José González-Ortiz, an IT technician at PRASA, alleged that the agency and his supervisors terminated him in October 2022 because he wanted no part in NPP political activities at and outside of work — including, he claimed, rebuffing a request from IT Assistant Director Norman Torres-Maysonet for his allegiance to the NPP and a preferred slate in internal elections for a pro-NPP faction he called The Aquatics. PRASA countered that González-Ortiz was fired strictly for a June 10, 2022 workplace confrontation in which he allegedly approached IT Manager Heriberto Vázquez-García in an aggressive, threatening manner in front of multiple employees — conduct that PRASA's investigator concluded violated the collective bargaining agreement's workplace disorder rule.
U.S. District Judge Raúl M. Arias-Marxuach held that González-Ortiz could not establish a prima facie political discrimination claim because the undisputed record showed that Waleska López-Faría, PRASA's Human Resources and Labor Relations Director and the ultimate decisionmaker on the termination according to the record, had no personal knowledge of his political affiliations and no discriminatory intent — the latter a fact González-Ortiz himself conceded in his opposition brief, and the former established by López's own sworn statements.
González-Ortiz attempted to salvage his claim through a cat's paw theory, arguing that Torres and Vázquez's alleged discriminatory animus tainted López's decision. The court rejected that argument, noting that López was on record affirming she never spoke with either individual defendant about the investigation, and that González-Ortiz's briefs offered only speculation that Vázquez's account of the incident may have been skewed to perpetuate discriminatory animus — falling well short of the manipulation and proximate causation required under First Circuit and Supreme Court precedent.
The court also held that even assuming a prima facie case, PRASA's Mt. Healthy defense succeeded. The record showed a formal, neutral investigation, multiple witness interviews, an investigation report recommending dismissal, and an informal non-evidentiary hearing — all routed through an independent Human Resources department. Judge Arias-Marxuach acknowledged that González-Ortiz could fairly argue the penalty was severe for a confrontation that never became physical, but held that disagreement with PRASA's disciplinary judgment does not establish that politics drove the decision.
The court dismissed as immaterial the factual disputes González-Ortiz identified — including conflicting accounts of how aggressive he was, whether all witnesses were interviewed, and whether CBA timelines were followed — finding those disputes bore on the wisdom of PRASA's process, not on whether political animus caused the firing. Having dismissed the First Amendment claims with prejudice, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Puerto Rico constitutional and civil code claims and dismissed those without prejudice.