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

Heading: Susana Hernández Colon

Text: 71 Hernández's testimony focused only on Pérez. 7 On direct examination, Hernández testified to a number of instances where Pérez worked [] attendance sheets without being duly authorized by the immediate supervisor ... meaning that the agency would pay employees that had not been working. However, on questioning by the district court as to whether somebody else could have been at fault, Hernández conceded that it was possible that more than one person may have been involved in this negligence. Hernández also recounted incidents where she directly asked Pérez to review the vacation (leave) records of certain employees, including some outgoing ones. According to Hernández, Pérez committed errors on these types of records as well, the consequence being that we would have paid the employee less days when the employee would have had a right to be paid their full days. Pérez was working on nine cases during her final probation period in January 2001, and Hernández testified that this work area is simple. It is simple math that one has to do, but you are not simply calculating work days . . . out of nine cases, six cases that weren't worked right ... I mean more than half the work that she did was bad. 72 Hernández testified that the only equipment necessary for attendance work was a calculator; a computer was unnecessary. Hernández also stated that Pérez used a computer to do this work when other employees in the human resources department required use of a computer. Later, Hernández approached [Pérez], and [told her] that instructions had been given so that she would leave the desk that had the computer, move to another desk, so that the computer could be used by the human resources analyst. According to Hernández, Pérez refused to move. 73 In her final evaluation of Pérez, covering January 1 to January 15, Hernández found Pérez had not been compliant in three areas: availability to learn, reliability, and cooperation. As to availability to learn, Hernández stated that Pérez was given instructions toward her work, toward specific functions . . . and she worked them wrong. As to reliability, Hernández testified Pérez didn't prove capable of following instructions. Also . . . it is more that . . . she didn't want to do what was said to her. She didn't assume the responsibilities of the position. As for cooperation, Hernández recalled specifically Pérez's refusal to allow others to use the computer that she was using. 74 On cross-examination, Hernández admitted that during Pérez's final period of probation, she actually supervised Pérez a total of only six to seven days. She conceded that the final evaluation report was supposed to be given, in accord with regulations, ten days before the date of separation. In Pérez's case, the final evaluation was only given on the date of separation, which was January 12. Although in her final evaluation she speculated that Pérez did not want to continue working at the CDA, she acknowledged that four years ago she had considered Pérez a hard worker who would never leave her position. 75 Plaintiffs' counsel also questioned Hernández about Pérez's apparent errors. Hernández testified that some of the errors she testified to on direct examination occurred before she became Pérez's supervisor; that it is improper to evaluate an employee based on things that were done during a period for which the employee had already been evaluated; and that one type of error had nothing to do with Pérez at all. Hernández also stated that all of the attendance and payment records are recalculated at the end of a calendar year or when an employee leaves the agency before the end of the year. Errors made in the initial calculation are usually caught and corrected to avoid improper payment.