Opinion ID: 194852
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Brenda Aponte Osorio

Text: Ms. Aponte was dismissed from her regular position, as an Executive Officer IV, in May 1985. In addition to other direct evidence of discriminatory animus,6 the letter of dismissal from Mayor Aponte stated that Ms. Aponte apparently did not possess the qualifications for her position in particular, a college degree and considerable relevant work experience. In fact, the written job description for an Executive Officer IV lists a college degree as desirable preparation, but provides that a combination of preparation and experience will be acceptable; it defines experience as positions of progressive 6Ms. Aponte states that she was constructively dismissed one day after the new administration took office, when she was denied access to her office, told that she was not a person of trust, and given no further duties. Her protests went unanswered. 15 responsibility . . . in the public service, including considerable administrative or supervision experience. (Emphasis added.) At trial, Ms. Aponte testified that she attended college for three years, and began working for the City in 1978 as a supervisor in the Human Resources Department.7 Ms. Aponte presented sufficient evidence to enable a jury to find that she possessed the required qualifications, both at the time of her appointment and dismissal. The jury could have concluded, therefore, that defendants' contemporaneous justification was a mere pretext for political discrimination. Cf. Aponte-Santiago v. Lopez-Rivera, 957 F.2d 40, 43 (1st Cir. 1992) (reversing summary judgment for defendant; noting that proof that defendant's asserted nondiscriminatory reason for dismissal was pretextual is a link in a chain of circumstantial evidence of political discrimination which, when coupled with allegedly conclusory evidence as to the timing of demotion and the parties' political affiliation, creates a triable issue which the fact finder might resolve in plaintiff's favor); Anthony, 952 F.2d at 606 (plaintiff's obvious qualifications can be circumstantial evidence of discriminatory animus); cf. also Burns v. Gadsden State Community College, 908 F.2d 1512, 1519 (11th Cir. 1990) (employer's exceedingly narrow interpretation of minimum experience required for position, coupled with other evidence 7Even though their individualized defenses, in many instances, succumbed to this same equivalency virus, permitting the jury to make reasonable substitutions of work experience for educational background, defendants have not challenged these substitutions on appeal. 16 of discriminatory animus, creates genuine dispute as to whether employer invented excuse as pretext to mask improper motive for dismissal in ADEA action). The circumstantial evidence of pretext, coupled with the direct evidence of discriminatory animus, was sufficient to shift the burden of persuasion to defendants. As there was no conclusive evidence that Ms. Aponte would have been dismissed in any event for a nondiscriminatory reason, the jury verdict must be sustained.