USCA1 Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

___________________
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 96-1491

JORGE E. CANCEL-LUGO, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

CARLOS ALVARADO, et al.,

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Carmen C. Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]

___________________

____________________

Before

Boudin, Circuit Judge,

_____________

Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,

____________________

and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

_____________

____________________

Victor P. Miranda Corrada on brief for appellant.

_________________________
Carlos Lugo-Fiol,
________________
Solicitor

General,

Solicitor General, Edda Serrano-Blasini, Dep

____________________
and

Edgardo
Rodriguez-Quilichini,
______________________________

Assist

Solicitor General, Department of Justice, on brief for appellee.

____________________

May 8, 1997
____________________

Per Curiam.
___________

Jorge

Cancel-Lugo

appeals the

district

court's

rejection, following

against Carlos

Alvarado

Lugo's employer,

(PREPA).

a bench

trial, of

as Executive

the Puerto Rican

Director

his claims

of

Electric Power

Cancel-Lugo argues that he

Cancel-

Authority

was transferred within

PREPA because of his political party affiliation in violation

of

42 U.S.C.

L.P.R.A.

due

1983,

the

Puerto Rican

136 and 146, and 3 L.P.R.A.

process

rights

were

briefs

reasons

and

the

given by

record,

the

29

1334; and that his

transgressed

transferred without a hearing.

Constitution,

because

he

was

After reviewing the parties'

we affirm

for

district court

substantially

the

after addressing

one

point not covered in the opinion below.

On

appeal,

court's finding

Cancel-Lugo

contends

that Alvarado

had no

that

the

district

discriminatory intent

and

did not

support

is not

enough to

the dismissal of his claims under 29 L.P.R.A.

and 146,

basis

cause Cancel-Lugo's transfer

of

which prohibit discrimination in

political affiliation.

136

employment on the

Cancel-Lugo argues

that

Alvarado could be held vicariously liable for the acts of his

subordinates under 31 L.P.R.A.

reading the Puerto

Amendment,

refuse

5142.

Rican statutes in

to

impose

However, our

light of the

vicarious

Jusino
______

v. Zayas, 875
_____

F.2d 986,

-2-2-

Eleventh

liability

supervisory government officials under 29 L.P.R.A.

146.

cases,

993 (1st Cir.

on

136 and

1989);

Marin-Piazza v. Aponte-Roque, 873

____________
____________

1989).

Affirmed.
________

F.2d 432, 436-37 (1st Cir.

-3-3-