Opinion ID: 202980
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Evidence of Political Affiliation

Text: Although plaintiffs have produced no direct evidence that Rey was aware of their affiliation with the NPP, the record contains circumstantial evidence that could support such a finding. Pillich testified that she believed all of the trust positions on the list that she compiled for Rey, including those held by plaintiffs, were occupied by individuals appointed by the prior administration because the last administration was there for eight years. This statement supports the inference that Pillich assumed the individuals in those positions probably were affiliated with the former NPP administration. This is particularly so given that Pillich further indicated that political affiliation with the newly elected PDP administration may be one of the factors necessary for those trust positions to ensure that the individuals in the jobs could collaborate . . . in th[e] educational project of the new administration. [11] Although Pillich emphasized that political affiliation was not a determining factor, her testimony at least suggests that plaintiffs were identified as NPP members and were subject to removal for that reason. [12] It is a small inferential step from Pillich's testimony to Rey's own knowledge. That is, we think it fair to infer that Rey, a PDP political appointee who asked Pillich to generate the list of trust employees as soon as he took over the Department, shared Pillich's assumptions regarding the affiliations of all trust-classified incumbents. [13] Taken in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, Pillich's deposition testimony also inferentially supports plaintiffs' allegation that all of the NPP trust employees identified on the list that she compiled were replaced by PDP members who could be counted on to collaborate in the new administration's educational project. Pillich insisted that loyal party members were needed to support plaintiffs' positions. Interestingly, defendants offered no evidence to rebut such an implication, despite the fact that such evidence would probably be obtainable from the replacements identified by the plaintiffs. Unlike cases in which we have noted the plaintiffs' failure to provide the names of their replacements, see, e.g., Vázquez-Valentín, 385 F.3d at 38; Figueroa-Serrano v. Ramos-Alverio, 221 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir.2000), the plaintiffs here have done so.