Case 3:12-cv-01063-JAG Document 1

Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO RIVERA-AVILES, RUBEN; FAJARDO-BENGOA, ROBERTO A. ; RODRIGUEZ-VALLE, SAMUEL; CENTENO-CRUZ, RAFAEL; MATTEI-SANCHEZ, RAFAEL; PEREZ, FRANCISCO J.; RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA, GLADYS; PAGAN, MARISOL; PEREZ-CUADRADO, PEDRO E.; SCHON, YVONNE M. * * * * * * * * * * * Plaintiffs * * v. * * U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, for its agency, * The DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; * ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General of the * United States, as head of the DoJ; * MICHELE LEONHART, DEA Administrator; * PEDRO J. JANER, Acting Special Agent in * Charge, Caribbean Division of the DEA; * * Defendants. * COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE COURT: COME NOW Plaintiffs, through undersigned legal counsel and most respectfully state, allege and pray as follows: 1. Nature of Action 1.1 This is an action seeking equitable relief in the form of declaratory judgment, permanent injunction, plus compensatory relief in the form of damages, back pay, interest on the back pay, and attorneys fees and the reimbursement of litigation costs, consequent to national origin discrimination in the disparate application of the discretionary authority granted to defendants
1

CIVIL NO.

National Origin Discrimination in federal employment practices; Disparate Treatment; Equal Protection Clause.

Case 3:12-cv-01063-JAG Document 1

Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 19

by the Federal Workplace Flexibility Act of 2004 and in the enactment of policies and adherence to customs and employment practices, that are grounded on a constitutionally suspect classification in violation of the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 2. The Parties 2.1 All plaintiffs are fully bilingual Puerto Rican federal employees of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Caribbean Division recruited by the agency in Puerto Rico and of Puerto Rican national origin. 2.2 All plaintiffs, with the exception of Samuel Rodrguez, occupy the position of Criminal Investigator, GS 1811, generally referred to as Special Agent. 2.3 All Special Agents (SA) signed a mobility agreement with the DEA. 2.4 A mobility agreement is the SAs acquiescence to frequent changes in posts of duty as it may be deemed necessary by DEA management in order to quickly respond to changes in drug trafficking patterns and trends in abuse of controlled substances. These transfers may be permanent or temporary according to the needs of the agency. More importantly, the mobility agreement specifies that transfers may be made for purposes of career development, also at the discretion of DEA management. In short, mobility is a condition of employment with the DEA. 2.5 All plaintiffs qualify for the Recruitment, Relocation, Retention and/or Extended Assignment Incentives of the Federal Workplace Flexibility Act of 2004, 5 USC 5753, 574 and 5757, effective May 1st, 2005.

Case 3:12-cv-01063-JAG Document 1

Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 19

2.6 Plaintiffs have never been provided the opportunity to sign a Service Agreement with the DEA. 2.7 A Service Agreement is a written agreement between the DEA and the prospective recipient of a Recruitment, Relocation or Extended Assignment Incentive in which the employee agrees to remain employed with the agency for a specified period of time. 2.8 For administrative and compensatory purposes plaintiffs are collectively referred to as Local Hires. 2.9 Rubn Rivera-Avils is a Special Agent of the DEA. He was recruited in Puerto Rico during the month of September 1999. His first assignment was to Quantico, Virginia for the sixteen weeks training at the Academy. During the third week of the Academy, approximately, plaintiff Rivera-Avils was provided with a list of vacancies and instructed to choose three in order of preference. Plaintiff was informed by his superiors that everyone was guaranteed to get assigned to at least one of the three preferences. Plaintiff was then assigned to McAllen, Texas, however, a couple of weeks before the end of the Academy he was informed by his superior that he was going to Puerto Rico but was not going to receive any incentives. SA Rivera-Avils has been assigned to the Caribbean Division for twelve years. 2.10 Roberto A. Fajardo-Bengoa is a Special Agent and the Polygraph Examiner of the

entire DEA Caribbean Division. He has occupied the position of Special Agent for 20 plus years and has been the Caribbean Divisions Polygraph Examiner since 1998, which requires an intensive four month academy given by the Department of Defense. When plaintiff FajardoBengoa was recruited in September 1991 it was as a Special Agent, before the DEA in Puerto Rico became a Divisional Office in 1995. The practice then was not to return the agents back
3

Case 3:12-cv-01063-JAG Document 1

Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 19

to where they had been hired or lived. However, the day Plaintiff was sworn in he was categorically informed by his superior that he had no alternative but to return to Puerto Rico because as a Puerto Rican he was used to living the life in Puerto Rico this was his island. SA Fajardo-Bengoa attended the Academy at Quantico from September 1991 to January 1992 and was not even afforded the chance to choose the three-preferred assignments, and was simply informed that he was returning to San Juan while the rest of his class chose their assignments from various options that were presented to them. 2.11 Samuel Rodrguez-Valle is an Investigative Telecommunications Specialist (ITS) of

the DEA and as a collateral duty is also the Primary Communications Security (COMSEC) Manager for the DEA Caribbean Division, which requires Top Secret Security Clearance with a COMSEC designator. He was recruited by the DEA in June 1996 when he was working at the Federal Communications Commission. Plaintiff Rodriguez-Valle was not offered a mobility agreement upon hiring nor has been provided the opportunity to sign a Service Agreement. ITS Rodrguez Valle occupies a technical field position which requires extensive knowledge of wireless communications, infrastructure and a myriad of equipment types with multiple subscribers, knowledge which is mostly acquired by military training and experience.
2.12

Rafael Centeno-Cruz is a Special Agent of the DEA. He was recruited in December

of 1999 and attended the Academy at Quantico from January 8, 2000 to April 28, 2000. At the Academy Plaintiff Centeno-Cruz was assigned to the Philadelphia office, however, he was sent to the Caribbean Division on May 1st, 2000, for a period of thirty (30) days in order to prepare for the move to Philadelphia. During those thirty (30) days SA Centeno-Cruz was informed by the then Caribbean Divisions Special Agent in Charge, Michael Vigil, that due to the shortage of
4

Case 3:12-cv-01063-JAG Document 1

Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 19

personnel he was being reassigned to Puerto Rico and that no incentive accompanied such forced assignment. 2.13 Rafael Mattei-Snchez is a Special Agent of the DEA. He was recruited in August

2000 and attended the Academy at Quantico from August to December of that same year. During the Academy when Plaintiff was asked to choose the three preferred assignments, there were no positions available for Puerto Rico, so he wrote it in. He has asked for transfer to other offices and such transfers have not been granted. 2.14 Francisco J. Prez is a Special Agent of the DEA. He was recruited during January

2002 and attended the Academy at Quantico from January to May 2002. Plaintiff was not even afforded the chance to choose the three-preferred assignments. At the Academy SA Prez was simply informed that he was returning to San Juan while the rest of his class chose their assignment from various options that were presented to them. 2.15 Gladys Rodrguez-Garca is a Special Agent of the DEA. She was recruited and

attended the Academy at Quantico from November 2004 to March 2005. Plaintiff RodrguezGarca was not offered any choices for assignment and was returned to Puerto Rico because she was Puerto Rican and spoke Spanish. SA Rodrguez-Garca has asked for transfer to other offices several times and such transfers have not been granted. 2.16 Marisol Pagn is a Special Agent of the DEA. She was recruited in November

2004. Plaintiff Pagn attended the Academy at Quantico from May 2005 to September 2005. At the Academy SA Pagan had the opportunity to choose three preferred assignments but the staff commented that she was going to Puerto Rico even though other candidates had also applied to the Caribbean Division position.
5

Case 3:12-cv-01063-JAG Document 1

Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 19

2.17

Pedro Edwin Prez-Cuadrado is a Special Agent of the DEA. He was recruited

during the year 2005. Plaintiff attended the Academy at Quantico from October 2007 to February 2008. When Plaintiff Prez-Cuadrado made his three choices of preferred assignments, one of the positions chosen was at the Border and purposefully excluded Puerto Rico. However, the same superior officer who was reviewing SA Prez-Cuadrados documents indicated you know you are returning to Puerto Rico and that he had no right to any bonus or incentive because he was a local hire. 2.18 Yvonne M. Schon is a Special Agent of the DEA. She was recruited in September

2007. Plaintiff attended the Academy at Quantico from August to December 2008. During the Academy the superior officers informed the class that several positions where open in Puerto Rico at that the agents that chose such assignment would receive a series of bonus or incentives including the recruitment, relocation, retention and extended assignment incentives. Plaintiff Schon is married to another Special Agent of the DEA that lives in Puerto Rico and her preferred assignment was thus Puerto Rico, a fact that was known by her Class Coordinator at Quantico. Consequently, plaintiff Schons Class Coordinator asked the superior officer if the incentives that had been announced for those who chose Puerto Rico as an assignment were also available for Plaintiff Schon. The response was that the incentives did not apply to her situation because SA Schon was a Local Hire. 2.19 The Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, is one of the law enforcement

agencies of the United States Department of Justice created through an Executive Order in July 1973 by the merger of various federal bureaus and offices that worked in drug trafficking

Case 3:12-cv-01063-JAG Document 1

Filed 01/31/12 Page 7 of 19

intelligence and investigations and for the purpose of establishing a single unified command to combat an all-out global war on the drug menace. 2.20 Defendant Eric Holder is the Attorney General of the United States and as such is

the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. He is included as a party defendant in his official capacity. 2.21 Defendant Michele Leonhart is the Administrator of the DEA and as such is the

chief executive officer of the agency. Administrator Leonhart is sued in her personal and official capacities. 2.22 Defendant Pedro J. Janer is the Acting Special Agent in Charge of the DEA

Caribbean Division Office and as such the person in charge of all managerial matters pertinent to the issues brought forth in this complaint. ASA Janer is sued in his personal and official capacities. 3. Jurisdiction 3.1 This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1331 for those causes of action that arise under a federal statute or the Constitution of the United States. 3.2 This court also has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1343(a)(3) for those causes of action brought to redress the deprivation, under color of regulation, custom or usage, of plaintiffs rights to equality. 3.3 Furthermore, the court has jurisdiction to review a constitutional violation caused by a federal employee pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

Case 3:12-cv-01063-JAG Document 1

Filed 01/31/12 Page 8 of 19

3.4 However, if the court finds that the claims brought forth against the specifically named federal officers are in fact claims against the United States, then this court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1346(a)(2). 3.5 Plaintiffs claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 USC 2201 and 2202, by Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and by the inherent equitable powers of the Court. 3.6 Venue lies with this Court since the facts alleged in this complaint occurred within the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico. 4. The Facts 4.1 The Federal Workforce Flexibility Act was signed into law on October 30, 2004. The Act provides agencies of the federal government with greater flexibility with regards to allocating recruitment and retention bonuses, annual leave for new senior executives coming to work for the federal government from the private sector, and pay for employees in certain critical and hard-to-fill positions. 4.2 The Flexibilities Act gives agencies considerable discretionary authority to provide additional direct compensation in certain circumstances to support their recruitment, relocation, and retention efforts. 4.3 When an agency has determined that a position is likely to be difficult to fill in the absence of an incentive, a Recruitment Incentive may be paid to newly-appointed employees. In exchange for the incentive, the employee commits to complete a specified period of service by signing a Service Agreement. This Recruitment Incentive caps at 25 percent of the

employees annual rate of basic pay in effect at the beginning of the service period.
8

Case 3:12-cv-01063-JAG Document 1

Filed 01/31/12 Page 9 of 19

4.4 The DoJ defines a recruitment incentive or bonus as a discretionary lump-sum payment of up to 25 percent of basic pay made to an employee newly appointed to a hard-to-fill position, 5 CFR part 575, subpart A. 4.5 When an agency has determined that a position is likely to be difficult to fill in the absence of an incentive, a Relocation Incentive may be paid to a current employee who must relocate to accept a position in a different geographic area. In exchange for the incentive, the employee must sign a Service Agreement for a period not to exceed four years. The cap for the relocation incentive is identical to the Recruitment Incentive, that is, 25 percent of the basic pay. 4.6 The DoJ defines a Relocation incentive or bonus as a discretionary lump-sum payment of up to 25 percent of basic pay made to an employee who must relocate to accept a hard-to-fill position in a different commuting area, 5 CFR 575, subpart B. 4.7 When an agency has determined that the unusually high or unique qualifications of an employee or a special need of the agency make the employees services essential, in order to retain the employee a Retention Incentive or Allowance may be paid. A Retention Incentive may also be authorized for a group or category of employees. The individual retention incentive caps at 25 percent but can be approved by the Office of Personnel Management up to 50 percent of the basic pay. Retention incentives for a group or category of employees cap at 10 percent. The signing of a Service Agreement is not necessary for a retention incentive, but if signed, the percentage is usually augmented and the terms of payment are better. 4.8 The DoJ defines a Retention Allowance as a discretionary biweekly payment of up to 25 percent of basic pay made to retain an employee with unusually high or unique skills who would be likely to leave the federal service in the absence of the allowance, 5 CFR 575, subpart C.
9

Case 3:12-cv-01063-JAG Document 1

Filed 01/31/12 Page 10 of 19

4.9 When an agency has determined that the retention of experienced, well-trained employees in Puerto Rico for a longer period of time than the employees initial tour of duty is necessary, an Extended Assignment Incentive may be paid. In exchange for the incentive, the employee must sign a Service Agreement for a specified period not to exceed five years. The cap for the EAI is also 25 percent of the basic pay. 4.10 The law (5 CFR 575, subpart E) and DoJs policies indicate that its agencies may

pay an extended assignment incentive (EAI) to eligible federal employees assigned to positions located in a territory of possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. An EAI is meant to assist agencies in retaining experienced, well-trained employees in these locations for a longer period than the employees initial tour of duty. 4.11 Consequently, for a Recruitment Incentive, a Relocation bonus or an EAI the

signing of a service agreement is indispensable. 4.12 The service agreement must be written, must specify the period of additional In addition, the service

employment with the agency in one of the covered locations.

agreement must specify the amount of the incentive payment, the method of paying the incentive, the conditions under which an agreement may be terminated, the requirements and procedures for the repayment of incentive payments if the employee separates prior to the completion of the service period, and any other terms and conditions for receiving and retaining incentive payments.

10

Case 3:12-cv-01063-JAG Document 1

Filed 01/31/12 Page 11 of 19

4.13

Plaintiffs have all been denied the opportunity to sign a Service Agreement,

despite it been a legal requirement of DEA employment in Puerto Rico pursuant to the EAI statute. 4.14 As of May 2011 over 50 percent of authorized positions in the Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), 22 percent of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) positions and 17 percent of DEA positions in Puerto Rico remained vacant. 4.15 Statistically, fewer workers are entering federal law enforcement and the already

high-need is increasingly becoming more critical in Puerto Rico. 4.16 Accordingly, the Attorney General of the United States authorized the use of

recruitment, relocation, retention and extended assignment incentives throughout all of its agencies, including the DEA, for recruitment in critical areas such as Puerto Rico. 4.17 Pursuant to the Flexibilities Act, before paying any incentive, the agency has to

establish the corresponding plan. The plan must include the designation of officials with authority to review and approve the payment of incentives, the categories of employees who may receive each type of incentive, and all other criteria necessary to provide uniformity in the practical application of the agencys discretionary authority. 4.18 On January 10, 2005, the Department of Justice issued its plan for paying EAIs

and delegated the authority to approve EAIs to the bureau heads with authority to delegate. The DEAs Administrator is codefendant Leonhart. 4.19 Accordingly, the DEA prepared the pertinent and legally required plans for

implementation of all incentives.

11

Case 3:12-cv-01063-JAG Document 1

Filed 01/31/12 Page 12 of 19

4.20

In the practical application of the plan for each incentive the employees of Puerto

Rican origin, referred to in the DEA as local hires, are excluded. 4.21 At present there are approximately 68 Special Agents in DEA, Caribbean Division.

Eighteen (18) Special Agents, including the plaintiffs, are local hires and receive no incentive whatsoever. The remaining fifty (50) special agents are non-local hires and all of them receive some type of incentive. 4.22 Consequently, the local-hires are receiving less pay than their non-Puerto Rican

counterparts despite occupying the same position. 4.23 In employing their authority, defendants have excluded plaintiffs, the Puerto

Rican agents, and have created a de facto devalued category of federal employee that will earn at least twenty five percent (25%) less than its non-Puerto Rican peers. 4.24 Plaintiffs have all individually and/or collectively requested from defendants and

the DEA the opportunity to sign a Service Agreement, be it for service in Puerto Rico or at a new duty station, pursuant to the mobility requirements of the mobility agreement. 4.25 Defendants and the DEA have denied plaintiffs the opportunity to sign the

Service Agreements. 4.26 By refusing to provide plaintiffs, the local hires, the opportunity to sign Service

Agreements the DEA justifies the consistent denial of the incentives and other benefits of employment which are however available to non-local hires, such as the opportunity to transfer to a new duty station. 4.27 When plaintiffs request from the Special Agent in Charge that they be granted

any of the available incentives, particularly the EAI which was specifically legislated for Puerto
12

Case 3:12-cv-01063-JAG Document 1

Filed 01/31/12 Page 13 of 19

Rico, SAICs respond that in order to qualify they need to leave the Island in transfer and then return. However, plaintiffs are also denied the possibility of transfer. 4.28 The exclusion of local hires from incentives and transfer opportunities is a

policy or custom of the DEA Puerto Rico Office and has been consistently put in effect by all Special Agents in Charge including the current acting SAC Janer. 4.29 This policy or custom of the DEA Puerto Rico Office is known, or should have

been known by, the Administrator of the DEA, defendant Michele Leonhart, and the U.S. Attorney General, defendant Eric Holder. 4.30 Furthermore, defendants SAC Janer, Administrator Leonhart and AG Holder have

failed to take effective or remedial action, either directly or in the exercise of their supervisory authority, to eradicate the DEA-Puerto Rico Office policy or custom of excluding local hires from the incentives afforded to federal employees by the Flexibilities Act and from other benefits of federal law enforcement employment. 4.31 In practical reality the incentives are reserved for non-local hires that have no

commitment to remain in Puerto Rico, beyond the specified period of time for which the Service Agreement was signed and upon completion immediately leave. 4.32 The local hires have a commitment to remain in Puerto Rico and to make their

career in the Island. In contrast, the non-local hires commitment to Puerto Rico is short-lived and inextricably bound to the economic incentives they receive and plan to make their career somewhere else.

13

Case 3:12-cv-01063-JAG Document 1

Filed 01/31/12 Page 14 of 19

4.33

Furthermore, the incentives-benefitted non-local hires do not possess the

abilities, competences or expertise of the local hires most do not speak the Spanish language fluently - and as such are not the agencys best assets in Puerto Rico. 4.34 The uniqueness of the Puerto Rican reality and the peculiarities and

characteristics of our culture and language make it virtually impossible for a non-local hire that does not speak the Spanish language nor is familiar with the idiosyncrasies of the Puerto Rican drug trade, to perform their duties as Special Agents. 4.35 Consequently, the local hires are not only denied the employment benefits and

economic incentives reserved to other federal employees, but are also required to work in enforcement, in the streets, as undercover agents, while their non-local hire and much better economically compensated peers work administrative duty from the comfort of an office. 4.36 Most recently, Acting SAC Janer verbally informed plaintiffs that the recruitment

plan was to reassign local hires to enforcement duty in order to vacate the support positions, which are naturally more attractive, so as to entice non-local hires to come to Puerto Rico. Hence, the advertised vacancy announcement of December 28, 2011 included three support positions that were previously occupied by senior local-hires who are now sent back to the streets for enforcement duty, in order to accommodate the new non-local hires. 4.37 That is, local hires are not only receiving less compensation, but their working

conditions are more dangerous since due to their unique abilities plaintiffs are now the designated cannon fodder of the DEA Puerto Rico office.

14

Case 3:12-cv-01063-JAG Document 1

Filed 01/31/12 Page 15 of 19

4.38

Such practice, together with the denial of the possibility of a transfer to a new

duty station, is also a reckless disregard to plaintiffs safety, principally due to the minuscule geographic extension of Puerto Rico in contrast to other jurisdiction of the United States. 4.39 The U.S. Office of Personnel Management defendants in a May 27th, 2009

memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies regarding the effective use of Recruitment, Relocation and Retention Incentives indicates that these incentives (commonly known as the 3Rs) are used to attract and retain the talent the Government needs to meet the many challenges confronting the country. Accordingly, defendants were directed to weigh the cost of using any of these pay flexibilities against the benefits to be gained. 4.40 In Puerto Rico the DEA is using the 3Rs to discriminate against the local hires

who are the talent that the Federal Government needs to meet the increasingly exigent challenges of the drug trafficking in Puerto Rico. 4.41 This disparate practice in pay compensation and work conditions, is known, or

should have been known by, the Acting SAC Janer, the Administrator of the DEA, defendant Michele Leonhart, and the U.S. Attorney General, defendant Eric Holder. 5. Cause of Action Violation of the Equal Protection Principles of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (National Origin Discrimination) 5.1 The Constitution neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 623 (1996) (quoting Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 547, 559 (1896) (Harlan, J. dissenting). This is the basic principle of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

15

Case 3:12-cv-01063-JAG Document 1

Filed 01/31/12 Page 16 of 19

5.2 Governmental classification that affect some groups of citizens differently than others is contrary to this fundamental principle of equal protection Engquist v. Or. Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (quoting McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425 (1961). 5.3 To say that all citizens are entitled to equal protection of the laws is essentially a direction (to the government) that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 472 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) (citing Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982). 5.4 Although the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to the states, the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from (the) ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive. The equal protection of the laws is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than due process of law, and, therefore, (although not) always interchangeable phrases discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) 5.5 Consequently, the violation by the federal government of the equal protection principles is actionable through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 5.6 The inconsistent application of rules and policies favoring one group of people over another, as is the situation in the instant complaint, is disparate treatment. 5.7 Discrimination results when rules and policies are applied differently to members of protected classes. 5.8 National origin and/or ethnicity are constitutionally suspect classifications (see, Korematsu v. U.S., 323 U.S. 214 (1944) (national origin); Hernndez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954) (ethnic groups).
16

Case 3:12-cv-01063-JAG Document 1

Filed 01/31/12 Page 17 of 19

5.9 Local hires, as referred to in the instant complaint, are Special Agents of the DEA who were hired in Puerto Rico and are Puerto Ricans. 5.10 5.11 Local hires corresponds to a suspect classification of national origin or ethnicity. The actions and inactions of defendants in relation to the plaintiffs, through the

execution of the previously specified policies, customs and directives, and the failure to take effective remedial action, are founded upon a constitutionally suspect classification and thus must be submitted to the heightened strict scrutiny analysis (see, Carolene Products v. U.S., 304 U.S. 144 (1938), footnote 4). 5.12 Under the appropriate heightened scrutiny analysis, defendants actions and

inactions and the customs, policies and directives of the DEA, do not survive constitutional inquest. 5.13 A federal officer may be sued for injunctive relief to enjoin the (constitutionally)

challenged conduct Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (1949). Injunctive relief includes backpay Negrn-Almeda v. Santiago, 528 F.3d 15, 26 (1st Cir. 2008). 5.14 A federal officer may be sued for damages due to a violation of the constitutional

rights afforded by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (see, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); Correctional Services v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001). A federal officer may be sued if he/she acted in excess of the statutory authority or unconstitutionally Dalton v. Spencer, 511 U.S. 462, 472 (1994). 5.15 Defendants are sued for injunctive relief and for damages.

17

Case 3:12-cv-01063-JAG Document 1

Filed 01/31/12 Page 18 of 19

Relief Sought

A. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury. B. Defendants have engaged in discriminatory practices with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the plaintiffs and as such plaintiffs request: the issuance of a declaratory judgment asserting the constitutional violation and plaintiffs rights to equal pay and working conditions; the issuance of an equitable order requiring that defendants provide to plaintiffs the pertinent Service Agreement and be immediately awarded all economic incentives and other benefits of employment that they have been denied; the issuance of a permanent injunction ordering the immediate cessation of the complained conduct; C. Defendants previously specified actions and inaction, which constitute violations to basic constitutional rights of equality, have caused plaintiffs to suffer emotional pain, suffering, inconveniences, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and of physical and mental health and pecuniary losses for which compensatory damages are requested in an amount estimated in One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) each. D. Plaintiffs have also suffered the loss of past employment compensations and benefits, for which back pay and interest on such back pay is requested. E. Plaintiffs are also entitled, and so request, the payment by Defendants of a reasonable amount for attorney's fees and the reimbursement of all costs incurred in this litigation. F. Plaintiffs also request all other equitable and legal relief to which they may be entitled.
18

Case 3:12-cv-01063-JAG Document 1

Filed 01/31/12 Page 19 of 19

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this court grant the instant complaint in all its parts. In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 31st day of January, 2012. LOPEZ TORO Estudio de Derecho & Notara Hato Rey Center 268 Ponce de Len, Suite 915 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918 Tel. 787-296-0280, Fax. 787-296-0282 ESTUDIOLOPEZTORO@aol.com

S/Bmily Lpez Ortiz

Bmily Lpez Ortiz USDC-PR 205410

19