of the human resources authority or the human resources office of the puerto rico i went to a quotation authority she had been working there for more than ten years and working for the government for more than twenty five years and specifically we was asking for him to not follow the proper procedure in order to take action and that he and this is what i had told him it had to come out from your from your department and you have to come out from the from the director's because they have access to  sensitive information also there is evidence in the record that state mike mr sanchez as my client you have to be careful i around that same time you have to be careful because they want your head from matter what motivated an employer's inquiry into what turned out to be a legitimate reason for terminations yes book because if there is kasia the inquiry into the facts that lead to a terminations doesn't make any difference sure what caused the look if the look on fair analysis discloses that there was an entirely apolitical reason for termination i think it there is the record shows that towards my client afterwards the head of the human resources departments office so your argument is that the law was the law in this area is that what there is a completely legitimate a political factually sustainable reason for discharge that matters not at all if the reason the inquiry began in the lot of store in the fact that it was during the p d p administration the two investigations were done the promotion of your client to the position that she hadn't and the highway department and the and both of those investigations reveal significant your regularities in the way in which that promotion was carried out and that those irregularities in the district court explain at least in substantial part we can talk about the mixed motives aspect of this case but those irregularities certainly provide a political basis for dismissing her is there anything wrong with the district court's analysis of that what i would say factual assertion that there were these all of these irregularities when i was sais to issues and i know this goes of a tradition common to both parties of disregarding some of the rules and regulations that apply to promotions and transfers and they want to put a stop to that and so they  really they adopt a rule which says that instances where there has been this disregard of the rules that apply to promotions and transfers we're going to ferret that out and if we find instances of that we're going to terminate you can make that decision in order to know if they discriminated against her because of their political affiliation it is the authority the employer and the employer knew since two thousand and one and two thousand and four the there when the action was taken against my client on december two thousand and nine was the same person that as an employee of the authority reviewed the documents when my client requests to be required is the notion that it might be the case that the irregularity could be of such a kind that any person would acknowledge that that should be a firing offense and the fact that it wasn't a firing offense in the past might not matter but if i'm understanding you suggest soon is the fact that there was no firing for these irregularities for all those years we continue to light of what the nature of the regularities on our suggests that it reasonable jury could conclude it's not the kind of thing you automatically fire for therefore they could draw an inference that the reason she actually was fired was the political evidence that the only people affected by public but all of those people would be potentially in the same situation which is the prior administration excused all that conduct so it doesn't really it's not very probative no pick because because you're is there anyone that you can identify who the audit shows have a similar regularity who has not been fired no your inabilities is every person who got it identified as having regular it where they all terminated well kno not terminated only eleven of them were only eleven of them were received intension off terminations and only a few of those eleven wearing in fact i mean it when the fuck when the cases were followed then they st told the new agency where she got the promotion in the her description of her area of responsibility was inaccurate that's correct your honor that each shooty authority you know about at that moment party and government that in that ten year she was asked to submit evidence as to her paperwork for the transfer ok in two thousand and nine that was prior to day information our car on april twenty ninth two thousand and nine was prior to that the agency was taking action was looking for to know what happened with that transfer so they already know that would prevent a reasonable jury from concluding despite all of that history that you've documented the reason that she was hired was because she was a member of the wrong party what would that information is capable of deciding it's not worth firing for because they didn't fire then the authority of the new ministers in comes in with that same information doesn't fire her so this is not a case in which we have any reason to think this is an offense that we always fire for because the authority didn't fire her for it some years before so why couldn't the jury conclude what changed wasn't anything record we do have i guess it's just the question is what yes you have but i don't think that they that the mere fact that they conducted out in two thousand and four and then in two thousand and nine they try to obtain more documents in regard to h approached look at turns out that you're not qualified for the job you but we have other positions that you are qualified for their lesser salary or whatever and we're recommending that you be moved to that position was that ever inflated is or her qualifications but was terminated as opposed to being offered a demotion i cannot answer that question on but based on this record the answer is no is nuance it is now but thing is that there are many how many other people in this variant of time were terminated at the transportation authority and that was like i think there were twenty one your honor and how many of them were members of the  i cannot i cannot make  says according to plaintiffs i guess on the basis of material in the record put in there by plaintiff's scoring to plaintiff as a result of the personnel files audited in the summer of two thousand  only p d p employees were dismissed that's what the district court says the record shows as to the political affiliation of individuals dismissed in the summer of two thousand on but the i think somewhat probably the district court as maybe so but there is no evidence that only p d p employees were dismissed at the end of the audit i was not compatible with the approach the court is supposed to take to summary judgment to say well there's that evidence only p d employees were dismissed but there could have been more because they don't have more some resolutions and that were air at that moment she was in case that she was offered another position in lieu of the certification that she didn't didn't qualify for the position that humor resources some application problem the order of circumstance would be to offer the person to return the being or what you're telling us that was not offered here i take it your position is they didn't have to do that exactly and the thing is that secretary with somebody talked with the secretary the secretary thought she was not being supervised that could be easily characterized as a mistake as opposed to roll you are would you agree well it's false information that you provided it's not true but i want to give you the opportunity to prove that you have seven years experience for the human resources department and that two years of supervis the government has to come back and explain the politics didn't motivated because we had a reason for doing this that was unrelated to the parties and their evidence of that here as well we fired lots of people based on the audit having said that much where's the burden fall you say well that doesn't count because everybody on your list has the same political affiliation they say back but that's the universe of people that we know about who were terminated power and does it predate the conversation about a week where are you saying you have the strongest direct evidence of political discrimination was that the rule was if you should go for that yes yes you are know how come then you say that it's obvious that what set the train in motion for firing on the basis of the art it was the concern about the leaking her political affiliation as opposed to a neutral desire to look out whether people still in the employee of the authority had a regular is now hiring terry salt of the year that are in accordance with what happened between and this is a talk at one fifty eight thank you