Opinion ID: 202423
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Maribel Negrón-Almeda

Text: 31
32 Negrón had a bachelor's degree in business administration. After obtaining her degree she began work in the private sector, where she worked until she married and left the workforce for a time. After that break, she began working at the CDA shortly before the change in administration. Her position, a career position, had a six-month probationary period from August 1, 2000 to January 31, 2001. 33 Negrón testified that she was evaluated three times prior to Santiago's arrival at the CDA for the following time periods: (1) August 1, 2000 to September 30, 2000; (2) October 1, 2000 to November 30, 2000; and (3) December 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000. Juan Matos Gonzalez, Negrón's supervisor and the auxiliary superintendent of the CDA prior to the change in administration, performed these evaluations, all of which were positive. Gonzalez occupied a trust position and tendered his resignation effective December 31, 2000. To Negrón's knowledge, no one was appointed to replace him following Santiago's arrival. 34
35 Plaintiffs' counsel asked Negrón about some incidents that occurred following the arrival of Santiago. One incident involved changing the locks on the door of Santiago's office. According to Negrón, Santiago's secretary instructed her to have the lock installed a certain way, and Negrón contacted the appropriate company and conveyed these instructions. However, the technician installed the lock incorrectly. The following day [Negrón] was told there was a problem. [She] once more called the company. The company came back and they once more reinstalled the lock. The only verbal admonishment Negrón acknowledged had to do with [this incident]. That was the wrong way. So we proceeded to change it. 36 Another incident involved the placement of some file cabinets and other furniture, including a counter/desk. Negrón testified that once she received the requests from Santiago, she attempted to contact the two employees who performed these duties; however, the position for one of those employees was vacant, and the other employee was quite old[,] and those file cabinets weighed approximately 100 pounds. She informed Santiago of the problem, but told him that she would ask two other employees to do the moving. Because these two employees were not specifically tasked with this type of work, they had to coordinate schedules to find a time that would work, which caused a delay in the moving of the cabinets. To Negrón's recollection, Santiago was pleased with the work that was done. 37 Negrón also recalled Santiago asking her to have an air conditioner duct moved which was in his office. She coordinated with the company that had the air conditioning contract . . . [and] received the estimate for the work. However, that work was never carried out while Negrón was at the CDA because [Santiago] never signed the authorization for [her]. 38 On her final evaluation, for the period from January 9, 2001 to January 31, 2001, Santiago gave her failing marks. In the written evaluation Negrón received, Santiago stated that Negrón had ignored his instructions and performed tasks carelessly and negligently. The evaluation contained similar comments about her cooperativeness. Negrón stated that Santiago never discussed his negative evaluation with her. Negrón testified that Santiago gave the evaluation to her at the end of the work day on January 31, 2001, her final day at the CDA, and informed her that she did not pass her probationary period. 39 On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Negrón's account of her performance of the tasks requested by Santiago. Specifically, he asked her: whether the furniture and file cabinets were moved on the same day that she was told to have them moved; for more details as to why the air conditioner was never installed; and whether the lock had been installed improperly because she conveyed inaccurate instructions to the technician. Negrón responded that: any delay in moving furniture and file cabinets was caused by unavoidable logistical issues, and the objects were moved as fast as possible; the air conditioner was not installed because Santiago never gave proper written authorization; and the improper installation was the result of an error by the technician (rather than an error in her instructions) that was corrected as soon as was possible. 40
41 Negrón testified that she had been affiliated with the NPP since [she] was very young. This affiliation was formalized in June 2000 when she went to an NPP office and filled out paperwork to that effect. Negrón stated that she knew the political affiliation of Santiago: [D]uring the few times that I was able to talk to him he would stress that he enjoyed the full trust of the governor and he would always say that he enjoyed a position of trust because he had the governor's trust, so I understood that he had—he was affiliated to that party [PDP]. In particular, Negrón recalled Santiago raising this issue of political affiliation when he asked her to change the car that had been assigned to him at the CDA. 42 As for Defendants' knowledge of her political affiliation, Negrón believed that her affiliation was known at the CDA because the elections were already approaching by that time.... [I]n my area people would talk. . . . We would talk about who would win and who would lose . . . . We would talk and you would talk about who you felt was going to win and everybody just knew your party.