Opinion ID: 201249
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendants' Uncontradicted Testimony

Text: 46 Before considering this testimony, we observe that a strong case could be made that defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of plaintiff's case should have been granted. Of course, defendants do not make this argument on appeal. Having put on a defense at trial, they are foreclosed from doing so. See Gillentine v. McKeand, 426 F.2d 717, 723 (1st Cir.1970) (defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's case expired upon the introduction of substantial defense evidence and was not preserved for appeal). Accordingly, in evaluating defendants' appeal from the district court's denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law after the close of all evidence, we consider both plaintiff's evidence and the uncontroverted evidence offered by defendants. Santiago-Negron, 865 F.2d at 445.
47 Delgado testified that at the time of transition between the two administrations, the municipality had 1,343 employees on its roster. Delgado's uncontradicted testimony also established that there was no evidence in Vazquez's personnel file establishing that Vazquez met the minimum requirements for appointment to Secretary III or Assistant Director, or that she served the requisite probationary period for either position. 13 Delgado testified that according to the documents in Vazquez's personnel file, Vazquez lacked the commercial or secretarial training required to be appointed to Secretary III in 1993. On cross, plaintiff's counsel drew Delgado's attention to Cordova's letter asking that Vazquez be appointed to Secretary III, which, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, could establish her eligibility for the position. Upon questioning, Delgado testified that she cannot explain why that document was not contained in Vazquez's personnel file. 48 Delgado further testified that Vazquez's personnel file contained no indication that the Human Resources Department followed the procedures and analysis required to reclassify an employee, without competition for the position, based on the employee's assumption of greater responsibility and obtaining further credentials.
49 In uncontradicted testimony from Santiago, he explained that he sought advice regarding the effect and legality of the 1997 plan, and that he acted on that advice. As noted, the evidentiary rulings below prevented the defense from putting before the jury the nature of the advice the defendants received. 50 Santiago further testified that of the municipal employees who received letters adjusting their status, nearly half of them, their salaries have increased, others have gone down. He also testified that he retained several members of the opposing party in trust positions after he took office and that he took only one of his people into the mayor's office with him. According to Santiago, the rest of them, I honored their position and I allowed them to remain, despite the fact that it's a high confidentiality position.... 51 Santiago was asked on cross-examination whether he knew the party of the employees who lost permanent status and became transitory employees by virtue of declaring the 1997 plan void. He replied that [t]here are members of all three parties. When pressed for an estimated percentage break-down among the parties, Santiago could not provide one, but he agreed that there were more NPP members than PDP members in that group. When counsel asked whether it is a true fact that, more or less, from 75 to 80 percent of the employees of Tao Baja are members of the New Progressive Party, Santiago agreed that [t]hat might be. According to Santiago's uncontradicted testimony, he had not appointed anyone to a career position since he took office.