## Facts

- Two former Puerto Rico Housing Department employees, affiliated with the New Progressive Party (NPP), sued multiple department officials after a change in administration to the Popular Democratic Party (PDP).
- Plaintiffs brought federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged political discrimination (First Amendment) and alleged due process and equal protection violations (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments), plus Puerto Rico law claims.
- The Housing Department was dismissed on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity grounds; that ruling was not appealed.
- Plaintiff Alejandro Bou Santiago alleged he was promoted in May 2000 to Administrative Director II and appointed to direct the Office of Security and Emergency Management.
- Bou alleged that after the PDP took office, a PDP-affiliated official sought to replace him with a PDP supporter; Bou was demoted on March 7, 2001.
- Bou alleged he learned of the political motive for the demotion on July 27, 2002, and filed suit in September 2003.
- Plaintiff Enid Marrero-Gutierrez, a career employee since 1994 and Director of the Section 8 Program, alleged harassment, reduced duties, and ridicule tied to her political affiliation and health condition.
- Marrero received letters accusing her of poor performance, underwent disciplinary proceedings, participated in a hearing where she rebutted the accusations, and was later terminated.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c); the district court entered judgment for defendants on all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Bou’s § 1983 political-discrimination claim was time-barred under Puerto Rico’s one-year limitations period and, for accrual, whether the claim began at demotion or later discovery of discriminatory motive.
2. Whether Marrero plausibly alleged that political affiliation was a substantial or motivating factor behind concrete adverse employment actions.
3. Whether Marrero received constitutionally adequate procedural due process in the disciplinary and termination process.
4. Whether Marrero sufficiently pleaded an equal protection violation, including differential treatment compared to similarly situated employees.
5. Whether the district court properly granted Rule 12(c) judgment and whether any defenses were waived.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the Rule 12(c) judgment for defendants on all federal claims.
- Bou’s § 1983 claim was untimely because it accrued when he was demoted, not when he later learned of an alleged political motive.
- Marrero failed to state a First Amendment political-discrimination claim because the pleadings did not plausibly connect adverse actions to political affiliation.
- Marrero’s procedural due process claim failed because she received notice of the charges and an opportunity to respond, including an administrative hearing.
- Marrero’s equal protection claim failed because she did not allege that similarly situated individuals were treated more favorably.
- The court rejected challenges to using Rule 12(c) and rejected waiver arguments as a basis for reversal.

## Legal Principles

- For § 1983 claims, the applicable limitations period is borrowed from local law (here, Puerto Rico’s one-year period), while accrual is governed by federal law.
- A § 1983 claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury; later discovery of discriminatory animus generally does not delay accrual when the adverse action is immediately known.
- A public-employee First Amendment political-discrimination claim requires plausible factual allegations that political affiliation was a substantial or motivating factor in a specific adverse employment action; conclusory claims and generalized allegations of hostility are insufficient.
- Procedural due process for deprivation of a protected employment interest requires notice of charges and a meaningful opportunity to respond; due process concerns procedure, not correctness of the outcome.
- An equal protection claim based on selective or disparate treatment requires allegations that similarly situated persons were treated differently and that the differential treatment rested on an impermissible basis.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit affirmed dismissal at the pleadings stage because Bou’s claim accrued at the demotion and was filed outside the limitations period, and because Marrero’s complaint did not plausibly connect adverse actions to political affiliation, did not plead disparate treatment for equal protection, and showed constitutionally sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard for due process.


Marrero-Gutierrez v. Molina, 491 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007)