In Chardon et al. v. Fumero Soto et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case involving alleged political discrimination in Puerto Rico's Department of Education and Vocational Rehabilitation Administration under the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association, as well as due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs were former employees who claimed they were dismissed from their positions because of their political affiliations with a party opposing that of then-Governor Carlos Romero Barceló’s New Progressive Party (NPP). They sought damages for wrongful termination based on these constitutional violations. The court held that the statute-of-limitations period began when notice was given about termination, not at its effective date or later when an appeal might be resolved unfavorably for an employee. This ruling reversed previous decisions by lower courts which had allowed claims filed more than one year after notification but less than one year after actual dismissal or unsuccessful appeals. Furthermore, it was determined that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove systematic discriminatory dismissals within both departments; therefore, some individual cases were remanded back to district court for further proceedings while others were dismissed outright.

In the dissenting opinion for Chardon et al. v. Fumero Soto et al., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, disagreed with the majority's interpretation of when a cause of action begins in federal employment discrimination cases under 42 U.S.C §1983. The dissent argued that the statute should begin to run only when an employee is notified of their termination or adverse employment decision, not at any earlier point such as when an employer makes a decision internally but has yet to communicate it to affected employees. They contended that this approach was more consistent with principles of fairness and common sense because employees cannot be expected to file lawsuits before they are aware they have been harmed. Furthermore, they believed this interpretation better aligned with Congress' intent behind anti-discrimination laws - ensuring victims had sufficient opportunity to seek redress.