Opinion ID: 2716497
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Opposing Political Affiliations

Text: To survive summary judgment, García must first demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether he and Puig have opposing political affiliations. See Torres-Santiago, 693 F.3d at 236. He has done so. First, García has provided deposition testimony that he is affiliated with the PDP. The nature of his own political affiliation is certainly 8 We note that, on appeal, Puig has squarely presented challenges to García's proof on only the first two elements: (1) whether the parties have opposing political affiliations, and (2) whether Puig was aware of García's political affiliation. Puig has thus arguably waived any argument concerning the final two elements. See, e.g., United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) ([I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived. It is not enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to do counsel's work, create the ossature for the argument, and put flesh on its bones. (internal citations omitted)). Nonetheless, as we may affirm the district court's entry of summary judgment on any basis made manifest by the record, Demelo v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 727 F.3d 117, 121 (1st Cir. 2013), we will examine the summary judgment evidence with respect to all four elements of García's political discrimination claim. -34- within García's personal knowledge and could serve as proper trial testimony. Therefore, for Puig to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the parties' opposing political affiliations, he would have to establish that there is no basis in the record for reasonably concluding that Puig is a member of an opposing political party. This Puig has failed to do, as [t]he NPP and PDP are opposing political parties in Puerto Rico, Guillemard-Ginorio, 585 F.3d at 511, and the facts of this case permit a reasonable inference that Puig is affiliated with the NPP. We find Puig's arguments to the contrary unavailing. Admittedly, García does not personally know Puig and has presented no documentary evidence that Puig belongs to the NPP. And, in an unsworn Statement Under Penalty of Perjury signed on December 5, 2011 (the Unsworn Statement), Puig declared that he was not personally affiliated with the NPP. In Puig's view, this is sufficient to demonstrate that the uncontested facts establish that Plaintiff and Defendant did not belong to opposing political parties. Puig argues that the only reason for García's belief that Puig is a member of the NPP consists of an assumption grounded upon Puig's nomination and service as the Secretary of the Treasury under Governor Fortuño's NPP administration. This assumption, however, is sufficient for present purposes. Reviewing the grant -35- of summary judgment, we must resolve all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to García. See Shafmaster, 707 F.3d at 135. No party disputes that Governor Fortuño was a member of the NPP or that Puig, as Secretary of the Treasury, was a high-ranking official in an NPP administration. And [i]t is no secret that political leaders most often choose political allies to fill important policymaking positions. Grajales v. P.R. Ports Auth., 682 F.3d 40, 47 (1st Cir. 2012). It is therefore reasonable to infer that Puig was affiliated with the NPP during the relevant period. See id. at 47-48 (reasoning that a plausible inference can be drawn that the plaintiff, who was named to a prestigious trust position by a PDP hierarch under a PDP administration, was a member of the PDP, and remarking that a court is not required to blind itself to what is obvious).