Opinion ID: 2716497
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Puig's Awareness of García's Affiliation

Text: To establish the second element of a political discrimination claim, García would have to show that Puig was aware of García's political affiliation. See Torres-Santiago, 693 F.3d at 236. Puig argues that there is no genuine issue of fact regarding this element, because (1) there is no evidence showing that Puig was aware that García was a member of the PDP, and (2) Puig's Unsworn Statement conclusively resolves the issue in Puig's favor. -36- Indeed, there is some support for Puig's position. It is uncontested that García has never run for or held public office as a PDP candidate and that he has not worked for the campaign of a PDP candidate. He has not appeared on television or radio in support of the PDP. Furthermore, in his Unsworn Statement, Puig declared that: (1) he did not know who García was; (2) he did not know of García's political affiliation; (3) he had not seen García participate in political activities for the PDP; and (4) he had no knowledge of García being an active member of the PDP. García, for his part, testified in his deposition that he was, in fact, affiliated with the PDP. He elaborated that he publicly displayed his PDP affiliation by talking with his friends and attending political rallies, meetings, gatherings, and cocktail events for the 2008 election. He stated that he contributed financially to the campaigns of several PDP candidates, including the then-incumbent PDP governor who lost to Governor Fortuño in the 2008 election. In his deposition, García further testified that he and Cruz -- the Insurance Commissioner serving under Puig at the time -- were friends and had worked together for several years. García testified that Cruz absolutely knew his political color because they had talk[ed] about it. Puig, in his statement of uncontested material facts, agrees that García has had an excellent relationship with the Insurance Commissioner Ramón L. -37- Cruz-Colón and considers him to be his friend. Puig does not dispute that he and Cruz worked together in the Fortuño administration during the relevant period, or that Cruz participated in the RFP adjudication process at issue. Puig declared, however, that Cruz had never informed him of García's political affiliation. Viewing these facts in the light most favorable to García, and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, see Shafmaster, 707 F.3d at 135, we conclude that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Puig was aware of García's political affiliation, see Torres-Santiago, 693 F.3d at 236. In his deposition, García testified that he made no secret of his political affiliation and that he actively supported PDP candidates with financial contributions and his presence at campaign rallies and other events. Given García's friendship with Cruz, their working relationship, and García's testimony that they talked about politics and Cruz knew that he was a member of the PDP, it is reasonable to conclude that Cruz knew of García's political affiliation. Accepting as true García's testimony that high-scoring insurance brokers associated with the PDP had their contract awards reduced while the awards for lower-scoring brokers associated with the NPP were either unchanged or increased, the factfinder could infer that whoever was making the decision must have been doing so -38- based largely on party affiliation. Puig does not dispute on appeal that he was the decision maker who was ultimately responsible for the rescission of the initial awards and their subsequent reallocation.9 Nor has he provided any explanation for the apparent correlation between results and partisan affiliation, or for the supposed errors that led to the initial award to García. Given that apparent correlation between results and partisan affiliation, and the unexplained reasons for the changes, a reasonable jury could infer that Puig likely learned of García's political affiliation, an inference that is all the more plausible because Puig had a ready source for that knowledge: Cruz. For all these reasons, there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether Puig knew of García's political affiliation. Answering this question calls for [c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate 9 Similarly, we note that Puig has waived any argument that he was not personally involved in the decision to rescind García's bid award. See, e.g., United States v. Dellosantos, 649 F.3d 109, 126 n.18 (1st Cir. 2011) (finding an appellate argument waived due to the government-appellee's perfunctory treatment of a case and lack of developed argumentation). Moreover, on this summary judgment record, any such argument would fail. García put forth evidence of Puig's personal involvement, including that the RFP's terms provide that Puig was responsible for selecting the insurance brokers to receive contracts, that Puig gave deposition testimony in another case stating that he chose the insurance company providers, and that Puig himself signed the letter terminating García's 2008-2009 contract early. Under these circumstances, such evidence is sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Puig personally participated in the conduct that allegedly deprived García of his rights. See Cepero-Rivera, 414 F.3d at 129. -39- inferences from the facts -- all tasks for the jury, not the judge. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); see also Rodríguez v. Municipality of San Juan, 659 F.3d 168, 175 (1st Cir. 2011).10