Opinion ID: 194852
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Maria Colon de Jesus

Text: Ms. Colon was dismissed from her regular position, as a Messenger, in July 1985. The letter of dismissal stated that the City's messenger service, with forty-two employees, was excessive and unnecessary, that it must be reduced to ten employees as an economy measure, and that the ten employees to be retained had been chosen based on an evaluation of their job performance and seniority. Ms. Colon conceded that the reduction in force did occur as defendants indicated, and that she lacked the requisite seniority to qualify for one of the ten remaining positions. She points to no particular discriminatory conduct, nor does she contend that (1) messengers with less seniority or lower performance ratings were retained,9 (2) the City needed more than ten messengers in 1985, or (3) defendants replaced any of the thirtytwo dismissed messengers. As Colon's political affiliation and the timing of her dismissal were the only significant probative evidence supporting her claim,10 and there was no direct or 9While conceding that she was among the dismissed messengers with the least seniority, Colon nonetheless argues that the selection criteria were suspect because Commonwealth law requires that reductions in force be justified first on the basis of employee performance ratings, and only then on seniority considerations. See Delbrey v. Municipio de Carolina, 111 P.R.R. 492 (1984). The record indicates, however, that defendants made their selections only after considering the criteria of effi- ciency in the performance of messenger duties and the time of services rendered in that capacity. (Emphasis added.) 10In view of Colon's concession that she lacked the requisite seniority, the other circumstantial evidence was altogether too weak to vault the initial Mt. Healthy hurdle. Colon's political participation was much less frequent and activist than 18 circumstantial evidence of pretext, the burden of persuasion never shifted to defendants. As no factual dispute was generated concerning the legitimacy of the austerity measures, or Colon's failure to meet the criteria for retention, the verdict could only have been based on conjecture that Colon would not have been terminated but for her political affiliation. See Ferrer, 914 F.2d at 311 (plaintiff is not entitled to inferences based on speculation and conjecture).11