Opinion ID: 202423
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Employment history following Santiago's arrival and alleged employment deficiencies

Text: 47 Aside from a general, agency-wide meeting where he was introduced to the CDA as the newly-appointed administrator on January 9, Gascot recalled only one occasion in which [she] met personally with Santiago, which occurred on January 14 or 15. On that occasion she went to his office: [a] group of employees was dismissed [from their jobs] and he asked me to explain to him regarding an aid program for them. I explained to him what the program was about, and what was normally done. Gascot stated that Santiago never discussed the nature of her work at the CDA and never conducted any evaluation of the program she directed. Gascot testified that during the transitionary period a report was made for the work performed at the school and it stated the amount of participants which had increased and the working plan. While it is unclear from the record whether Gascot prepared this report herself, Gascot stated that Santiago never requested from her either statistics about the school or that working plan. 48 On her final evaluation, for the period from January 1 to January 31, Gascot noted that as to her planning, organization, and performance, Santiago had written the same thing: improper utilization of funds and resources available in the offering of courses, careless in the effective maintenance of the vehicle assigned to the school. Gascot testified that this evaluation was not discussed with me at any time and was given to me on January 31, 2001. That was the date that ended my probation period. On January 31, Gascot was told not to leave work that day without going to the administrator's office. She went to the administrator's office at 5:10 pm, where she was handed a letter that read, in part: [i]n view of the above, effective today, January 31, 2001, you are being separated from the position you have been occupying at the agency. If you are not in agreement with this decision you are entitled to discuss it within the next ten days with the personnel administration. Gascot stated that [w]hen the document was given to me and I was about to talk ... [Defendant] Ms. Vilma Giménez [sic] tells me that that [sic] is not the forum for me to talk. 49 According to Gascot, it was only later, through Santiago's deposition, that she learned why Santiago had given her such a negative final evaluation. Gascot recalled that Santiago had said that [she] had been assigned a mobile unit [truck] ... [which] was deteriorated and [she] had used it wrongly and it was not well used and there were badly used funds. To Gascot's knowledge, the vehicle was purchased by a prior administrator in 1995 or 1996 for the CDA. It was her understanding that [a]ll agency vehicles are under the General Services Administration. They are the ones who provide maintenance of the vehicles. Gascot claimed that she never used the vehicle during her time as director of the managerial school. Gascot also learned through Santiago's deposition that rumors came to him from other business centers and business people that the courses were inefficient and nonoperative, but he could not recall the names of anyone from whom he heard these rumors. 50 On cross-examination, Gascot again testified that she believed that the agency vehicle for which Santiago held her responsible was, in fact, the responsibility of the general services department, which, as of August 2000, was run by Negrón. 51