Opinion ID: 202064
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Insufficient Evidence of Discriminatory Animus

Text: 23 The First Amendment protects the right of public career employees — those not in trust or policy-making positions — to engage in political activities without fear of adverse employment actions. Padilla-García v. José Guillermo Rodríguez, 212 F.3d 69, 74 (1st Cir.2000). It is undisputed that Rodríguez and Escobar were public career employees at the time they suffered adverse employment actions. The plaintiffs here bear[] the burden of producing sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence from which a jury reasonably may infer that [their] constitutionally protected conduct — in this case, political affiliation with the NPP — was a `substantial' or `motivating' factor behind [their demotions]. Vázquez-Valentín, 385 F.3d at 30 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). 24 Defendants assert on appeal that the district court improperly denied their Rule 50(a), 50(b), 59(a), and 59(e) motions contesting the jury's finding of political discrimination. In their brief, defendants developed only the argument that the evidence was insufficient for a jury to find discriminatory animus. We thus address only defendants' Rule 50 argument and consider the other arguments waived. 4 Acevedo-García v. Monroig, 351 F.3d 547, 561 (1st Cir.2003) (We have steadfastly deemed waived issues raised on appeal in a perfunctory manner, not accompanied by developed argumentation. (internal quotation marks omitted)). We review the denial of a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo. Zachar v. Lee, 363 F.3d 70, 73 (1st Cir.2004). We will affirm unless the evidence, together with all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict, could lead a reasonable person to only one conclusion, namely, that the moving party was entitled to judgment. Sheils Title Co. v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 184 F.3d 10, 19 (1st Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have no trouble finding that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that plaintiffs' political affiliations were a substantial or motivating factor behind their demotions. 25 First, plaintiffs presented ample evidence that their demotions were improper and the result of discrimination. Rodríguez and Escobar were long-standing employees of the AOC — Rodríguez since 1994 and Escobar since 1986 — and both were considered competent employees. It is suspicious that both of them were demoted without being given any notice or opportunity to defend their promotions, especially since the initial explanation offered for the demotions was simply missing documentation. One would expect that Rodríguez and Escobar would first be consulted to determine if the necessary documentation had been misplaced. Further, these missing documents mysteriously reappeared after Rodríguez and Escobar presented their copies of the missing documents, and Rodríguez threatened an investigation over the missing documents. Even after the missing documents were replaced, Rodríguez and Escobar were not reinstated; rather, other justifications were given for their demotions. Finally, Rodríguez and Escobar's demotions appeared to be punitive. Rodríguez — despite her competency, experience, law degree, and notary certification — was reinstated into the low position of Social-Penal Technician I and placed in a dangerous environment at the maximum security prison in Ponce. Similarly, Escobar — despite her 14 years of experience with the AOC and having nearly finished her probationary period as Regional Head — was demoted to Social-Penal Technician IV. 26 Second, plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that Dávila made the decision to demote them. Dávila wrote a letter to the human resources department, asking that the personnel files of thirty-four employees, including Rodríguez and Escobar, be evaluated. After Rodríguez was demoted, she went to see Rivera-González, and he referred her to Dávila. Dávila told her that her promotion was unlawful and that she was not entitled to a hearing. When Rodríguez sought to examine her personnel file, she discovered that Dávila was in possession of it. When another attorney, Gloria Ortiz, was assigned to evaluate Rodríguez's case, Dávila did not give Ortiz the file despite being asked to do so. Escobar also consulted Rivera-González after being demoted, and he advised her to speak with Dávila. Dávila told her that documents were missing from her file, and Escobar supplied Dávila with the missing documents. At a later meeting, Dávila told her that even with all the documentation, her demotion would stand because she had not met all the requirements for the position. 27 Third, plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that the discrimination was based on political affiliation. The review was instigated by Dávila (acting on behalf of the incoming PDP administration) and every employee of Zoé Laboy (a member of the outgoing NPP administration) had his or her file reviewed except for one, who happened to be a member of the PDP. Such a review is not necessarily improper, as the PDP administration may certainly investigate potential illegal appointments by the NPP administration. However, it suggests that Dávila knew that both Rodríguez and Escobar were NPP supporters. Rodríguez testified that both Rivera-González and Dávila made statements to her indicating that her demotion was politically motivated. Rivera-González and Dávila denied making such statements, but it is for the jury to resolve such issues of credibility. Finally, both Rodríguez and Escobar testified that co-workers harassed them because of their political affiliation. This harassment provides further evidence that Rodríguez and Escobar's political affiliation was known among the employees of the AOC and indirect evidence that Dávila would also have been aware of their political affiliation.