IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

CARMEN GARCIA SILVA

Plaintiff

V.

MUNICIPALITY OF ARECIBO; CARLOS
MOLINA RODRIGUEZ, in his official and
personal capacity and ILEANA J. MARTINEZ
ROSADO in her official and personal capacity

Defendant
CIVIL NO.

CIVIL RIGHTS
DECLARATORYJUDGMENT
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS
TRIAL BY JURY


COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
COMES NOW the plaintiff, through her undersigned attorneys and very respectfully
states, alleges and prays:
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343,
as Plaintiffs claims arise under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution and are being brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This Court also has
supplemental jurisdiction over all claims arising under the laws and Constitution of Puerto Rico
herein asserted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
2. Venue is proper in the District of Puerto Rico, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391. All
parties reside in Puerto Rico, and a substantial part of the acts, events and/or omissions giving
rise to these claims occurred in Puerto Rico.

2
II. PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Carmen Garca has worked for the Municipality of Arecibo since February
1, 1993. Before May 14, 2013, she was the person in charge of property of said municipality.
4. Defendant Municipality of Arecibo is an political and governmental entity created by
Commonwealth Law and is plaintiffs employer.
5. At all times herein material, Mr. Carlos Molina Rodrguez is the mayor of Arecibo,
its highest official.
6. At all times herein material, Ms. Ielana J. Martnez Rosado was the Director of
Personnel and Administration of the Municipality of Arecibo.
III. THE FACTS
7. Carmen was the person in charge of the disposal of the Municipalys equipment.
Around January 22, 2013, I sent a recommendation to the mayor of Arecibo to the effect of
selling via public auction useless equipment in order to better the battered citys finances. As
part of this effort, Carmen sought and obtained several offers for the purchase of said
equipment. She submitted the offers to Mr. Cruz at the Bidding office but he told her to keep
them because she was the one who had worked them. Later, Carmen went again to the Bidding
office but Mr. Cruz did not accept the offers.
8. Later, Carmen found out that the equipment was sold to Omega Recycling Co. for
$6,600 than one of the offers she had obtained. Frustrated with this loss to the Municipality,
Carmen sent a phone message to Carlos Molina Rodrguez, the mayor of Arecibo, that said I
regret to inform you that of the bid you failed to obtain $6,600 since there were better bidders
that had requested, had even come to see the junk in the transport and equipment area. It is a
pity with the need there is for money. They were good . . . Carmen Garca.
3
9. On May 13, 2013, Carmen received a letter dated May 10, 2013, signed by defendant
Ileana J. Martnez Rosado, where she was informed that due to the aforementioned message she
sent to Mayor Molina, she was being transferred from her position as the person in charge of
Property to the person in charge of the Library. The letter also says that she exceeded the
functions of her position, which was a delicate one and whose functions should be exercised
with a high degree of responsibility.
10. The person who held the position of person in charge of Property in the Library
worked and was paid for five (5) days a week, whereas when Carmen was sent there she was
paid only for four (4) days a week, a 20% reduction in salary. At this time, she still is the
person in charge of the Library. In addition, the person who was sent to substitute her previous
position was paid for five (5) days work.
IV. THE CAUSES OF ACTION
11. Plaintiff realleges paragraph 1-10.
12. When Carmen sent Mayor Carlos Molina Rodrguez the aforementioned message,
she did it as a private citizen and a resident of the Municipality of Arecibo. The message was
both a constructive criticism of the Mayor and the Municipalities actions as to the property it
sold and as petition for this not to happen again. The statements were in a matters of great
public concern inasmuch as the Municipality is in a dire economic situation.
13. Defendants, however, intentionally retaliated, under color of state law, against
Carmen by transferring her to a position of less prestige, responsibilities and pay. The First,
Fourteenth Amendment Rights and of 42 U.S.C. 1983 prohibit retaliatory actions against
public employees for statements made as to matters of great public concern.
4
14. Mayor Molina is liable to plaintiff since he is the principle executive officer of the
Municipality of Arecibo, in charge of executing its public policy and determining its personnel
movements. As head of the Municipality of Arecibo, decided to retaliate against Carmen and he
knew or had to know that plaintiffs transfer was a demotion, would entail loss of income and
that it was unconstitutional. In spite of this, Mayor Molina instructed Ms. Ileana J. Martnez
Rosado to proceed with his orders and the established Municipal policy of retaliating against
any employee who would criticize or comment any of its actions or that of its officials. These
actions by the Mayor of Arecibo make the municipality liable as he was executing was or
became Municipal policy of silencing any employee critical of defendants official actions by
means of different adverse actions against such employees including, but not limited to,
disciplinary transfers and cut back of salaries and benefits.
15. Ms. Ileana J. Martnez Rosado, as head of the personnel department, knew or had to
know that plaintiffs transfer was a demotion and would entail a loss of income, that it was
unconstitutional but did nothing to prevent it. In fact, she signed the letter informing Carmen of
said transfer. This defendant continued and executed the established Municipal policy of
retaliating against any employee who would criticize or comment any of its actions or that of its
officials.
16. The Municipality of Arecibo had the established municipal policy of silencing any
employee critical of defendants official actions by means of different adverse actions against
such employees including, but not limited to, disciplinary transfers and cut back of salaries and
benefits.
5
17. In addition, defendants actions were in violation of the rights secured Article II,
section 2 of the Commonwealth of Puerto Ricos Constitution. The Municipality is liable to
plaintiff for any actions taken by its employees in its official capacity.
18. Due to the abovementioned actions, plaintiff has suffered great pain and suffering,
humiliation and stress. These damages are valued a no less than $750,000. In addition, she is
suffering a loss of $2,381.52 a year due to her illegal and punitive transfer since the previous
person was paid for working 5 days a week and Carmen for only 4 days a week. Also, the
previous person who held the position plaintiff now holds, made $550 a month more than she
does now, which is in excess of $3,000 to date. In addition, the person who substituted Carmen
in her previous position, where she was paid for only four (4) days of work, is being paid for
five (5) days work. Moreover, plaintiff requests attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.
19. Plaintiff demands that all questions of fact be decided by a jury.
WHEREFORE: Plaintiff respectfully requests from the Honorable Court that it enter
judgment against defendants in the amoun tof $755,381.52, plus interest and attorneys fees.
Respectfully submitted on this 21st day of October, 2013.

/s John E. Mudd
John E. Mudd Bar Number: 201102
Attorney for Plaintiffs
LAW OFFICES JOHN E. MUDD
P. O. BOX 194134
SAN JUAN, P.R. 00919
(787) 754-7698, (787) 413-1673
Fax. (787) 753-2202
E-Mail jemudd@yahoo.com
/s John A. Stewart
John A. Stewart Bar Number: 231804
Attorney for Plaintiffs
PO Box 140357
Arecibo, PR 00614-0357
Tel/Fax: (787) 878-0403
E-mail: stewart_j_esq@msn.com