
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                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                 ___________________                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST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, Edda Serrano-Blasini, Deputy            ________________                      ____________________        Solicitor   General,   and  Edgardo   Rodriguez-Quilichini,  Assistant                                    ______________________________        Solicitor General, Department of Justice, on brief for appellee.                                  ____________________                                     May 8, 1997                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.   Jorge  Cancel-Lugo  appeals the  district                 ___________            court's  rejection, following  a bench  trial, of  his claims            against Carlos  Alvarado  as Executive  Director  of  Cancel-            Lugo's employer,  the Puerto Rican  Electric Power  Authority            (PREPA).   Cancel-Lugo argues that he  was transferred within            PREPA because of his political party affiliation in violation            of  42 U.S.C.     1983,  the  Puerto Rican  Constitution,  29            L.P.R.A.     136 and 146, and 3 L.P.R.A.   1334; and that his            due  process  rights   were  transgressed   because  he   was            transferred without a hearing.   After reviewing the parties'            briefs  and  the  record,  we affirm  for  substantially  the            reasons  given by  the  district court  after addressing  one            point not covered in the opinion below.                  On  appeal,  Cancel-Lugo  contends  that   the  district            court's finding  that Alvarado  had no  discriminatory intent            and  did not  cause Cancel-Lugo's transfer  is not  enough to            support  the dismissal of his claims under 29 L.P.R.A.    136            and 146,  which prohibit discrimination in  employment on the            basis  of  political affiliation.    Cancel-Lugo argues  that            Alvarado could be held vicariously liable for the acts of his            subordinates under 31 L.P.R.A.    5142.  However, our  cases,            reading the Puerto  Rican statutes in  light of the  Eleventh            Amendment,   refuse   to   impose   vicarious   liability  on            supervisory government officials under 29 L.P.R.A.    136 and            146.  Jusino  v. Zayas, 875  F.2d 986,  993 (1st Cir.  1989);                  ______     _____                                         -2-                                         -2-            Marin-Piazza v. Aponte-Roque, 873  F.2d 432, 436-37 (1st Cir.            ____________    ____________            1989).                 Affirmed.                  ________                                         -3-                                         -3-
