Opinion ID: 202046
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony of Defendants

Text: 35 The defendants, Mayor Román, Norat, and Hornedo, gave a markedly different version of events. They testified that soon after Mayor Román took office, conditions in the sanitation division began to deteriorate noticeably: the number of citizen complaints about trash service skyrocketed, and garbage trucks began breaking down with more frequency. 9 This crisis, they testified, was what spurred the decision to transfer workers from elsewhere in Public Works into sanitation, as well as the eventual decision to privatize sanitation. The defense also pointed to the ordinance adopted by the Municipal Assembly, which cited a desire to offer a better quality of service as one reason to privatize. 36 Mayor Román and Norat testified that political affiliation had nothing to do with the privatization decision or its execution. Indeed, Mayor Román testified that he did not know plaintiff Hernández, and as to the career plaintiffs, Norat testified that city leaders pondering privatization considered it nonnegotiable that whoever won the contract had to hire all of the displaced workers. Hornedo testified that the administration fully intended to coordinate the displaced career plaintiffs' hiring with ARB, and to rehire those who did not find ARB jobs; she testified that most of the career plaintiffs never approached them seeking jobs and never completed the ARB hiring process. However, Mayor Román admitted on cross-examination that the January 23, 2002 termination letter did not tell the employees about the process they would have to use to seek ARB employment and did not tell them that they could seek reemployment with the Municipality. 10 Furthermore, while Hornedo testified that several of the career plaintiffs returned to ask the Municipality for jobs and were offered positions, she admitted that those positions were transitory — much less desirable than the career jobs the plaintiffs had previously held. 11 37 Mayor Román offered the defense that he relied on legal advice. He testified that he sought the advice of González and a municipal attorney in deciding how to proceed with privatization; he said they advised him that he should not follow the 1997 Layoff Plan, but instead should follow the new municipal ordinance and make sure the displaced workers were guaranteed employment with ARB. González contradicted this testimony. She testified that early in Mayor Román's term, he called her into his office and asked her to bring a list of Public Works employees. He told her to read the list and cross off the names he indicated; he explained that he was going to get rid of some public works employees at the time of the privatization. González testified that she told [Román] to be careful with the new lawsuit [a separate discrimination complaint concerning other employees], and that we had to follow the processes established by law. She said he replied, I'm . . . the mayor and I make the decisions. González also testified that she thought the 1997 Layoff Plan should have been followed, that she was not consulted as to details of the privatization, and that the reason the Layoff Plan was not followed was that the mayor didn't want to use it. The attorney upon whose advice Mayor Román said he relied did not testify. 38 Mayor Román also denied saying anything to Borges about plaintiffs' political affiliations. In fact, the Mayor testified, it was Borges who first suggested privatization to him. Borges testified to the contrary.