Costa-Urenai, et al, et al v. Segarra, et al, et al

Filing 920091222

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = 'Of the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = ' Puerto Rico is treated as a state for the purposes of a §\
1983 analysis. Perez-Acevedo v. Rivero-Cubano, 520 F.3d 26, 29 n.6\
(1st Cir. 2008).\
'

var WPFootnote3 = ' This "harmless error" standard applies where, as here, a\
party has properly objected to the court\'s instruction at trial. \
Davignon, 322 F.3d at 9.\
'

var WPFootnote4 = ' This may be the case even if the employee acquired the\
career position in contravention of state law. See Santiago-Negron\
v. Castro-Davila, 865 F.2d 431, 436 (1st Cir. 1989). Nevertheless,\
such a fact, as we will discuss below, has relevance in the\
procedural due process inquiry.\
'

var WPFootnote5 = ' On appeal, the defendants also argue that, even if the\
plaintiffs did have a protected property interest in their jobs as\
Collections Officers, the Commonwealth nevertheless provided them\
with all the process they were due. \
              This argument is unavailable. In their only Rule 50(a)\
motion, which they made orally at the close of the plaintiffs\'\
case, the defendants never argued that the plaintiffs received\
adequate process before their termination. It is well-established\
that arguments not made in a motion for judgment as a matter of law\
under Rule 50(a) cannot then be advanced in a renewed motion for\
judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b). See Correa v. Hosp.\
San Francisco, 69 F.3d 1184, 1196 (1st Cir. 1995) ("As the name\
implies, a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under\
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) is bounded by the movant\'s earlier Rule 50(a)\
motion.").\
'

var WPFootnote6 = ' The plaintiffs assert that the plan was not public, but they\
do not contest that the plan was both validly enacted and binding. \
'

var WPFootnote7 = ' The defendants present this argument in two ways. They\
argue that the evidence presented a trial, which included the\
relevant Classification Plan, established that each of the\
plaintiffs failed to qualify for the Collections Officer position. \
They also rely on the doctrine of collateral estoppel, arguing that\
the plaintiffs failed to appeal an administrative decision rendered\
against them, and that facts established in this proceeding\
definitively doom their claim. We need not venture into the\
thicket of the collateral estoppel doctrine, as the record evidence\
is sufficient to establish the lack of a protected property\
interest.\
'

var WPFootnote8 = ' "[T]he party claiming plain error must show (1) an error,\
(2) that is plain (i.e., obvious and clear under current law) (3)\
that is likely to alter the outcome, and (4) that is sufficiently\
fundamental to threaten the fairness or integrity or public\
reputation of the judicial process." Colon-Millin v. Sears Roebuck\
de P.R., Inc., 455 F.3d 30, 41 (1st Cir. 2006) (internal quotations\
omitted).\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "