD had been awarded the Loring contract and would be providing services previously furnished by TDC. Gove applied online for a CSD position, similar to the one that she held with TDC. The application included a provision that any dispute with respect to any issue prior to employment, arising out of the employment process, would resolved in accord with the Dispute Resolution Policy and Arbitration Agreement adopted by CSD for its employees. When Gove was interviewed by CSD, she was visibly pregnant and was asked whether she had other children. Gove was not hired, although CSD continued to have a need for the position and continued to advertise the position. Gove filed a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission, which found reasonable grounds, but was unable to persuade the parties to reach agreement. She sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and the Maine Human Rights Act. CSD moved to compel arbitration. The district court found that the arbitration clause was ambiguous as to whether it covered an applicant who was never hired and should be construed against CSD. The First Circuit affirmed. View "Gove v. Career Sys. Dev. Corp." on Justia Law

Cham, a Muslim and a native of The Gambia, immigrated to the U.S. in 2000 and began work in May, 2003, at a gas station/ convenience store. In December, 2004, Cham was injured in a car accident and informed his supervisor that he was taking Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601, leave on his doctor's recommendation. When Cham returned to work, he was consistently scheduled to work only 32 hours per week, although his actual work hours fluctuated. Cham claimed this was retaliation for taking FMLA leave and in violation of Title VII. Cham quit in May 2005, days after suffering a panic attack at work that sent him to an emergency room. The district court granted defendant judgment as a matter of law on the Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, disparate treatment claim. A jury awarded $20,000 on the FMLA retaliation claim. The court granted a new trial, stating that prejudicial evidence had been introduced, relevant to the hostile work environment claim, which had been voluntarily dismissed, that was irrelevant to the FMLA retaliation claim. After a second trial, the court entered judgment for defendants. The First Circuit affirmed. View "Cham v. Station Operators, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former directory-advertising sales representatives for Idearc were discharged in 2007. Each was older than 40 and each had at least 18 years of service. Idearc claimed they were let go for poor performance; the employees alleged that the terminations were motivated by age discrimination (Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621) and a desire to negate pension benefits (Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1140,). They also advanced a retaliation claim. The district court rejected all of their claims. The First Circuit affirmed, noting the company’s performance-based standards. Idearc’s 2002 collective bargaining agreement authorized Idearc to terminate underperforming employees as specified by the plan. Employees were ranked within six-month periods by "percent net gain," calculated by comparing a salesperson's revenues against the revenue produced by his accounts in the previous year. Idearc was permitted to terminate employees failing 4 out of 7 consecutive semesters, but no more than 7.5 percent of a peer group could be terminated in any given semester. View "Cameron v. Idearc Media Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s employment was terminated after she exhausted 12 weeks of medical leave and did not return to work. The employer had received a certification of health care provider indicating that she was "not incapacitated" and was "able to perform [her] job" on a normal work schedule with "no heavy lifting." The district court entered summary judgment in favor of her former employer on her claims of retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601-2654, and disability discrimination in violation of Massachusetts law, Mass. Gen. L. ch. 151B. The First Circuit affirmed. View "Henry v. United Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former trust employee of the Metropolitan Bus Authority of Puerto Rico, sued public officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that a decision not to install him in a career attorney position in the MBA was politically motivated and was effected without due process of law, in violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed. The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of the due process claim as to all defendants, finding that plaintiff was afforded adequate process, and affirmed dismissal of the First Amendment claim as to all defendants, save for defendant Delgado. Plaintiff's allegations of participation in the decision were speculative and inadequate with respect to all of the defendants except Delgado. View "Rodriguez-Ramos v. Hernandez-Gregorat" on Justia Law

Mead was fired from her job as administrator of 15 assisted living facilities operated by IA and licensed by the Maine Department of Health and Human Services. She sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983,alleging that her termination without a hearing infringed her procedural due process rights. She also asserted state law claims.The district court dismissed the due process claims, explaining that IA was a nonstate actor and thus could not be held accountable under section 1983, and that the complaint failed to allege a constitutional violation by the DHHS employees. The First Circuit affirmed. View "Mead v. Independence Ass'n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff worked for the Puerto Rico Ports Authority. In 2006, Bonilla, PRPA's executive director, named the plaintiff to a trust position within the PRPA. At the time, the Popular Democratic Party held power in Puerto Rico. In 2008, plaintiff voluntarily resigned this post in order to accept a career position at the Marín International Airport in Carolina. Within months, he transferred to another career position as a security supervisor at Aguadilla airport. The PDP lost the general election in 2008, and its rival, the New Progressive Party, assumed office. In early 2009, plaintiff began experiencing workplace harassment, including banishment from the Aguadilla airport, transfer to the Mercedita airport in Ponce (far from his home), removal of his sidearm, a series of negative performance evaluations, and threats of suspension and termination. No legitimate reason supported any of these actions. The district court dismissed his claim of political discrimination. The First Circuit reversed. View "Grajales v. PR Ports Auth.l" on Justia Law