Opinion ID: 201249
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Rivera's Perception of Political Retaliation

Text: 60 Rivera, a member of the PDP, offered what is best characterized as lay opinion testimony: she thought political retaliation was occurring in her department under Martinez, based on her observation that Vazquez and one other employee were not fully occupied with work, at least for some period of time. Rivera testified that if I saw anything or understood that there would be any persecution, that I would rather resign and that is what I did. Additionally, Rivera said at one point that after having lunch with Delgado and Martinez, she saw that they thought differently than the way I thought. There is also an ambiguous reference to remarks that might be out of order in Rivera's testimony. Rivera also testified that her relationship with Martinez soured over Rivera's perception of political persecution in the workplace. 61 However, Rivera also testified that she and Delgado did not talk about politics, and that the only political comment Delgado made to her was one that had to do with the process when letters were to be delivered that there would be equality — let's say that the salaries were going to be lowered or if their permanency was going to be removed, well, then it would be the same for everyone notwithstanding the person [or regardless of the pressure] involved. This testimony by plaintiff's own witness establishes that Delgado indicated that the reclassifications would be done with equality and that changes in permanence or salaries would be implemented regardless of the people affected (or the pressure involved). This testimony — elicited by plaintiff's counsel during her case-in-chief — supports defendants' claims that they implemented the reclassifications in a neutral manner.