Case 3:11-cv-01072-CCC Document 1

Filed 01/21/11 Page 1 of 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO WILMARY SANTOS-SANTOS, PLAINTIFF V. REYNALDO TORRES CENTENO; GREGORIO MERCED VAZQUEZ; WILLIAM RUIZ BORRAS; MIGUEL A. SANTIAGO RIVERA; COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO; PUERTO RICO POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOHN DOE, RICHARD ROE, PETER ROE, NANCY DOE, CARL ROE. DEFENDANT COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE COURT: COMES now the above-captioned plaintiff, through her CIVIL NO. PLAINTIFF DEMAND TRIAL BY JURY

undersigned counsel, and respectfully state and pray: INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action for injunctive relief, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C.S. Sec. 2000e et seq.; and, 42 U.S.C.S Sec 2000e-3(1) for retaliatory and discriminatory in a actions against her case on account of her

testifying

sexual

harassment

denouncing

unlawful

Case 3:11-cv-01072-CCC Document 1

Filed 01/21/11 Page 2 of 19

employment practices.

Santos also brings an action under 42

U.S.C. Sec 1983, Conspiracy Claims under 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 1988 and the Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, for damages resulting from the demotion of Plaintiff in violation of the Constitution and laws of the

United States and Puerto Rico for damages caused to Plaintiff due to the intentional and grossly negligent acts of defendants, taken in reckless disregard to and deliberate indifference of the rights of the plaintiff. JURISDICTION 2. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28

USC 1343, 1383, 1304 and remedies are requested pursuant to 42 USC 1983, 1985 and 2000E et seq. of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Act, and the

Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, Pub. L. 101-12, April 10, 1989, 113 Stat. 16, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 1211-1219, 1221-1222 & 3352; respectively, as amended. The amounts in controversy exceed $75,000, exclusive of costs and interests. All the facts pertinent to the remedies sought herein took place in Caguas, Puerto Rico. This Court also has jurisdiction to entertain the

claims pleaded herein pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., 29 U.S.C. 1132(e) (1) and 28 U.S.C. 1331. Santos further invokes

supplemental jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1343, 1383, 130, and 1367 to hear Commonwealth Law claims because they

Case 3:11-cv-01072-CCC Document 1

Filed 01/21/11 Page 3 of 19

are so related to plaintiffs federal claims as to form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Santos also brings an action pursuant to Venue is proper in this district

Law 426 of November 7th 2000.

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (a) and (b). 3. Plaintiffs invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of

the Court to hear and decide claims arising under the Laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, particularly under Articles

1802 & 1803 of the PR Civil Code; 4. All conditions precedent to jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C 626e have occurred or been complied with. To wit:

a) A timely charge of employment discrimination on the basis of retaliation was filed with the Puerto Rico Department of Labors Anti-Discrimination Unit (ADU) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

("EEOC"). b) The EEOC issued a Right to Sue Letter dated October 22 2010. This complaint has been filed within 90 days of receipt of the EEOC's Notification of Right to Sue. Injunctive Relief: 5. suffering Plaintiff Wilmary Santos is adversely affected and is irreparable injury by injury reason and of is the threatened defendants with further to

irreparable

failures

abide by the laws, policies and practices herein complained of.

Case 3:11-cv-01072-CCC Document 1

Filed 01/21/11 Page 4 of 19

She has no plain, adequate or complete remedy to redress the wrongs and illegal acts herein, other than this action for

declaratory judgment and injunctive relief as well claim for damages. Any other remedy to which plaintiff Wilmary Santos

could be remitted would be attended by such uncertainties and delays as to deny her substantial relief, and it would involve a multiplicity of suits and would cause further irreparable injury and on occasions damage, vexation and inconvenience. 6. This is a proceeding for an injunction restraining

defendants from continuing or maintaining any policy, practice, custom, withhold and or usage deny, of or withholding depriving or or denying, attempting attempting to to

deprive,

otherwise interfering, with the rights of plaintiff and other members of her class, female police officers working for the PRPD, the full use and enjoyment of her rights in the Puerto Rico Police Department (PRPD) without discrimination on the basis of gender. Said pattern and practice of discrimination based solely on sex deprived plaintiff Wilmary Santos and other members of her class, female police officers working for the PRPD, of equal in opportunity their for promotion, advancement excluded and from

compensation

that

been

systematically

assignments based on their sex deprives the plaintiff and other members of class, female police officers working for the PRPD, of obtaining the qualifications necessary for promotion

Case 3:11-cv-01072-CCC Document 1

Filed 01/21/11 Page 5 of 19

advancement and increased compensation. PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Wilmari Santos Santos, at all times pertinent

hereto, is a policewoman working for the PRPD for the last seventeen years, single, a citizen of the United States and

resident of Caguas, Puerto Rico. 8. Defendant Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is an employer within the meaning of Section 701(b) of Title VII and 29 USC Sec. 630(b). Co-defendant Puerto Rico Police Department (PRPD) is an instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico which at the times alleged herein and through its Superintendent Jos Figueroa Sancha and all commanders and supervisors, including sergeants, lieutenants, inspectors, colonels, captains and area commanders were and still are in charge of maintaining a working environment free of intimidating, hostile or offensive sexual discrimination performance. 9. Co-defendant PRPD has employed more than 500 persons during the last 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. 10. At all times pertinent hereto Gregorio Merced Vzquez, Badge # 2-0064 was the Director of the PRPD for the Caguas Region, William Ruiz Borras was a commander of the Caguas CIC Division, Cap. Miguel A. Santiago Rivera, Badge 5-10529 was the that interferes with an individuals job

Case 3:11-cv-01072-CCC Document 1

Filed 01/21/11 Page 6 of 19

Director of the Caguas Criminal Investigation Corps (CIC), Lt.II Reynaldo Torres Centeno, Badge # 7-2256, was the Director of the Caguas Strike Force of the PRPD. 11. The above co-defendants are sued both in their personal and official capacities for the acts and/or omissions under

color of law during working hours and at the workplace. Through their grave omissions and/or reckless disregard for the

enforcement of regulations that prohibit sexual harassment and a hostile environment in the workplace they have been part of and significantly contributed to serious violations of plaintiff

Wilmari Santos Santos civil rights under the Constitutions of the United States of America and the Commonwealth of P. R. 12. Said named co-defendants named in the preceding two paragraphs, under color of law, knew and/or should have known about the facts set forth in the original administrative

complaint filed by Wilmari Santos Santos regarding retaliation against her for being a witness in a sexual harassment claim by fellow officer Sofia Figueroa Rossy and for having complained of various irregularities taking place under the tutelage of Lt. II Reynaldo Torres Centeno at the PRPD Caguas Strike force. 13. under Notwithstanding of law, such no knowledge, meaningful said steps co-defendants, to halt the

color

took

retaliation, hostile environment and gender based discrimination incidents despite repeated complaints by plaintiff that these

Case 3:11-cv-01072-CCC Document 1

Filed 01/21/11 Page 7 of 19

affairs were adversely affecting the workplace and her working conditions as well as her person. 14. Despite plaintiffs repeated complaints to PRPD about co-defendant Lt. Reynaldo Torres Centeno pervasive and

continuous retaliation and its effect on the office, the PRPD failed to correct the situation. The co-defendants named herein are liable for the damages suffered by plaintiff as a result of their deliberate indifference and callous disregard to the

rights of female police officers such as plaintiff, including her, to be free from gender discrimination at the workplace and during working hours. 15. Defendants JOHN DOE, RICHARD ROE, PETER ROE, NANCY DOE, CARL ROE are other police agents and/or supervisors whose names are unknown who through their acts and/or omissions aided and abetted in the commission of acts and/or omissions constituting retaliation against plaintiff for having participated as a

witness in a sexual harassment complaint filed administratively with the Caguas Division of the PRPD and having complained about improper use of PRPD property by an officer of the PRPD. Said

acts and/or omissions constitute deliberate indifference and/or reckless disregard of plaintiffs Fourth and Fourteenth

amendment rights. FACTS: 16. Wilmary Santos Santos, began working for the Puerto

Case 3:11-cv-01072-CCC Document 1

Filed 01/21/11 Page 8 of 19

Rico Police Department on February 1 1994. In the year 2009, Plaintiff began working for the Strike Force Division, Caguas precinct. 17. Plaintiff is a witness in a sexual harassment case

against Simara Torres, director of administration of the CIC, Caguas division, fact known by the Defendants. 17 On April 5th 2010 Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Lieutenant Reynaldo Torres Centeno, who was the

director of the Strike Force Caguas precinct, which was created by Special District Attorney Guillermo Gil. 19. Plaintiff complained to Colonel Gregorio Merced

Vazquez, who was the director of the Caguas area, about the fact that Lieutenant Torres and others were using official vehicles of the Puerto Rico Police Department for personal matters, and also about other illegal activities going on regarding

Lieutenant Torres and other Agents. 20. Plaintiff went accompanied by Sergeant Maribel

Cartagena, who was her immediate supervisor at the Strike Force, to deliver a written complaint to Colonel Gregorio Merced

Vazquez.

Colonel Merced did not receive them, and referred them

to Commander William Ruiz Borras for a recommendation on the matter. Commander Ruiz Borras interviewed Plaintiff, Sergeant

Cartagena, and also Agent Claude Merced. 21. After the meeting, plaintiff received a phone call

Case 3:11-cv-01072-CCC Document 1

Filed 01/21/11 Page 9 of 19

from

Commander

Ruiz

Borras

asking

plaintiff

as

to

how

she

thought that Torres was going to react after he knew about the complaint filed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff told Commander Ruiz

Borras that she feared for her life since she knew that Torres was an aggressive person. Commander Ruiz told Plaintiff that he would recommend to to Colonel Merced for that Lieutenant reasons Torres until be the

transferred

another

place

security

investigation was concluded. 22. On April 6, 2010 Liutenant Reynaldo Torres ordered

Agent Figueroa Ayala and Agent Andy Acevedo Almodovar to write memos against Plaintiff, which they did. These memos were

delivered to Colonel Merced. 23. On April 15th 2010, a second letter regarding On an

retaliation was delivered to Cartagena and Commander Ruiz. this same day Commander Ruiz delivered a subpoena for

interview on April 23, 2010 with prosecutor Maria Hortensia Rios regarding a sexual harassment complaint filed by Agent Sofia Figueroa wherein Plaintiff is a witness. 24. On April 20th 2010 plaintiff attended a meeting with Captain Margarita and at George who is the Director of of the the Sexual of

Harassment Puerto

Domestic Colonel

violence Merceds

division requests.

Police

Rico

Captain

George

informed Plaintiff that she would make a written recommendation to Merced.

Case 3:11-cv-01072-CCC Document 1

Filed 01/21/11 Page 10 of 19

25. On May 2, 2010, while plaintiff was assigned to the precincts front desk, she noticed that she was being excluded from a Strike Force operation that was to take place at the Carolina area. 26. On May 18 2010, plaintiff started working accompanied

by Agent Merced. At around 12:30 P. M. plaintiff felt sick and told her partner to leave her at the police precinct in order to take a sick leave, and that Plaintiff would give notice to Sgt. Cartagena, her immediate supervisor. Sgt. Cartagena was not

available so plaintiff sent her a text message to inform her about Plaintiff taking the day off. Sergeant Cartagena returned

the call to plaintiff and asked her what was going on since Lieutenant Torres gave her a call and ordered her to report to the precinct because he had Plaintiffs transfer signed by

Lieutenant Merced and wanted to transfer Plaintiff right away. 27. Plaintiff complained to Cartagena, and asked her why she was being transferred if she did not request it, and that it was an act of retaliation against her. 28. On May 28 2010, Plaintiff complained about her

transfer to Rivera Vega, from CIC Caguas.

Plaintiff asked him

if she could be assigned to the Special Arrests Division, where she was assigned before being part of the Strike Force.

Plaintiffs request was based on the fact that in June 2009 when the Strike Force was created, a meeting was held, wherein

10

Case 3:11-cv-01072-CCC Document 1

Filed 01/21/11 Page 11 of 19

special prosecutor Guillermo Gil and Lieutenant Coronel Miguel Mejas Cruz, Badge # 2-10412, director of the Caguas Region, besides informing the group about their duties, they also

informed that if one of the group was to be removed from the Strike Force they would be returned to their previous position. 29. Lieutenant Rivera Vega informed Plaintiff that he did

not have any problem with her request but that he would have to speak to Captain Miguel A. Santiago Rivera, the CIC director. Captain Santiago Rivera denied Plaintiffs request to be

transferred to the Special Arrests Division. 30. On June 1 2010, Plaintiff showed up to work at the

CIC, and was transferred to the Property Division against her request to be transferred. 31. against Captain Miguel Santiago Riveras acts and/or omissions Plaintiff is a clear act of retaliation against

plaintiff for having been witness in a sexual harassment case against Sergeant Simara Torres, who was his right hand at the CIC Caguas Division. It is also retaliation for denouncing the illegal activities of Lt. II Reynaldo Torres Centeno. 32. On June 1st 2010, ever since Plaintiff was assigned to the Property Division, and she was interviewed by Lieutenant Flix Guadalupe Rivera. Plaintiff requested him to assign her

to the night shift from 6pm-2am, which was granted to Plaintiff.

11

Case 3:11-cv-01072-CCC Document 1

Filed 01/21/11 Page 12 of 19

33. On June 7th 2010, during morning hours, Plaintiff filled out and filed an appeal before the PRPDs Appellate Commission. When she returned back to work, she was informed that an Agent Figueroa requested had the returned night to work at the Property Division, and and

shift.

Lieutenant

Guadalupe

others

started to change Plaintiffs shift and she was assigned to work almost all weekends, when this not working on weekends was one of the benefits of working night shifts. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 33. Plaintiff incorporates herein paragraphs 1-32 as if

fully set forth herein. 34. Torres, After and Plaintiff after denounced testifying the as a illegal witness activities in a of

also

sexual

harassment case against Sex Crimes division head Simara Torres, defendants have been retaliating by way of transferring

Plaintiff; issuing unfounded memos about her performance; making changes weekend. in her shift these hours acts and making Plaintiff by work the every named

All

and/or

omissions

defendants, acting under color of law and during work hours at the workplace, constitute retaliation and are prohibited by the laws and Constitutions of the Unites States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

12

Case 3:11-cv-01072-CCC Document 1

Filed 01/21/11 Page 13 of 19

35. The named supervisors-co-defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by transferring her and intentionally retaliated

against her for having engaged in protected activity. 36. VII of The denounced action violates the provisions of Title the Civil Rights Act, which prohibit retaliation for

being a witness in a gender based discrimination suit and for being a witness and complaining about improper and/or illegal acts of a member of the entity for which plaintiff works. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 37. Plaintiff incorporates herein paragraphs 1-36 as if

fully set forth herein. 38. Defendants A conspiracy with the existed of against depriving Plaintiff her of by the the equal

purpose

protection of the laws, the defendants committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, and the plaintiff suffered a deprivation of a constitutionally protected right. 39. All named defendants are individually liable to

plaintiffs inasmuch as they all acted under the authority of their Puerto Rico Police Department positions and ranks. Under

color of law pursuant to such purported authority they subjected plaintiff to be deprived of her constitutional rights to not be deprived of her liberty, freedom of speech and property without due process of law. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

13

Case 3:11-cv-01072-CCC Document 1

Filed 01/21/11 Page 14 of 19

42 U.S.C. 1983 40. Plaintiff incorporates herein paragraphs 1-39 as if

fully set forth herein. 41. Plaintiff engaged in constitutionally protected

conduct and this conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the alleged adverse employment decision taken by Defendants that cause emotional pain to Plaintiff. 42. Defendants, through their acts and/or omissions,

acting under color of law, deprived plaintiff of her rights to freedom of expression, freedom of movement, equal protection of the laws, due process of law and to enjoy the opportunity to be promoted as a career police officer to a higher rank, all in violation of rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth

amendments to the constitution of the United States of America. 43. Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions after

exercising her First Amendment rights, FOR WHICH Defendants are liable under 42 USCA Section 1983. constitutionally substantial or protected motivating After Plaintiff engaged in this in the conduct alleged was a

conduct, factor

adverse

employment decision against Plaintiff FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 44. Plaintiffs incorporate herein all averments set forth in paragraphs 1-43 as if fully transcribed herein.

14

Case 3:11-cv-01072-CCC Document 1

Filed 01/21/11 Page 15 of 19

45.

Puerto

Rico

Law

115

prohibits

employers

from

discriminating against employees for offer[ing] or attempt[ing] to offer, verbally or in writing, any testimony, expression or information before a legislative, administrative or judicial

forum in Puerto Rico.. Plaintiff engaged in activity protected under Law 115 and then suffered discrimination at work. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 46. Plaintiff incorporates herein paragraphs 1-45 as if

fully set forth herein. 47. Defendants are liable under the laws of Puerto Rico for the damages that such negligence caused and/or which they foresaw or could have foreseen to occur. They are liable to plaintiffs under 31 LPRA, Articles 1802 and 1803 as well as under the special at labor the laws of Puerto Rico that prohibit

discrimination

workplace,

particularly

discrimination

based on gender (Law)17 approved on April 22, 1988, as amended, 29 LPRA, 155 et sq., Law approved on July 6, 1985, as amended, 29 LPRA 1321 et. Seq.). DAMAGES 48. As a direct result of the negligent, reckless and

discriminatory acts and/or omissions perpetrated by the named defendants, plaintiffs have suffered damages to their physical and emotional health, loss of belief in the American dream of equality, loss of income, loss of future income in terms of

15

Case 3:11-cv-01072-CCC Document 1

Filed 01/21/11 Page 16 of 19

promotions, FINANCIAL DURESS AND LOSS TO THE EXTENT OF HAVING TO FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY AND BE THREATENED TO LOSE THEIR PLACE OF ABODE, loss of their respective reputations within the Puerto Rico Police and their peers, damages which can be reasonably established in an amount of money not less than the following amounts as Compensation for: a) Mental and Psychological damages- One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) b) PHYSICAL DAMAGES ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) c) Punitive Damages- TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00); d) Future Pecuniary LossesONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND

DOLLARS ($150,000.00); e) Compensatory Damages FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS

($500,000.00); f)Double Compensation- TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000.00); plus costs and legal fees, and expert fees; and double damages compensation pursuant to Law 17, April 22, 1988, (29 Puerto Rico Laws Annotates 155-J). WHEREFORE plaintiff demands a judgment against all defendants and additionally respectfully prays that upon the filing of this complaint, the Court, as may appear proper and convenient, 1. Issue a preliminary order, restraining the defendants, their agents, and those persons acting in concert 16

Case 3:11-cv-01072-CCC Document 1

Filed 01/21/11 Page 17 of 19

participation civil other working rights; members for

with or of the

them,

from

violating the

PLAINTIFFS and

otherwise her PRPD,

denying

plaintiff

class, the

female right or a to

police be

officers from

free

continuous

sexual

harassment

hostile

working

environment or to otherwise exercise rights secured by the First Amendment and the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth States. 2. Advance this action on the docket and order a speedy hearing of this action according to law, and upon such hearing, enter a judgment or decree declaring that Amendment to the Constitution the United

defendants acts and omissions are void and repugnant to the First Amendment and the Due Process and Equal

Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution the United States of America; 3. Order defendant PRP to provide plaintiff with reasonable accommodation environment at a free workplace from sex free from a hostile and any

and

discrimination

type of discrimination so as to allow her to continue working as a police officer for the PRP. 4. Allow plaintiff compensation for damages she has

suffered, damages to her health and behavior, loss of belief in the American Dream of equality, damages which

17

Case 3:11-cv-01072-CCC Document 1

Filed 01/21/11 Page 18 of 19

can be reasonably established as stated above.

5.

Allow the plaintiff a constructive seniority for both competitive positions and benefits, with all back pay and other attendant in the fringe capacity benefits in accruing to an was

employee

and

which

plaintiff

employed at the time of the continuous sexual harassment and hostile work environment. 6. Order defendants to pay to plaintiff costs, including reasonable attorneys fees, and expert fees, as part of plaintiffs costs in this cause pursuant to 42 USC

2000e-5(k), as may appear to the court to be equitable and just. 7. Order defendants to be forewarned against any attempt to harass, attempt interfere, to contact influence, any threaten, extort and/or to the

witnesses

favorable

plaintiffs in order for them not to testify or alter their truthful testimonies favorable to plaintiffs,

which acts may be considered violations of federal and state laws prohibiting witness tampering. 8. And grant any other relief this Court may deem plaintiff is entitled to pursuant to 42 USC 1988 within the spirit and contents of Rules 1 and 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs respectfully pray 18

Case 3:11-cv-01072-CCC Document 1

Filed 01/21/11 Page 19 of 19

that

this

Honorable

Court

grant

the

remedies

sought

herein.

Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial by jury.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, in San Juan, Puerto Rico this 21st day of January 2011.

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify having filed this complaint through the Honorable Courts CM/ECF filing process on this same day. S/FRANK D. INSERNI MILAM FRANK D. INSERNI MILAM USDC-PR BAR#127807 P. O., BOX 193748 HATO REY, PUERTO RICO 00919-3748 TEL. (787) 759-7572/763-3851/fax: 763-5223 e-Mail:finserni@prtc.net S/JO-ANN ESTADES BOYER JO-ANN ESTADES BOYER U.S.D.C. NO. 211811 Taft Street #16 Apt. 2 Condado, Puerto Rico 00778. E-mail: joestades@yahoo.com/joestades@gmail.com

19