Skip to main content

Employee's Political Association Potentially Resulted in Constructive Discharge By Employer


Rodriguez v. City of Doral - Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Anthony Rodriguez ("Rodriguez") worked at the City of Doral Police Department ("Doral") as a police officer.  Prior to working for Doral, Rodriguez met Sandra Ruiz ("Ruiz").  Ruiz was a member of the Doral City Council and had encouraged Rodriguez to apply for employment with Doral.  Over time, Rodriguez and Ruiz developed a friendship and Rodriguez volunteered his time to help advance her political ambitions.  When Ruiz ran for election to the State house and the Doral City Council,  Juan Carlos Bermudez ("Bermudez"), supported Ruiz's opponents.  (During Rodriguez's employment with Doral, Bermudez served as Doral's mayor).

Rodriguez identified several instances in which he claimed he was "targeted" by Doral and Bermudez:  

  1. Bermudez apparently did not like Rodriguez's working relationship with Ruiz.  In fact, Doral's City Manager, Sergio Purrinos ("Purrinos"), told Rodriguez that Bermudez told Purrinos not to hire Rodriguez because Bermudez "did not want...Ruiz having a friend in the police department.";
  2. Doral Police Department Commander James Montgomery ("Montgomery") said he overheard a conversation between Bermudez and Doral's Police Chief, Ricardo Gomez ("Gomez"), in which Bermudez instructed Gomez to "deal with that 'asshole Tony [Rodriguez]'"; 
  3. A friend of Bermudez told Rodriguez that Bermudez was giving him a hard time because of his association with Ruiz; 
  4. Gomez referred to himself as "an evil person and that [Rodriguez] did not want to see the evil side of him."  During that discussion with Rodriguez, Gomez warned Rodriguez "It's your responsibility to be loyal to me and the mayor, and no one else."; 
  5. A Lieutenant at Doral thought Rodriguez was being targeted because of his association with Ruiz; 
  6. Bermudez told Doral Councilman Pete Cabrera ("Cabrera") about a call Bermudez had in which Bermudez told Gomez that Rodriguez was a spy for Ruiz; 
  7. Gomez alleged that Rodriguez was improperly using his police vehicle for personal business.  Gomez instructed Sergeant George Gulla ("Gulla") to investigate and Gulla determined Rodriguez had committed no wrongdoing.  However, Gomez allegedly instructed Gulla to change the outcome of the report and find Rodriguez violated Doral policy.  Gulla did so, against his will;  
  8. Gulla investigated a claim that Rodriguez used "improper procedure" by interfering with a Miami-Dade Police investigation.  After finding that insufficient evidence existed to support the allegation, Gulla prepared a report and sent it to Gomez.  Gomez ordered Gulla to reverse his findings; Gulla did so, against his will; 
  9. Gulla prepared an evaluation that gave Rodriguez 38 or 39 points out of a possible 40 and described Rodriguez as "an asset".  Gomez instructed Gulla to remove the "asset" comment and lower Rodriguez's score to 34 (the minimum score that would allow Rodriguez to receive a raise); and 
  10. Rodriguez was called to Gomez's office and given a letter that terminated his employment "effective immediately."  When Rodriguez asked why he was being terminated, Gomez said "I don't have to give you a reason.  This is an at-will police department."  Gomez did offer Rodriguez the option to resign instead and after Rodriguez briefly considered the offer, he signed a resignation letter under "duress" (believing he had no choice).  An hour later, Rodriguez attempted to rescind his resignation but was told he could not.  

After unsuccessfully attempting to appeal his termination under Doral's procedures, Rodriguez filed suit on the grounds that Doral and Bermudez violated his First Amendment rights by unlawfully retaliating against him and terminating him for his support of Ruiz.  The District Court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of Doral and Bermudez.  After the District Court denied a motion for reconsideration, Rodriguez appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Holding:  For those legal scholars unfamiliar with the First Amendment, the Constitution provides protection for political association as well as political expression.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a government may not terminate an employee solely because of his political association or beliefs unless "the hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved."  In this case, the Court held that it must be established whether Rodriguez presented sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that he was terminated or constructively discharged  because of his political affiliation with Ruiz.

In order to prevail on his claim, the Court noted that Rodriguez must have established that he suffered an adverse employment action.  The Eleventh Circuit had previously held that termination constituted an adverse employment action, although Doral and Bermudez contended that Rodriguez voluntarily resigned (so he had not been terminated).  The Court held that a resignation is presumed to be voluntary unless the employee points to "sufficient evidence to establish that the resignation was involuntarily extracted."  To evaluate Rodriguez's claim of duress, the Court took into account the totality of the circumstances.  In this case, the Court held that Rodriguez had no "real alternatives" to termination.  When he was given the option to resign rather than be terminated, the Court held it was done in a coercive atmosphere with limited time for Rodriguez to fully analyze and comprehend the situation.  The instances that Rodriguez alleged (as noted above), lent themselves to the argument that Dural and Bermudez had created a work environment in which Rodriguez was targeted, such that a reasonable jury could conclude that Rodriguez's resignation was not of his own free will.

Judgment:  The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated summary judgment in favor of defendants and remanded the case on the grounds that the employee had suffered an adverse employment action when he was "targeted" for his political association and had a valid claim that he was subsequently constructively discharged as a result.

The Takeaway:  There are some cases in which the evidence in the record is relatively light and other cases which are quite fact intensive...I will let you guess which case this is.  

I point readers to the numerous alleged incidents by Doral, Bermudez, and Gomez in which they appear to be aggressively coordinating to get rid of Rodriguez.  Whether all (or any) of the alleged incidents Rodriguez identified are true (or even amount to a valid constructive discharge in violation of Rodriguez's First Amendment rights) is an issue of fact left to be decided.  Remember, the Court of Appeals was only looking at whether a reasonable jury could find that Rodriguez was terminated or constructively discharged because of his political affiliation/involvement with Ruiz.  The Court was not directly ruling on the veracity of Rodriguez's claim and alleged facts.  With that being said, the Court got it right in this instance, based upon the evidence in the record.  It is not a stretch to hold that if the incidents alleged by Rodriguez are true, a reasonable jury could find that a valid cause of action exists. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Rosenbaum

Date:  July 19, 2017

Opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/eld/RodriguezDoral071917.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more