Alberti v. Carlo-Izquierdo, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 Alberti v. Carlo-Izquierdo, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/35

Not for Publication in Wests Federal Reporter

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1982

DR. REBECCA ALBERTI ,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

DR. J OS R. CARLO- I ZQUI ERDO; DR. SUANE E. SNCHEZ- COLN;DR. GLORI A E. ORTI Z- BLANCO; DR. ANGLI CA MATOS- R OS; CARMEN T.

LPEZ- RODR GUEZ; LEYRA FI GUEROA- HERNNDEZ; DR. MAR A C.DECLET- BRAA; I RI S RAMOS- VI ERA; I RI S RI VERA- COLN;

J UDI TH MI RANDA; VI RGI NI A SANTI AGO; THE UNI VERSI TY OF PUERTO RI CO,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

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 eTor r uel l a, Bal dock, * and Thompson,

Ci r cui t J udges.

Manuel R. Sur ez- J i mnez, f or appel l ant .Di ego Ram r ez- Bi got t , wi t h whom Raquel M. Dul zai des and

J i mnez, Gr af f am & Lausel l , wer e on br i ef f or appel l ees.

December 18, 2013

*Of t he Tent h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/35

Baldock, Circuit Judge. Dr . Rebecca Al ber t i hel d t hr ee

posi t i ons at t he Uni ver si t y of Puer t o Ri co. When t he Uni ver si t y

di schar ged her f r om t hese posi t i ons, she sued t he Uni ver si t y and a

number of uni ver si t y of f i ci al s and st udent s cl ai mi ng vi ol at i ons of

her r i ght s under t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on and f eder al and

l ocal l aw. Def endant s moved f or summary j udgment . The di st r i ct

cour t t r eat ed Def endant s mot i on as ef f ect i vel y unopposed because

Al ber t i f ai l ed t o compl y wi t h numer ous cour t or der s, as wel l as t he

l ocal di st r i ct cour t r ul es. The cour t t hen gr ant ed Def endant s

mot i on f or summary j udgment and l ater deni ed Al ber t i s mot i on f or

r econsi der at i on i n t wo separ at e publ i shed opi ni ons. Al ber t i v.

Uni v. of Puert o Ri co, 818 F. Supp. 2d 452, 45657 & n. 12 ( D. P. R.

2011) ( Al ber t i I ) r econsi der at i on deni ed, 869 F. Supp. 2d 231

( D. P. R. 2012) ( Al ber t i I I ) . Al ber t i now appeal s, cl ai mi ng t he

di st r i ct cour t ( 1) abused i t s di scret i on i n handl i ng her numer ous

ext ensi on mot i ons and deemi ng Def endant s summar y j udgment mot i on

ef f ect i vel y unopposed and (2) er r ed i n gr ant i ng summary j udgment t o

t he Def endant s on t he mer i t s on al l cl ai ms. Exer ci si ng

j ur i sdi ct i on under 28 U. S. C. 1291, we af f i r m.

I .

Al ber t i f i r st ar gues t he di str i ct cour t abused i t s

di scret i on by not gr ant i ng her mor e t i me t o f i l e her opposi t i on t o

Def endant s mot i on f or summar y j udgment and by deemi ng Def endant s

mot i on ef f ect i vel y unopposed. She al so at t empt s to add an ext r a

-2-


3/35

1400 pages t o t he recor d on appeal , cl ai mi ng t hese ar e document s

t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d have consi der ed bel ow. Def endant s oppose

t hi s at t empt . Thus, bef or e addr essi ng Al ber t i s appeal on t he

mer i t s, we must f i r st det er mi ne ( 1) whet her t he di st r i ct cour t

pr oper l y handl ed Al ber t i s numer ous mot i ons f or f i l i ng extensi ons,

( 2) whether t he cour t pr oper l y f ound Def endant s mot i on f or summary

j udgment ef f ect i vel y unopposed, and, ( 3) on a r el at ed not e, whi ch

par t s of t he j oi nt appendi x we may pr oper l y consi der i n t hi s

appeal . As such, we f i r st r ecount t he r el evant pr ocedur al hi st or y

of t hi s case.

Al ber t i f i l ed her or i gi nal compl ai nt on Apr i l 25, 2008.

At a set t l ement conf er ence t hr ee year s l at er , on May 3, 2011, t he

di st r i ct cour t i ssued an or der st at i ng any di sposi t i ve mot i ons i n

Al ber t i s case were due by J une 1 and any opposi t i ons were due by

J une 30, 2011. Thi s or der al so schedul ed t r i al f or August

15September 9, 2011. The cour t emphasi zed t hat NO ext ensi ons of

t i me woul d be al l owed t o ei t her si de. ( bol d i n or i gi nal ) .

Def endant s compl i ed wi t h t hi s or der and f i l ed, on J une 1, t hei r

Mot i on f or Summary J udgment , Stat ement of Uncont est ed Mat er i al

Fact s, and Memor andum i n Suppor t of t hei r Mot i on. Al ber t i , on t he

ot her hand, di d not compl y wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t s or der , nor

wi t h t he numerous ext ensi ons t he cour t event ual l y gave her .

Rat her t han compl y wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t s i ni t i al

or der , Al ber t i f i l ed a mot i on on J une 29 seeki ng an extensi on unt i l

-3-


4/35

J ul y 5 t o f i l e her opposi t i on. The cour t grant ed t hi s ext ensi on.

Al ber t i t hen f i l ed a second mot i on on J ul y 5 f or ext ensi on unt i l

J ul y 6 at 8: 00 a. m. The cour t appar ent l y di d not r ul e on t hi s

r equest , but i t made no di f f er ence as, on J ul y 6, Al ber t i f i l ed a

t hi r d mot i on f or extensi on unt i l 6: 00 p. m. on J ul y 6. Al ber t i

cl ai med i n t hi s mot i on t hat she was havi ng t echni cal di f f i cul t i es

upl oadi ng her exhi bi t s, memorandum of l aw and st atement . Thus,

she moved i n t he al t er nat i ve f or l eave t o f i l e al l of t hese

document s i n hard copy that same day, J ul y 6, as a pl an B. The

Cour t gr ant ed t hi s mot i on i n par t , gi vi ng Al ber t i unt i l 2: 00 p. m.

on J ul y 6 t o f i l e her opposi t i on wi t h t he cour t and unt i l 5: 00 p. m.

t o pr ovi de a copy of her opposi t i on t o def ense counsel . Rat her

t han compl y wi t h t hi s second gr ant ed ext ensi on, Al bert i moved f or

t he di st r i ct cour t t o modi f y i t s or der t o gi ve her unt i l 5: 00 p. m.

t o f i l e her opposi t i on wi t h t he cour t . The Di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed

t hi s mot i on i n par t , st at i ng:

Pl ai nt i f f i s gr ant ed a final extension of time, t hat i s,J ul y 6, 2011 at 2: 30 p. m. t o f i l e t he opposi t i on t odef endant s' mot i on f or summar y j udgment . Pl ai nt i f f ' scounsel shal l t r y t o f i l e t he exhi bi t s by 2: 30 p. m.t oday, or may f i l e t he exhi bi t s t hr ough a separ at e mot i ont oday. I f counsel s t i l l has di f f i cul t y wi t h t he f i l i ngof t he exhi bi t s, he shoul d cont act t he Hel p Desk . . . .No further requests for extensions of time will be

entertained by the Court. I T I S SO ORDERED.

Al ber t i di d not compl y wi t h t hi s t hi r d ext ensi on.

I nst ead, she f i l ed onl y her Opposi ng St at ement of Mat er i al Fact s,

and even t hat she di d not f i l e unt i l 4: 54 p. m. t wo and a hal f hour s

-4-


5/35

af t er her ent i r e opposi t i on was due. Fur t her mor e, at a st at us

conf er ence t he next day, J ul y 7, Al ber t i admi t t ed her Opposi ng

St at ement of Mat er i al Fact s was not pr oper l y f i l ed because she

f ai l ed t o f i l e wi t h i t mor e t han 100 suppor t i ng exhi bi t s. I n

r esponse, t he cour t made pel l uci dl y cl ear t o [ Al ber t i s] counsel

t hat a set of exhi bi t s only i s t o be f i l ed i n har d copy, and shal l

be hand del i ver ed t o the def endant s on J ul y 8, 2011 by noon.

( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . Thi s st at us conf er ence concl uded at 7: 40

p. m. Al ber t i di d not f i l e t hese exhi bi t s by noon t he next day, and

so t he cour t i ssued an or der t aki ng not i ce of Al ber t i s f ai l ur e and

st at i ng t hat no f ur t her document s shal l be f i l ed by t he par t i es .

. . unl ess ot her wi se or der ed by t he cour t . Despi t e t he cour t s

or der , Al ber t i submi t t ed har d copi es of her exhi bi t s, t he vast

maj or i t y of whi ch wer e st i l l i n Spani sh, t wo hour s l at er , at ar ound

4: 45 p. m. on t he eveni ng of J ul y 8. Al ber t i event ual l y f i l ed a

Memorandum of Law i n Opposi t i on on J ul y 20fourteen days af t er i t

was due and i n vi ol at i on of t he cour t s J ul y 6 and J ul y 8 or der s.

Al ber t i I , 818 F. Supp. 2d at 45657 & n. 12 (D. P. R. 2011) .

When Def endants f i l ed t hei r mot i on f or summary j udgment ,

t hey al so request ed l eave t o f i l e Spani sh document s as exhi bi t s and

an ext ensi on unt i l J ul y 18 t o f i l e t he cer t i f i ed t r ansl at i ons of

sai d document s, whi ch t he cour t gr ant ed. On J ul y 19, Def endant s

moved f or a second ext ensi on unt i l August 1 t o f i l e the cer t i f i ed

Engl i sh t r ansl at i ons of i t s exhi bi t s, whi ch t he cour t al so gr ant ed.

-5-


6/35

Al ber t i , on t he ot her hand, f i l ed most of t he exhi bi t s accompanyi ng

her Opposi ng St at ement i n Spani sh but never r equest ed l eave t o do

so. Fur t her mor e, she di d not r equest l eave t o f i l e cer t i f i ed

t r ansl at i ons of t hese document s unt i l J ul y 27, f our weeks af t er

such a mot i on shoul d have been f i l ed, and t hr ee weeks af t er t he

cour t s f i nal ext ensi on t o her had expi r ed. I n t hi s mot i on, she

r equest ed unt i l August 29t wo weeks af t er t r i al was schedul ed t o

begi nt o submi t t hese t r ansl at i ons. The Di st r i ct cour t deni ed t hi s

mot i on.

Bef ore gr ant i ng Def endants mot i on f or summary j udgment

on t he mer i t s, t he di st r i ct cour t expl ai ned t hat Al ber t i f or ce[ d]

i t t o consi der as uncont est ed most of Def endant s St atement of

Uncont est ed Mat er i al Fact s because ( 1) she di sr egarded numerous

cour t or der s and f ai l ed t o f i l e t he exhi bi t s suppor t i ng her

Opposi ng St at ement of Mat er i al Fact s on t i me, ( 2) t he maj or i t y of

her exhi bi t s wer e f i l ed i n Spani sh wi t hout cer t i f i ed Engl i sh

t r ansl at i ons, and ( 3) she r epeat edl y vi ol at ed Di st r i ct Cour t Local

Rul e 56 by, f or exampl e, f ai l i ng t o i ncl ude i n her Opposi ng

St at ement par t i cul ar i zed ci t at i ons t o t he recor d and suppor t i ng

evi dence. Al ber t i I , 818 F. Supp. 2d at 456 n. 1. The di st r i ct

cour t al so poi nt ed out t hat i t woul d not consi der Al ber t i s

Memorandumof Law i n Opposi t i on because i t was f i l ed t wo weeks l at e

and i n vi ol at i on of a cour t order . I d. at 457 n. 2.

-6-


7/35

On appeal , Al ber t i ar gues ( 1) t he di st r i ct cour t ei t her

gave her anot her ext ensi on t o f i l e her exhi bi t s at t he J ul y 7

st at us conf er ence unt i l t he end of t he day on J ul y 8 but f ai l ed t o

put i t i n t he mi nut es or , i n t he al t er nat i ve, abused i t s di screti on

by gi vi ng her onl y unt i l noon on J ul y 8 t o do so; ( 2) t he di st r i ct

cour t abused i t s di scret i on when i t di d not gr ant Al ber t i l eave t o

f i l e Engl i sh t r ansl at i ons of her exhi bi t s; and ( 3) t he di str i ct

cour t abused i t s di scr et i on i n deemi ng Def endant s mot i on f or

summary j udgment ef f ect i vel y unopposed.

Because al l of t hese cl ai ms are based on t he di st r i ct

cour t s enf or cement of i t s own schedul i ng or der s, we revi ew t hem

f or abuse of di scr et i on. O Connel l v. Hyat t Hot el s, 357 F. 3d 152,

155 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ; see al so Mendez v. Banco Popul ar de Puert o

Ri co, 900 F. 2d 4, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ( I n t he absence of a mani f est

abuse of di scr et i on . . . we wi l l not i nt er f er e wi t h a di st r i ct

cour t s r easoned r ef usal t o gr ant i ncr ement al enl argement s of

t i me. ) ; Guzmn- Ru z v. Her nndez- Col n, 406 F. 3d 31, 33 ( 1st Ci r .

2005) ( r evi ewi ng t he di st r i ct cour t s r ej ecti on of a par t y s

bel at ed r equest f or abuse of di scr et i on) . Wi t h t hi s i n mi nd, we

t ur n now t o Al ber t i s pr ocedur al ar gument s.

A.

Al ber t i f i r st al l eges t hat at t he J ul y 7 conf er ence t he

di st r i ct cour t i n f act gave her unt i l t he end of t he day on J ul y 8

t o submi t t he exhi bi t s suppor t i ng her Opposi ng St at ement . Al ber t i

-7-


8/35

pr ovi des no evi dence t o suppor t t hi s cl ai m. She di d f i l e a mot i on

aski ng t he cour t t o amend i t s J ul y 7 conf er ence mi nut es, whi ch t he

cour t never r ul ed on. But t he mi nut es f r om t he J ul y 7 conf er ence

st at e the cour t made pel l uci dl y cl ear t o [Al ber t i s] counsel t hat

her exhi bi t s were due on J ul y 8 by noon. Fur t hermore, t he cour t

r est at ed i t had onl y gr ant ed Al ber t i unt i l mi dday on J ul y 8 t o

submi t t hese exhi bi t s i n i t s publ i shed opi ni on gr ant i ng Def endant s

mot i on f or summary j udgment . Al bert i I , 818 F. Supp. 2d at 456

n. 1. Al ber t i const ant l y di sr egar ds cour t deadl i nes. I ndeed, she

f i l ed bot h her br i ef s i n t hi s appeal l at eher r epl y br i ef five

months t ar dy wi t h no excuse. As such, we have l i t t l e doubt Al ber t i

si mpl y f ai l ed t o meet t he noon deadl i ne on J ul y 8 and at t empt ed t o

cover her t r acks af t er t he f act . Thus, we must determi ne whether

t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s di screti on when i t gave Al ber t i a

fourth and final extension f r omabout 8: 00 p. m. unt i l noon t he next

day t o t ur n i n har d copi es of her exhi bi t s.

I n Mendez, we af f i r med t he di st r i ct cour t s deni al of a

pl ai nt i f f s second and t hi r d r equest s f or f i l i ng ext ensi ons. I n

af f i r mi ng t he di st r i ct cour t we sai d:

Rules are rules-and the parties must play by them. I n thef i nal anal ysi s, t he j udi ci al pr ocess depends heavi l y ont he j udge s cr edi bi l i t y. To ensur e such credi bi l i t y, a

di st r i ct j udge must of t en be f i r m i n managi ng cr owdeddocket s and demandi ng adher ence t o announced deadl i nes.I f he or she set s a reasonabl e due dat e, par t i es shoul dnot be al l owed casual l y t o f l out i t or pai nl essl y toescape t he f oreseeabl e consequences of noncompl i ance.

Mendez, 900 F. 2d at 7 ( emphasi s added) .

-8-


9/35

Al ber t i cl ai ms t he f i nal deadl i ne t he di st r i ct cour t set

was unr easonabl e because i t gave her ef f ect i vel y onl y f our hour s t o

pr oduce har d copi es of exhi bi t s t hat t ot al ed over a t housand pages.

Thi s cl ai m, however , i s bel i ed by Al ber t i s t hi r d mot i on f or

ext ensi on. I n t hi s t hi r d r equest , Al ber t i asked f or l eave t o f i l e

her opposi t i on, i ncl udi ng t he exhi bi t s, i n har d copy on J ul y 6

accor di ng t o her pr oposed pl an B, i n l i ght of her cl ai m t hat t he

cour t s el ect r oni c case f i l l i ng pr ogr am kept cr ashi ng. Based on

t hi s mot i on, t he di st r i ct cour t coul d r easonabl y have concl uded

Al ber t i was pr epar ed t o f i l e har d copi es of her exhi bi t s on J ul y 6.

Thus t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s di scr et i on when i t

gr ant ed Al ber t i unt i l mi dday on J ul y 8 t o f i l e t he har d copi es of

exhi bi t s whi ch she had i mpl i ed she was pr epared t o submi t t wo days

pr i or . I n any event , t he cour t s or i gi nal due dat e f or Al ber t i s

opposi t i on, gi vi ng her a mont h to respond to Def endant s mot i on f or

summary j udgment , was reasonabl e. As i n Mendez, Al ber t i shoul d not

be al l owed t o pai nl essl y escape t he f oreseeabl e consequences of her

noncompl i ance wi t h t hi s deadl i ne and t he f our ext ensi ons t he cour t

ul t i mat el y gr ant ed her .

B.

Al ber t i next ar gues t he cour t abused i t s di scr et i on when

i t gr ant ed Def endant s J ul y 19 mot i on r equest i ng unt i l August 1 t o

submi t cer t i f i ed Engl i sh t r ansl at i ons of t hei r exhi bi t s but deni ed

her J ul y 27 mot i on r equest i ng unt i l August 29 t o f i l e Engl i sh

-9-


10/35

t r ansl at i ons of her exhi bi t s ( whi ch we have al r eady est abl i shed she

f i l ed t oo l at e t o begi n wi t h) . 1

Agai n, we di r ect Al ber t i t o our l anguage i n Mendez:

r ul es ar e r ul esand t he par t i es must pl ay by them . . . .

[ P] ar t i es shoul d not be al l owed casual l y to f l out . . . or

pai nl essl y t o escape t he f oreseeabl e consequences of

noncompl i ance. Mendez, 900 F. 2d at 7. Here, Def endant s t i mel y

f i l ed t hei r mot i on f or summary j udgment al ong wi t h a t i mel y mot i on

seeki ng an ext ensi on t o f i l e t r ansl at i ons of t hei r exhi bi t s. We

acknowl edge t he cour t gr ant ed Def endant s a second ext ensi on unt i l

August 1 t o f i l e t hei r t r ansl at i ons, even t hough t hi s second mot i on

f or ext ensi on was f i l ed one day l at e. Thi s, however , does not

ent i t l e Al ber t i t o t he ext ensi on she r equest ed wher e ( 1) she f i l ed

her exhi bi t s l at e and i n Spani sh wi t hout any mot i on seeki ng l eave

t o f i l e t r ansl at i ons, ( 2) she sought l eave t o f i l e t r ansl at i ons four

weeks af t er her ent i r e opposi t i on was due and three weeks after the

expi r at i on of her f our t h and f i nal f i l i ng ext ensi on, and ( 3) she

sought unt i l t wo weeks after t r i al was schedul ed t o begi n t o submi t

t hese t r ansl at i ons. As such, t he di st r i ct cour t by no means abused

i t s di screti on i n denyi ng Al ber t i s ext r emel y t ar dy and pr act i cal l y

1 The di str i ct cour t never of f i ci al l y str uck Al ber t i s t ar dysubmi ssi on of exhi bi t s on J ul y 8. As such, out of an abundance ofcaut i on, we expl ai n why, even i f t he cour t accept ed Al ber t i s t ar dyJ ul y 8 f i l i ng, i t need not have grant ed her unt i mel y mot i on t o f i l et r ansl at i ons of her Spani sh exhi bi t s.

-10-


11/35

absur d r equest f or l eave t o f i l e t r ansl at i ons of exhi bi t s whi ch

t hemsel ves wer e unt i mel y f i l ed.

C.

Al ber t i next cont ends t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s

di scr et i on when i t deemed Def endants mot i on f or summary j udgment

ef f ect i vel y unopposed. We r evi ew a di st r i ct cour t s f i ndi ng t hat

a par t y f ai l ed t o t i mel y oppose summary j udgment f or abuse of

di screti on. We wi l l onl y f i nd an abuse of di scret i on i f t her e i s

an unr easoni ng and ar bi t r ar y i nsi st ence upon expedi t i ousness i n t he

f ace of a j ust i f i ed r equest f or del ay. Cor t es- Ri ver a v. Dep t of

Cor r . & Rehab. of Com. of Puer t o Ri co, 626 F. 3d 21, 25 ( 1st Ci r .

2010) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

The cour t consi dered Def endant s mot i on f or summar y

j udgment unopposed due t o a number of f at al f l aws i n Al ber t i s

opposi t i on. We have al r eady r ecount ed many of t hese f l aws,

i ncl udi ng Al ber t i s r epeat ed f ai l ur es t o compl y wi t h cour t or der s

and f i l i ng deadl i nes. Anot her r eason t he di st r i ct cour t gave was

t he vast maj or i t y of t he exhi bi t s Al ber t i f i l ed wi t h her Opposi ng

St at ement of Mat er i al Fact s wer e i n Spani sh. [ T] he l aw i s cl ear

t hat any submi t t ed exhi bi t not di r ect l y t r ansl at ed i nt o Engl i sh or

pr ovi ded wi t h a cor r espondi ng Engl i sh t r ansl at i on may pr oper l y be

di sr egar ded by t he di st r i ct cour t . Col n- Font nez v. Muni ci pal i t y

of San J uan, 660 F. 3d 17, 27 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Thus, t he di st r i ct

cour t di d not abuse i t s di scret i on by not consi der i ng t he exhi bi t s

-11-


12/35

whi ch Al ber t i f i l ed i n Spani sh. And because Al ber t i f i l ed t he vast

maj or i t y of her exhi bi t s i n Spani sh, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not

abuse i t s di scr et i on by consi der i ng as uncont est ed most of

Def endant s St at ement of Uncont est ed Mat er i al Fact s.

The di st r i ct cour t al so ci t ed Al ber t i s f ai l ure t o compl y

wi t h Puer t o Ri co Local Di st r i ct Cour t Rul e 56, al so known as an

ant i - f er r et l aw. Local Rul e 56 pr ovi des t hat , i n t he summar y

j udgment cont ext : Unl ess a f act i s admi t t ed, t he opposi ng

st at ement shal l suppor t each deni al or qual i f i cat i on by a r ecor d

ci t at i on as r equi r ed by t hi s r ul e. D. P. R. L. Cv. R. 56( c).

Subsect i on ( e) t hen pr ovi des i n r el evant par t :

An assert i on of f act set f or t h i n a st at ement of mat er i alfacts shall be followed by a citation to the specificpage or paragraph of identified record material

suppor t i ng t he asser t i on. The cour t may di sr egar d anyst at ement of f act not suppor t ed by a speci f i c ci t at i on t or ecor d mat er i al proper l y consi dered on summary j udgment .The cour t shal l have no i ndependent dut y t o sear ch or

consi der any par t of t he r ecor d not speci f i cal l yr ef er enced i n t he par t i es separ at e stat ement of f act s.

D. P. R. L. Cv. R. 56( e) ( emphasi s added) .

Al ber t i ar gues she i n f act compl i ed wi t h Local Rul e 56

because she di d make speci f i c r ef er ences t o t he recor d f or al most

every st at ement she made t o creat e a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al

f act . Thi s i s demonst r abl y and bl at ant l y f al se. A l ar ge por t i on

of Al ber t i s opposi ng st at ement s l eave obvi ous bl anks wher e

speci f i c recor d ci t at i ons shoul d be, t o t he poi nt of absur di t y.

For exampl e, t he ci t at i on cl ause f or an asser t i on on page 11 of her

-12-


13/35

Opposi ng St atement r eads: See exhi bi t __ _ compared t o exhi bi t __ _.

See al so cont r act s dat ed ___, i dent i f i ed her ei n as exhi bi t s___, and

Cer t i f i cat i on # 74 appr oved on ___ , i dent i f i ed her ei n as exhi bi t

___. Fur t her , even where Al ber t i provi des r ecor d ci t at i ons,

r at her t han ci t e a speci f i c page or par agr aph as Rul e 56( e)

r equi r es, she of t en ci t es gener al l y t o mul t i pl e exhi bi t s whi ch ar e

t hemsel ves vol umi nous. For exampl e, at one poi nt she at t empt s t o

deny one of Def endant s speci f i c st at ement s of mat er i al f act by

ci t i ng gener al l y t o t wo exhi bi t s wi t h a combi ned page count of 136

pages.

We need not bel abor t he poi nt .

Gi ven t he vi t al pur pose t hat [ Local Rul es 56( c) and ( e) ]ser ve, l i t i gant s i gnor e t hem at thei r per i l . I n t heevent t hat a par t y opposi ng summary j udgment f ai l s t o acti n accor dance wi t h t he r i gor s t hat such a r ul e i mposes,a di str i ct cour t i s f r ee, i n t he exer ci se of i t s sounddi scr et i on, t o accept t he movi ng par t y s f act s as st at ed.

Cabn Her nndez v. Phi l i p Mor r i s USA, I nc. , 486 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r .2007) . Gi ven Al ber t i s egr egi ous vi ol at i ons of Local Rul e

56i ndeed, t he maj or i t y of her opposi ng st at ement cl ear l y vi ol at ed

t hi s r ul et he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s di screti on by

deemi ng as uncont est ed most of Def endants Stat ement of Uncontest ed

Mat er i al Fact s.

Al ber t i al so ar gues she need not compl y wi t h Local Rul e56 because she f i l ed her exhi bi t s i n har d copy. Ther ef or e, she

argues, she need onl y compl y wi t h Local Rul e 7, whi ch r equi r es t hat

one pr oper l y or gani ze and t ab exhi bi t s f i l ed i n har d copy. She

-13-


14/35

ci t es no aut hor i t y f or t hi s ar gument , and f or good r eason, as i t i s

r i di cul ous. Of cour se, when one f i l es exhi bi t s i n har d copy, t he

har d copi es must be pr oper l y or gani zed. But f i l i ng exhi bi t s i n

har d copy al so makes ci t i ng t hempr eci sel y under Local Rul e 56 t hat

much mor e essent i al . I ndeed, Al ber t i s act i onsf i l i ng an Opposi ng

St at ement of Mat er i al Fact wi t h i mpr eci se ci t at i ons or no ci t at i ons

at al l al ong wi t h a vol umi nous har d- copy compi l at i on of

exhi bi t sst r i ke us as t he epi t ome of pl ayi ng a game of cat - and-

mouse, and l eav[ i ng] t he di st r i ct cour t t o gr ope unai ded f or

f act ual needl es i n a document ary hayst ack. Caban Hernandez, 486

F. 3d at 78.

Al ber t i al so r epeat edl y ar gues t he di st r i ct cour t

i mpr oper l y consi dered as uncont est ed most of Def endant s St at ement

of Uncont est ed Mat er i al Fact s. She ar gues f i r st t hat t hi s i mpl i ed

some of t he f act s wer e cont est ed and, and as such, summar y j udgment

was i mpr oper . Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t s phr asi ng may not have

been i deal , Al ber t i mi sunderst ands her bur den i n opposi ng summary

j udgment . Once Def endant s advanced a st at ement of uncont est ed

f acts, Al ber t i had t o poi nt t o speci f i c f acts t hat creat ed a

genui ne i ssue of material f a c t .

Not ever y f act ual di sput e i s suf f i ci ent t o t hwar t summar y

j udgment ; t he cont est ed f act must be mat er i al . . .

.I n t hi s r egar d, mat er i al means t hat a cont est ed f acthas t he potent i al t o change t he out come of t he sui t undert he gover ni ng l aw i f t he di sput e over i t i s r esol vedf avor abl y t o t he nonmovant .

-14-


15/35

McCar t hy v. Nw. Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 56 F. 3d 313, 315 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) .

To t he ext ent t he cour t consi dered Al ber t i s Opposi ng St at ement ,

i t al so not ed t hat she di d not pr ovi de speci f i c f act s suf f i ci ent

t o def eat t he swi ng of t he summar y j udgment scyt he. Al ber t i I ,

818 F. Supp. 2d at 457 n. 2 ( quot i ng Novi el l o v. Ci t y of Bost on, 398

F. 3d 76, 84 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ) . The di st r i ct cour t not ed t hat , t o

t he ext ent Al ber t i pr oper l y cont est ed Def endant s St at ement of

Fact s, t he f act s cont est ed were not mater i al . Summary j udgment i s

pr oper i n t hese ci r cumst ances. See Sur ez v. Puebl o I nt l , I nc. ,

229 F. 3d 49, 53 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) .

Al ber t i t hen ar guesqui t e i r oni cal l y, gi ven t he ut t er

l ack of pr eci si on i n her cour t f i l i ngst hat t he cour t s f ai l ur e t o

expl ai n whi ch speci f i c par t s of Def endant s St at ement of

Uncont est ed Mater i al Fact s i t deemed uncont est ed pr ej udi ced her

case on appeal . Al t hough we f r own upon a di st r i ct cour t s f ai l ur e

t o st at e speci f i cal l y whi ch par t s of a pl ai nt i f f s Opposi ng

St at ement i t consi der ed and whi ch par t s i t di d not ,

Snchez- Fi gueroa v. Banco Popul ar de Puert o Ri co, 527 F. 3d 209, 214

n. 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) , t hi s er r or does not war r ant r ever sal or

r emand. I ndeed, i n Snchez- Fi guer oa, t he di st r i ct cour t deemed

uncont est ed the def endant s s t atement of mat er i al f act s based on

f l aws i n t he pl ai nt i f f s opposi ng st at ement t hat wer e near l y

i dent i cal t o t he f l aws i n Al ber t i s Opposi ng St at ement . Yet t he

cour t never t hel ess consi der ed par t of t he pl ai nt i f f s opposi ng

-15-


16/35

st at ement of mat er i al f act s. On appeal , we af f i r med t he deci si on

t o t r eat t he def endant s st atement as uncont est ed and si mpl y

excl uded al l of t he pl ai nt i f f s opposi ng st at ement f r om our

consi der at i on, t r eat i ng t he di st r i ct cour t s i nconsi st ent

consi der at i on as t r oubl esome, but har ml ess i n t hat case. I d. at

214 & n. 8. Because, as i n Snchez- Fi guer oa, we af f i r mt he di st r i ct

cour t s deci si on t o deem Def endant s St at ement of Fact s

uncont est ed, we l i kewi se r emedy t he di st r i ct cour t s i nconsi st ency

by excl udi ng Al ber t i s Opposi ng St at ement i n i t s ent i r et y f r omour

anal ysi s.

We see nothi ng i n the recor d t hat suggest s an

unr easoni ng and ar bi t r ar y i nsi st ence upon expedi t i ousness by t he

di st r i ct cour t . Cf . Cor t es- Ri ver a, 626 F. 3d at 25. Rat her , i t

appear s t he di st r i ct cour t under st andabl y l ost pat i ence wi t h

Al ber t i s const ant di sr egar d f or i t s or der s as wel l as her l at e and

unor gani zed f i l i ngs. I n l i ght of al l of t he f l aws i n Al ber t i s

Opposi ng St atement , combi ned wi t h t he f act t hat she f i l ed her

Memorandum of Law i n Opposi t i on at l east t hr ee weeks l at e and i n

vi ol at i on of t he cour t s or der s, we cannot say t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t abused i t s di scr et i on when i t deemed Def endant s mot i on f or

summary j udgment ef f ect i vel y unopposed and we r evi ew i t as such.

D.

Al ber t i now at t empt s t o show f act ual i ssues i n her br i ef

on appeal by ci t i ng t o t he f i r st 1400 pages ( 1- 1399) of t he near l y

-16-


17/35

4000- page j oi nt appendi x. Al ber t i s i ni t i al pr esent at i on of

t hese pages was i ncr edi bl y di si ngenuous. I n her openi ng br i ef , she

assert ed t hese pages wer e t he har d copi es of t he exhi bi t s she f i l ed

wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t on J ul y 8 whi ch i t shoul d have consi der ed

i n r ul i ng on Def endant s mot i on f or summary j udgment . Def endant s,

however , not i f i ed us t hey had not consent ed t o t he i ncl usi on of

t hese pages i n t he j oi nt appendi x and t hese pages were not i n

f act par t of t he di st r i ct cour t r ecor d. Rat her , Def endant s poi nt ed

out , t hese document s wer e t he t r ansl at i ons of Al ber t i s Spani sh

exhi bi t s and, whi l e she f i l ed her Spani sh exhi bi t s t wo hour s af t er

t he cour t s f i nal ext ensi on t o her had expi r ed, she di d not f i l e

t hese t r ansl at i ons wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t unt i l November 23,

2011. 2 I n ot her wor ds, she submi t t ed t hese t r ansl at i ons near l y ( 1)

f i ve mont hs af t er her Opposi t i on was due i n f ul l , ( 2) t hr ee mont hs

af t er t he deadl i ne she had r equest ed t o submi t t r ansl at i ons, and

( 3) t wo mont hs after t he di st r i ct cour t had al r eady ent er ed

j udgment agai nst her . When conf r ont ed wi t h t hi s i nf or mat i on,

Al ber t i changed her t une. She now ar gues i nst ead t hat ( 1) t he

par t i es agr eed these pages woul d be par t of t he j oi nt appendi x, and

( 2) t hese t r ansl at i ons ar e pr oper l y par t of t he r ecor d because she

di d not f i l e t hem as par t of her opposi t i on but r at her as par t of

her mot i on f or r econsi der at i on.

2 Al t hough Al ber t i di d f i l e t he f i r st par t of hert r ansl at i ons on November 2, 2011, she di d not f i ni sh submi t t i ngt r ansl at i ons unt i l November 23.

-17-


18/35

We have al r eady concl uded t he di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y

r ej ect ed Al ber t i s t ar dy f i l i ngs, t hus we need say no mor e i n

r esponse to t he ar gument i n Al ber t i s openi ng br i ef t hat she t i mel y

and pr oper l y f i l ed t hese document s. As t o Al ber t i s ar gument t hat

Def endant s consent ed t o i ncl ude t hese pages, we need not consi der

t he e- mai l s wi t h def ense counsel t hat Al ber t i at t aches as an

appendi x to her r epl y br i ef because she f i l ed t hi s br i ef f i ve

mont hs af t er i t was due and wi t h no excuse. Fed. R. App. P. 31( a) ;

see al so Freseni us Med. Car e Car di ovascul ar Res. , I nc. v. Puer t o

Ri co & Car i bbean Car di ovascul ar Ct r . Cor p. , 322 F. 3d 56, 60 n. 2

( 1st Ci r . 2003) . Even wer e we t o consi der t hese e- mai l s, however ,

t hey are ambi guous at best , pr ovi ng onl y t hat Al ber t i dumped on

def ense counsel a massi ve amount of f i l es and docket ent r i es whi ch

she wi shed t o i ncl ude i n t he appendi x. These e- mai l s do not show

def ense counsel consent ed t o addi ng 1400 pages t o t he recor d t hat

shoul d not be t her e. Fur t her mor e, Al ber t i acknowl edged at or al

argument t hat she si mpl y dr opped al l of t hese document s of f i n t wo

boxes at def ense counsel s of f i ce wi t hout expl ai ni ng t he cont ent s,

and t hen e- mai l ed def ense counsel st at i ng t hose woul d be the pages

i ncl uded i n t he j oi nt appendi x. Thi s st r i kes us as yet anot her

at t empt by Al ber t i t o subver t t he r ul es of t he cour t and t o

perpetuat e t he game of cat - and- mouse she began i n the di st r i ct

cour t , and we wi l l have none of i t .

-18-


19/35

Fi nal l y, we rej ect Al ber t i s ar gument t hat t hese

document s ar e pr oper l y par t of t he recor d as par t of her mot i on f or

r econsi der at i on. A mot i on f or r econsi der at i on does not pr ovi de

a vehi cl e f or a par t y t o undo i t s own pr ocedur al f ai l ur es and i t

cer t ai nl y does not al l ow a par t y t o i nt r oduce new evi dence or

advance argument s t hat coul d and shoul d have been present ed t o t he

di st r i ct cour t pr i or t o t he j udgment . Mar ks 3 Zet - Er nst Mar ks

GmBh & Co. KG v. Presst ek, I nc. , 455 F. 3d 7, 1516 ( 1st Ci r . 2006)

( quot i ng Emmanuel v. I nt l Bhd. of Teamst ers, Local Uni on No. 25,

426 F. 3d 416, 422 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ) . Yet t hi s i s pr eci sel y what

Al ber t i at t empt ed t o do bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t and now at t empt s

bef or e us. As such, we wi l l not consi der pages 11399 of t he j oi nt

appendi x except wher e i t i s abundant l y cl ear t he page ref er enced

was f i l ed wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t on t i me and i n Engl i sh and was

t her ef or e pr oper l y a par t of t he di st r i ct cour t r ecor d.

I I .

Above we addr essed Al bert i s pr ocedur al chal l enges and

est abl i shed whi ch par t s of t he j oi nt appendi x ar e pr oper l y par t of

t he r ecord bef ore ust hat i s, pages 1400 on. We now address

Al ber t i s mer i t - based cl ai ms. We begi n by r eci t i ng t he f act s

r el evant t o t he mer i t s of Al ber t i s appeal .

Al ber t i i s a f ami l y nur se pr act i t i oner wi t h a nur si ng

doct or at e. She was bor n i n t he Uni t ed St at es but consi ders her sel f

Puer t o Ri can- Amer i can and i s f l uent i n Spani sh. Al ber t i wor ked f or

-19-


20/35

t he Uni ver si t y of Puer t o Ri co on t wo separ at e occasi ons. Bot h

t i mes her j ob i ncl uded devel opi ng a f ami l y nur se pr act i t i oner

( FNP) pr ogr amat t he Uni ver si t y s School of Nur si ng and acqui r i ng

f undi ng f or t hat progr am. Her f i r st st i nt at t he Uni ver si t y began

i n 2001 and cont i nued unt i l she r esi gned i n December 2002. She

r esi gned because, al t hough she had pr ocur ed a $1 mi l l i on f ederal

gr ant f or t he FNP pr ogr am, t he Uni ver si t y f ai l ed t o appr ove t he FNP

pr ogr amand t hese f unds had t o be r etur ned. Al bert i began worki ng

f or t he Uni ver si t y s School of Nur si ng f or t he second t i me i n

August 2005. I ni t i al l y she wor ked f or t he Uni ver si t y under a

t emporary cont r act . By t he mi ddl e of 2006, however , t he FNP

pr ogr am had been appr oved, Al bert i had agai n pr ocur ed a f ederal

gr ant t o f und t he FNP pr ogr am, and t he Uni ver si t y had appoi nt ed her

t o t hr ee posi t i ons: 1) di r ect or of t he School of Nur si ng s FNP

pr ogr am, 2) gr ant di r ect or , and 3) a t enur e- t r ack associ at e

pr of essor .

Whi l e wor ki ng at t he Uni ver si t y, Al ber t i s r el at i onshi ps

wi t h some of her st udent s and col l eagues were apparent l y qui t e

cont ent i ous. Al ber t i cl ai ms many of her st udent s di d not l i ke her

because her t eachi ng st yl e was t oo Amer i cana. Much of t he

t ensi on st emmed f r oman ongoi ng conf l i ct between Al ber t i and one of

her nur si ng st udent s, Def endant I r i s Ramos- Vi er a. For exampl e,

when Ramos f ai l ed one of Al bert i s cour ses because she di d not

accumul at e suf f i ci ent cl i ni cal hour s, she at t empt ed t o make up

-20-


21/35

t hese hour s i ndependent l y and wi t hout Al bert i s knowl edge and,

accor di ng t o Al ber t i , vi ol at ed t he Heal t h I nsur ance Por t abi l i t y and

Account abi l i t y Act ( HI PAA) i n doi ng so. On December 4, 2007,

Al ber t i bypassed t he chai n of command, t o use her words, and

wr ot e t o Def endant Dr . J os Car l o- I zqui er do, t he Chancel l or and

nomi nat i ng aut hor i t y of t he Uni ver si t y s Medi cal Sci ence Campus.

Al ber t i compl ai ned i n t hi s l et t er about Ramos s al l eged HI PAA

vi ol at i ons and t hat Def endant s Dr . Angl i ca Mat os- R os and Leyra

Fi gueroa- Hernndez, f el l ow f acul t y members, and Dr . Suane Snchez-

Col n, t he Dean of t he School of Nur si ng, wer e i nt er f er i ng wi t h

Al ber t i s wor k as di r ect or of t he FNP pr ogr am. Lat er , Al ber t i

r ef used t o appr ove Ramos s proposed r esear ch pr oj ect , whi ch was

par t of her r equi r ed cour se wor k.

On Februar y 4, 2008, Def endant Snchez wr ot e t o Def endant

Car l o and, ci t i ng a l ack of t r ust and Al ber t i s l et t er bypassi ng

t he chai n of command, r ecommended Car l o t ermi nat e Al ber t i s

di r ect or posi t i ons. Car l o concl uded t hat , under t he Uni ver si t y

Rul es and Regul at i ons, Al ber t i s di r ect or posi t i ons wer e posi t i ons

of t r ust . Fur t her , based on t he combi nat i on of Al ber t i s di r ect

compl ai nt t o hi m and Snchez s r equest f or Al ber t i s t er mi nat i on,

Car l o concl uded t he rel at i onshi p bet ween t he two had det er i or at ed

t o t he poi nt of bei ng non- f unct i onal . On Febr uar y 13, 2008,

Car l o r emoved Al ber t i f r omher t wo di r ect or posi t i ons. He i nf or med

-21-


22/35

her of her r emoval i n wr i t i ng, but di d not pr ovi de her wi t h a pr e-

t er mi nat i on hear i ng.

Al ber t i s r el at i onshi ps wi t h some of her st udent s and t he

Uni ver si t y f acul t y became even more st r ai ned af t er she was r emoved

f r om her di r ector posi t i ons. She i ni t i at ed t he pr esent sui t

agai nst t he Uni ver si t y Def endant s on Apr i l 25, 2008. On J une 3,

2008, Def endant Snchez wr ote t o Car l o r equest i ng he t ermi nate

Al ber t i s t enur e- t r ack associ at e pr of essor posi t i on. Snchez s

l et t er i ncl uded a number of eval uat i ons draf t ed bet ween Febr uar y 14

and J une 3, 2008, by ot her School of Nur si ng f acul t y

membersnamel y, Def endant s Fi guer oa and Mat os and Def endant s

Vi r gi ni a Sant i ago, Car men T. Lpez- Rodr guez, and Dr . Gl or i a E.

Or t i z- Bl ancot hat suppor t ed t er mi nat i ng Al ber t i . On J une 12, 2008,

ci t i ng Snchez s J une 3 l et t er , Car l o not i f i ed Al ber t i t hat her

t enur e- t r ack associ at e pr of essor posi t i on woul d t er mi nat e as of

August 15, 2008. Al ber t i was not gi ven a pr e- t er mi nat i on hear i ng

bef or e r ecei vi ng t hi s l et t er .

On appeal , Al ber t i ar gues t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed when

i t ( 1) concl uded her di r ect or posi t i ons wer e posi t i ons of t r ust

t hat Car l o coul d t er mi nat e at wi l l ; ( 2) f ound she di d not have a

pr ot ect ed pr oper t y ri ght i n her t enur e- t r ack associ at e pr of essor

posi t i on under t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause and ther ef or e had no r i ght t o

a pr e- t er mi nat i on hear i ng; ( 3) concl uded her l et t er t o Car l o was

-22-


23/35

not pr ot ect ed under t he Fi r st Amendment ; and ( 4) di smi ssed her

Ti t l e VI I Nat i onal Or i gi n Di scr i mi nat i on Cl ai m. 3

We revi ew a di st r i ct cour t s gr ant of summary j udgment de

novo, t aki ng t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he

nonmovant . Ll oyd s of London v. Pagn- Snchez, 539 F. 3d 19, 21

( 1st Ci r . 2008) . Summar y j udgment i s onl y appr opr i at e i f t he

r ecor d shows t hat t her e i s no genui ne i ssue as t o any mat er i al

f act and t hat t he movi ng par t y i s ent i t l ed t o a j udgment as a

mat t er of l aw. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( c) . Fur t her mor e, even wher e a

mot i on f or summary j udgment i s unopposed, we ar e st i l l bound t o

r evi ew t he case on t he mer i t s based on t he uncont r overt ed f act s

bef or e us. Cor di - Al l en v. Hal l or an, 470 F. 3d 25, 28 ( 1st Ci r .

2006) . We are not bound t o do a par t y s work, however , nor t o

devel op l egal ar gument s mer el y ment i oned i n passi ng. I nt l

Longshor emen s Ass n, AFL- CI O v. Davi s, 476 U. S. 380, 398 n. 14

( 1986) ( i t i s not our t ask sua sponte t o sear ch t he r ecor d f or

evi dence t o suppor t a par t y s cl ai ms) ; Col n- Font nez, 660 F. 3d

at 45- 46 ( I t i s not enough merel y t o ment i on a possi bl e ar gument

i n t he most skel et al way, l eavi ng t he cour t t o do counsel s wor k,

3 Al ber t i al so sued Dr . Mar i a C. Decl et - Br ana, a f el l owt eacher , and Uni ver si t y st udent s I r i s Ri ver a- Col on and J udi t h

Mi r anda. She f ai l s t o expl ai n t o us her cl ai ms agai nst t hesedef endant s, however . Rat her , i n her f act sect i on, ci t i ng t o t hef i r st 1400 pages of t he j oi nt appendi x, whi ch we have al r eadyexcl uded, Al ber t i accuses Decl et of bul l yi ng her , and cal l sRi ver a and Mi r anda Agent s Pr ovocat eur s, apparent l y because t heyhad compl ai ned about her t eachi ng st yl e, cal l i ng i t t oo Amer i canand cal l i ng her gr i nga.

-23-


24/35

cr eat e t he ossat ur e f or t he ar gument , and put f l esh on i t s bones. )

( i nt er nal ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

A.

Al ber t i f i r st ar gues she had a pr ot ect ed pr oper t y

i nt er est i n her di r ect or posi t i ons at t he School of Nur si ng. Under

t he Four t eent h Amendment , a st at e cannot di scharge a publ i c

empl oyee wi t hout due pr ocess of l aw i f t he empl oyee possesses a

pr oper t y r i ght t o cont i nued empl oyment i n t he posi t i on at i ssue.

Cl evel and Bd. of Educ. v. Louder mi l l , 470 U. S. 532, 538 ( 1985) .

But [ p] r oper t y i nt er est s ar e not creat ed by t he Const i t ut i on,

[ r at her , ] t hey ar e cr eat ed and t hei r di mensi ons ar e def i ned by

exi st i ng r ul es or under st andi ngs t hat st em f r om an i ndependent

sour ce such as st at e l aw . . . . I d. ( quot i ng Bd. of Regent s of

St at e Col l eges v. Rot h, 408 U. S. 564, 577 ( 1972) ) . A pr oper t y

i nt er est i n cont i nued empl oyment may der i ve f r om a st at ut e, a

cont r act pr ovi si on, or an of f i ci al l y sanct i oned wor kpl ace r ul e.

Per r y v. Si ndermann, 408 U. S. 593, 60102 ( 1972) .

Al ber t i devot es her br i ef i ng on t he i ssue sol el y t o

ar gui ng her di r ect or posi t i ons do not f al l wi t hi n t he def i ni t i on of

a posi t i on of t r ust , whi ch, under Sect i on 30. 1. 8 of t he

Uni ver si t y s Rul es and Regul at i ons, may be r emoved at wi l l . She

ar gues a f act i ssue exi st s because t he posi t i on of Progr am

Di r ect or was not added t o t he l i st of posi t i ons of t r ust i n

Ar t i cl e 71 of t he Uni ver si t y Rul es and Regul at i ons unt i l af t er she

-24-


25/35

was appoi nt ed t o t hese posi t i ons. But even bef or e Al ber t i s

appoi nt ment , Sect i on 71. 3. 2 of t he Rul es l i st ed [ p] osi t i ons

di r ecti ng or gani zat i onal uni t s as posi t i ons of t r ust , and Al ber t i

conceded at or al ar gument t hat , as a pr ogr amdi r ect or , she di r ect ed

or gani zat i onal uni t s at t he Uni ver si t y. Thus, Al ber t i s ar gument

on t hi s poi nt f ai l s and she i s unabl e t o demonst r at e she had a

pr oper t y i nt er est i n her di r ector posi t i ons.

B.

Al ber t i next cont ends t he di st r i ct cour t er r oneousl y

f ound she di d not have a pr oper t y i nt er est i n her t enur e- t r ack

associ at e pr of essor posi t i on, whi ch had no expi r at i on dat e.

Def endant Car l o t er mi nat ed Al ber t i s associ at e pr of essor posi t i on

i n wr i t i ng and wi t hout a pr e- t er mi nat i on hear i ng. The t er mi nat i on

l et t er ci t es Sect i on 46. 6 of t he Uni ver si t y Rul es and Regul at i ons,

t he eval uat i ons col l ect ed by Def endant Snchez, as wel l as

eval uat i ons wr i t t en by Def endant s Sant i ago, Lopez, Mat os, and

Or t i z. These eval uat i ons wer e over whel mi ngl y negat i ve.

Sect i on 30. 1. 2 of t he Uni ver si t y Rul es and Regul at i ons

def i nes Probat i onar y Appoi nt ment as:

t he appoi nt ment gr ant ed i ni t i al l y t o cover a r egul ar postor posi t i on appr oved i n t he budget , and shal l have af i xed dur at i on accor di ng t o t he pr ovi si ons of t he

Regul at i ons. Dur i ng t he appoi nt ment per i od t he i ncumbentshal l be on pr obat i on, subj ect t o an eval uat i on t odet ermi ne whether or not at t he end of sai d per i od he orshe mer i t s r et ent i on wi t h a permanent appoi nt ment .

-25-


26/35

Sect i on 46. 2 pr ovi des, wi t h ver y l i mi t ed except i ons, t hat a

pr of essor may not at t ai n t enur e i n her posi t i on unt i l she r ender s

f i ve year s of sat i sf act or y ser vi ce whi l e on pr obat i on. Sect i on

46. 6, on t he ot her hand, pr ovi des: The Chancel l or . . . may

t er mi nat e a pr obat i onar y appoi nt ment wi t hout gr ant i ng t enur ewhen

so justified, accor di ng t o t he eval uat i on or eval uat i ons per f or med,

not i f yi ng t he af f ect ed per son i n wr i t i ng. ( emphasi s added) .

Al bert i br i ngs t wo coherent argument s f or why t he

Uni ver si t y Rul es and Regul at i ons gave her a pr oper t y i nt er est i n

cont i nued empl oyment as an associ at e pr of essor . Fi r st , she ar gues

when so j ust i f i ed i n Sect i on 46. 6 i s t ant amount t o a f or cause

r equi r ement . Second, she ar gues her t er mi nat i on must be j ust i f i ed

by mandatory eval uat i ons and that , under Sect i on 29. 8, she had a

pr e- t er mi nat i on r i ght t o di scuss t hese eval uat i ons wi t h her

eval uators. However , because she r ai ses t hi s second argument f or

t he f i r st t i me on appeal , we wi l l not consi der i t . McCoy v. Mass.

I nst . of Tech. , 950 F. 2d 13, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ( I t i s hor nbook

l aw t hat t heor i es not r ai sed squar el y i n t he di st r i ct cour t cannot

be sur f aced f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal . ) .

Al t hough t he i ssue i s f ar f r om cl ear , we acknowl edge

Al ber t i s ar gument equat i ng when so j ust i f i ed wi t h f or cause,

may have some mer i t . A publ i c empl oyee who i s di smi ss i bl e onl y

f or cause i s ent i t l ed t o a ver y l i mi t ed pr e- t er mi nat i on hear i ng.

Gi l ber t v. Homar , 520 U. S. 924, 929 ( 1997) . Fur t her mor e, Al ber t i s

-26-


27/35

case i s i ndeed di st i ngui shabl e f r om Lovel ace v. Se. Mass. Uni v. ,

793 F. 2d 419 ( 1st Ci r . 1986) , on whi ch bot h t he di st r i ct cour t and

t he Uni ver si t y r el y. I n Lovel ace, t he t eachi ng cont r act f or a non-

t enur ed pr of essor was not r enewed and we hel d t he pr of essor di d not

have a cogni zabl e pr oper t y i nt er est i n r eappoi nt ment . I n so

hol di ng, we rej ect ed t he pr of essor s ar gument t hat he had a

pr oper t y i nt er est i n r eappoi nt ment si mpl y because t he uni ver si t y s

r ul es r equi r ed j ust i f i cat i on i n or der t o not r enew hi s cont r act .

I d. at 421.

Unl i ke i n Lovel ace, however , t he Uni ver si t y her e di d not

deny Al ber t i r eappoi nt ment af t er her cont r act expi r ed. Rat her , t he

Uni ver si t y t er mi nat ed her f r om a posi t i on she st i l l occupi ed.

Sect i on 30. 1. 2 of t he Uni ver si t y Rul es st at es a pr obat i onar y

appoi nt ment shal l have a f i xed dur at i on; however , Al ber t i s

pr obat i onar y appoi nt ment was f or an i ndef i ni t e per i od. As such,

i t appear s t he onl y f i xed dur at i on t he Uni ver si t y coul d r ef er ence

i s t he f i ve year s of pr obat i onar y empl oyment r equi r ed bef or e ei t her

at t ai ni ng t enur e or bei ng di smi ssed wi t hout at t ai ni ng t enur e i n

Sect i on 46. 6. Thus, one coul d pl ausi bl y r ead t he Uni ver si t y Rul es

and Regul at i ons i n Al ber t i s case as gi vi ng her a pr oper t y i nt er est

i n at l east a f i ve- year t er m of pr obat i onar y empl oyment . The

di st r i ct cour t f ound t hi s i nt er pr et at i on unt enabl e because i t

woul d al l ow a pr of essor t o vi ol at e t he nor ms of t he i nst i t ut i on

f or f i ve ( 5) year s whi l e under pr obat i on, and t he i nst i t ut i on woul d

-27-


28/35

be power l ess t o act wi t hi n t he pr obat i onar y per i od. Al ber t i I ,

818 F. Supp. 2d at 467. But t hi s goes t oo f ar . Even assumi ng

Al ber t i had a pr oper t y i nt er est i n a f i ve- year t er m of empl oyment

at t he Uni ver si t y, t he Uni ver si t y woul d not be power l ess t o act

wi t hi n t hat pr obat i onar y per i od. Rat her , i t woul d si mpl y have t o

gi ve her a ver y l i mi t ed hear i ng pr i or t o [ her ] t er mi nat i on, t o be

f ol l owed by a more compr ehensi ve post - t ermi nat i on hear i ng t o

compl y wi t h due pr ocess. See Gi l ber t , 520 U. S. at 929.

That bei ng sai d, not wi t hst andi ng t he pl ausi bi l i t y of t hi s

argument , we need not deci de whet her Al bert i i n f act had a pr opert y

i nt er est i n her pr obat i onar y pr of essorshi p because t he I ndi vi dual

Uni ver si t y Def endant s are ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y on t hi s

i ssue. Qual i f i ed i mmuni t y shi el ds f eder al and st at e of f i ci al s

f r ommoney damages unl ess a pl ai nt i f f pl eads f act s showi ng ( 1) t hat

t he of f i ci al vi ol at ed a st at ut or y or const i t ut i onal r i ght , and ( 2)

t hat t he r i ght was cl ear l y est abl i shed at t he t i me of t he

chal l enged conduct . Ashcr of t v. al - Ki dd, 131 S. Ct . 2074, 2080

( 2011) . 4 We have di scr et i on as t o whi ch of t he t wo pr ongs t o

t ackl e f i rs t i n t hi s anal ys i s . I d.

4 We t r eat t he Uni ver si t y of Puer t o Ri co as an ar m of t hest at e f or El event h Amendment pur poses, see I r i zar r y- Mor a v. Uni v.of Puer t o Ri co, 647 F. 3d 9, 1117 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) , and Uni ver si t yof Puer t o Ri co of f i ci al s as st at e act or s f or qual i f i ed i mmuni t ypur poses, see Mel ndez- Garc a v. Snchez, 629 F. 3d 25, 35- 36 ( 1stCi r . 2010) .

-28-


29/35

We choose t o addr ess t he cl ear l y est abl i shed prong

f i r st , as t hi s i s wher e Al ber t i s cl ai m cl ear l y f ai l s . We have

r epeat edl y st at ed:

i dent i f yi ng some abst r act const i t ut i onal r i ght ext ant att he t i me of t he al l eged vi ol at i on does not i t sel f showt hat t he conduct al l eged i s a vi ol at i on of cl ear l y

est abl i shed l aw. I nst ead, t he f ocus must be upon t hepar t i cul ar conduct engaged i n by ( or at t r i but ed t o) t hedef endant s; i mmuni t y i s f or f ei t ed onl y i f a r easonabl eof f i ci al woul d cl ear l y under st and that conduct t o be avi ol at i on of t he Const i t ut i on.

Ri ver a- Ramos v. Roman, 156 F. 3d 276, 27980 ( 1st Ci r . 1998)

( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) .

The onl y l egi t i mat e source Al ber t i ci t es t o ar gue t he

Uni ver si t y Def endant s par t i cul ar conduct vi ol at ed cl ear l y

est abl i shed l aw i s the Uni ver si t y Rul es and Regul at i ons. But t hese

r ul es, as di scussed above, ar e uncl ear when appl i ed t o Al ber t i s

case. Al t hough one coul d r easonabl y r ead t he r ul es as cr eat i ng an

expect at i on of cont i nued empl oyment f or at l east f i ve year s, onecoul d al so r easonabl y i nt er pr et Rul e 46. 6 as al l owi ng t he

t er mi nat i on of Al ber t i s i ndef i ni t e pr obat i onar y cont r act wi t hout

a pr e- t er mi nat i on hear i ng whenever t he eval uat i ons on f i l e

j ust i f i ed such act i on. Al ber t i does not ci t e any l aw t o t he

cont r ary and our i ndependent r esear ch has reveal ed none. As such,

Al ber t i di d not have a cl ear l y est abl i shed r i ght t o a pr e-t er mi nat i on hear i ng pr i or t o bei ng di smi ssed f r omher pr obat i onar y

pr of essor posi t i on. Thus, t he di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y f ound t he

-29-


30/35

Uni ver si t y Def endant s wer e ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y on t hi s

cl ai m. 5

C.

Al ber t i s Fi r st Amendment ar gument concer ns her l et t er t o

Def endant Car l o compl ai ni ng about Def endant Ramos s al l eged HI PAA

vi ol at i on and t he act i ons of Def endant Snchez and ot her f acul t y

members i n t he FNP pr ogr am. She argues t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed

when i t r el i ed on Gar cet t i v. Cebal l os, 547 U. S. 410 ( 2006) ,

i nst ead of usi ng t he l egal f r amewor k f r om Decot i i s v. Whi t t emor e,

635 F. 3d 22 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) , t o di smi ss her Fi r st Amendment cl ai m.

Fur t her mor e, Al ber t i ar gues, t o t he ext ent her l et t er i s not

pr ot ect ed under a t r adi t i onal Fi r st Amendment anal ysi s, i t i s

prot ect ed under t he concept of academi c f r eedom. These argument s

f ai l t o creat e a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act . 6

5 Qual i f i ed i mmuni t y woul d not bar gr ant i ng Al ber t ii nj unct i ve r el i ef . Al ber t i , however , seeks i nj unct i ve r el i ef onl yagai nst t he Uni ver si t y i t sel f ; and she speci f i cal l y excl uded t heUni ver si t y f r om her due pr ocess cl ai m i n her t hi r d amendedcompl ai nt . Di st . Doc. # 123 at 121. We ar e not i ncl i ned t or emedy her counsel s t act i cal er r or s. Because Al ber t i does notseek i nj unct i ve r el i ef agai nst anyone based on t hi s cl ai m, we neednot deci de whet her she i s ent i t l ed t o such r el i ef .

6 Al ber t i al so ar gues she f i l ed t he i nst ant sui t bef or e anumber of t he eval uat i ons t hat l ed t o her t er mi nat i on wer e f i l ed,and t hat f i l i ng t he i nst ant sui t shoul d t her ef or e be pr ot ect edunder t he Fi r st Amendment . She makes t hi s argument i n one br i efpar agr aph wi t h no ci t at i ons or f ur t her expl anat i on. Accor di ngl y,we do not addr ess i t . Col n- Font nez, 660 F.3d at 4546.

-30-


31/35

As t o Al ber t i s f i r st ar gument , Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent

cont r ol s over our pr ecedent and, under bot h Gar cet t i and

Decot i i s, publ i c empl oyees do not speak as ci t i zens when t hey make

st at ement s pur suant t o t hei r of f i ci al dut i es, and . . .

accor di ngl y, such speech i s not pr otected by t he Fi r st Amendment .

Decot i i s, 635 F. 3d at 30 ( quot i ng Gar cet t i , 547 U. S. at 422) .

Al bert i at t empt s t o ar gue t hat , by bypassi ng t he chai n of command

wi t h her gr i evances, she was not speaki ng as an empl oyee on a

mat t er r el at ed t o her empl oyment , but as a pr i vat e ci t i zen on a

mat t er of publ i c concer n. I t i s cl ear , however , t hat t he

compl ai nt s Al bert i r el ayed t o t he Chancel l or wer e made i n her

supervi sor y capaci t y over Def endant Ramos, as her t eacher , and i n

her capaci t y as FNP pr ogr amdi r ect or , concer ni ng t he admi ni st r at i on

of t he FNP pr ogr am. Accordi ngl y, because Al bert i made t hese

compl ai nt s pur suant t o her of f i ci al dut i es as a t eacher and as t he

FNP di r ect or , not as a pr i vat e ci t i zen, t hey ar e not pr ot ect ed

under t he Fi r st Amendment . I d.

I n her r epl y br i ef , Al ber t i poi nt s us t o a r ecent case,

Dahl i a v. Rodr i guez, 10- 55978, __ _ F. 3d __ _, 2013 WL 4437594 ( 9t h

Ci r . Aug. 21, 2013) ( en banc) , wher e t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t r ever sed

pr i or pr ecedent and hel d t he cour t must make a pr act i cal i nqui r y

when determi ni ng whether t he speech i s wi t hi n the scope of t he

empl oyee s dut i es and t hus not pr ot ect ed by t he Fi r st Amendment .

But apractical inquiry shows Al ber t i si gned t he l et t er as FNP

-31-


32/35

di r ect or , and i t per t ai ned t o i ssues r egar di ng t he admi ni st r at i on

of t he FNP pr ogr am. Fur t hermore, whi l e t he Fi r st Amendment

i nvest s publ i c empl oyees wi t h cer t ai n r i ght s, i t does not empower

t hemt o const i t ut i onal i ze empl oyee gr i evances. Gar cet t i , 547 U. S.

at 420. Yet t hi s appear s to be exact l y what Al ber t i i s t r yi ng t o

do. Thus, t hi s ar gument f ai l s.

Al ber t i s academi c f r eedom argument al so f ai l s.

Al ber t i ci t es Har dy v. J ef f er son Cmt y. Col l . , 260 F. 3d 671, 679

( 6t h Ci r . 2001) , f or t hi s argument , but even Hardy makes cl ear t hat

academi c f r eedom pr ot ect s onl y speech i n t he cont ext of cl assr oom

t eachi ng t hat communi cates an i dea t r anscendi ng personal i nt erest

or opi ni on whi ch i mpact s our soci al and/ or pol i t i cal l i ves. I d.

( i nt er nal ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Thi s pr ot ect i on i s f ar r emoved f r om

a teacher s admi ni st r at i ve compl ai nt s t hat concer n a pr ogr amshe i s

di r ect i ng and t hat bypass t he chai n of command. Fur t hermore, t o

t he extent Al ber t i ar gues Def endant s r et al i at ed agai nst her f or her

gr adi ng deci si ons and t her eby vi ol at ed her r i ght t o academi c

f r eedom, we al r eady r ej ect ed t hi s speci f i c ar gument i n Lovel ace.

793 F. 2d at 426 ( To accept pl ai nt i f f s cont ent i on t hat an

unt enur ed t eacher s gr adi ng pol i cy i s const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed

and i nsul at es hi m f r om di schar ge when hi s st andar ds conf l i ct wi t h

t hose of t he uni ver si t y woul d be t o const r i ct t he uni ver si t y i n

def i ni ng and per f or mi ng i t s educat i onal mi ssi on. The f i r st

-32-


33/35

amendment does not r equi r e t hat each non- t enured prof essor be made

a sover ei gn unt o hi msel f . ) .

D.

Fi nal l y, we addr ess Al ber t i s Ti t l e VI I cl ai m. The

di st r i ct cour t f ound Al ber t i met t he i ni t i al bur den of showi ng a

pr i ma f aci e case of unl awf ul di scr i mi nat i on based on nat i onal

or i gi n. Al ber t i I , 818 F. Supp. 2d at 477. The cour t al so f ound,

however , t hat Def endant s ar t i cul at ed l egi t i mat e nondi scr i mi nat or y

r easons f or t he adver se empl oyment act i ons at i ssue and that

Al ber t i coul d not t hen est abl i sh that t hese reasons wer e mer el y

pr etext ual and t hat t he t r ue r eason behi nd t he adver se act i on was

her nat i onal or i gi n. I d.

Under t he McDonnel l Dougl as f r amework f or handl i ng Ti t l e

VI I cl ai ms, i f t he pl ai nt i f f est abl i shes a pr i ma f aci e case of

di scr i mi nat i on, t he bur den of pr oduct i on shi f t s t o t he def endant

t o pr oduce evi dence t hat t he adver se empl oyment act i ons were t aken

f or a l egi t i mat e, nondi scr i mi nat or y r eason. Pear son v. Mass. Bay

Tr ansp. Aut h. , 723 F. 3d 36, 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( Sout er , J . )

( i nt er nal quot at i ons omi t t ed) . I f t he def endant produces such

evi dence, t he McDonnel l Dougl as f r amework di sappear s and t he sol e

r emai ni ng i ssue i s di scr i mi nat i on vel non. I d. ( i nt ernal

quot at i ons and al t er at i ons omi t t ed) . Al t hough t he bur den of

pr oduct i on may shi f t , [ t ] he bur den of per suasi on r emai ns at al l

t i mes wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f . Mar i ani - Col n v. Homel and Sec. ex r el .

-33-


34/35

Cher t of f , 511 F. 3d 216, 221 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . That i s, t he

pl ai nt i f f must pr ove not onl y that t he r eason ar t i cul at ed by the

empl oyer was a sham, but also that its true reason was plaintiffs

race or national origin. Rodr i guez- Cuer vos v. Wal - Mar t St ores,

I nc. , 181 F. 3d 15, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( emphasi s added) .

Even assumi ng Al ber t i made out a pr i ma f aci e case of

unl awf ul di scr i mi nat i on, we agr ee Def endant s est abl i shed l egi t i mat e

nondi scri mi nat or y r easons f or Al ber t i s t er mi nat i on, i ncl udi ng,

among ot her t hi ngs, her f ai l ur e t o at t end f acul t y meet i ngs, her

f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h her admi ni st r at i ve dut i es, and her f ai l ur e

f ol l ow t he pr oper channel s of communi cat i on wi t hi n t he School of

Nur si ng. And even i f we agr eed wi t h Al ber t i t hat t hese r easons

were i n f act a sham, she does not argue on appeal , or advance any

evi dence t o show, t he t r ue reason f or her t er mi nat i on was her r ace

or nat i onal or i gi n. We wi l l not make t he ar gument nor scour t he

r ecor d f or evi dence t o suppor t i t f or her . Davi s, 476 U. S. at 398

n. 14; Col n- Font nez, 660 F. 3d at 45- 46. Thus, on t he r ecor d and

ar gument bef or e us, t he di st r i ct cour t pr oper l y gr ant ed summar y

j udgment t o Def endant s on t hi s cl ai m. 7

7 Al ber t i br i ngs t wo ot her coher ent - but - mer i t l ess cl ai ms.Fi r st , she ar gues t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed when i t f ound t he

Uni ver si t y Def endant s wer e ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y. As west at ed above, t he Uni ver si t y Def endant s are i ndeed ent i t l ed t oqual i f i ed i mmuni t y f r om Al ber t i s due pr ocess cl ai m. Fur t her mor e,because we af f i r m t he rest of t he i ssues pr esent ed on t he mer i t s,we need not addr ess whet her Def endant s ar e ent i t l ed t o qual i f i edi mmuni t y on t hose i ssues. Al ber t i al so ar gues she has a r i ght t oa name- cl ear i ng hear i ng. She di d not r ai se t hi s i ssue or seek t hi s

-34-


35/35

Accor di ngl y, t he j udgment f or t he di st r i ct cour t i s

AFFI RMED.

r el i ef bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t , so we wi l l not addr ess i t now.McCoy, 950 F. 2d at 22.

Alberti v. Carlo-Izquierdo, 1st Cir. (2013)

Documents

Transcript of Alberti v. Carlo-Izquierdo, 1st Cir. (2013)