Opinion ID: 498703
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cleaning Persons

Text: 9 Like the instant case, Vazquez Rios involved, inter alia, the dismissal of domestic workers at La Fortaleza. There, we rejected the presumption, urged by the defendants, that in dismissing the employees, they were entitled to qualified immunity because the employees were confidential, and thus subject to dismissal on the basis of political affiliation. Id. at 323-26. Affirming the denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment with regard to the claims of those employees, we left open the possibility that the defendants might establish, at trial, that those employees, or some of them, were within the sphere of confidentiality sufficiently to render political affiliation an appropriate criterion for their jobs. Id. at 329. In the case at bar, the defendants argue that the evidence establishes that jobs of Ramos Cruz, Castro de Leon, and Colon Santana fell within that sphere. We disagree. 10 The responsibilities of these plaintiffs, see supra note 2, involved general cleaning tasks in La Fortaleza; these tasks at times placed them in the office areas and living quarters of the Governor. Access to sensitive material was incidental at best. They were not confidential employees, like personal secretaries, whom public officials may fire because of political affiliation. See Soderbeck v. Burnett County, Wis., 752 F.2d 285, 288 (7th Cir.1985). Thus, the district court erred in concluding that the cleaning persons were confidential employees, whom the defendants could fire at will. 4 11 It follows that the district court erred in rejecting as immaterial and irrelevant the cleaning persons' claims that their dismissals were politically motivated. See Santiago Correa, 637 F.Supp. at 1161-62. Although the court said that there [was] no preponderant evidence to the effect that plaintiffs were fired because of their affiliation to the New Progressive Party, id. at 1161, we cannot accept that conclusion as a clear finding of fact in light of the court's incorrect determination that party affiliation was immaterial. 5 Since the district court concluded erroneously that the defendants were entitled to fire the cleaning persons because they were confidential employees, we remand the case to allow the district court to reconsider whether the cleaning persons proved that their dismissals were politically motivated, and if so, the remedies available.