Rodriguez-Candelario v. Mvm Security Inc. et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment

D.P.R.August 15, 2016

-1- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO Alexandra M. Rodriguez Candelario Plaintiff v. MVM, Inc. Defendant CIVIL No. 15-1850 (GAG-SCC) Re: Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964; Employment Discrimination; Retaliatory Discrimination; Gender Discrimination MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE COURT: COMES NOW defendant MVM, Inc. (“MVM” or the “Company”), through its undersigned counsel, and very respectfully submits this Motion for Summary Judgment: 1. On June 24, 2015, plaintiff Alexandra M. Rodríguez-Candelario (“Rodríguez” or “plaintiff”) filed a complaint against MVM, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C.A. §2000e et seq. In addition, plaintiff filed supplemental claims under several state laws, including sex discrimination under Act No. 100 of June 30, 1959, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, §146 et seq. (“Act 100”); retaliation under Act No. 115 of December 20, 1991, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29 §194 (“Act 115”); wrongful termination under Act No. 80 of May 30, 1976, P.R. Laws Ann. tit 29, §185a et seq. (“Act 80”); and a general damages claim under Articles 1802 and 1803 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, P.R. Laws Ann. tit 31 §§5141-5142. See Complaint, Dkt. #1. 2. On February 26, 2016, this Honorable Court dismissed, with prejudice, plaintiff’s general damages claim against MVM. See Dkt. #27. MVM now moves to dismiss all remaining claims. MVM respectfully submits that the uncontested material facts, pleadings, deposition and Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 4 -2- admissions establish that there are no material issues of fact with respect to plaintiff’s claims, and judgment can accordingly be entered as a matter of law in MVM’s favor. 3. As further discussed in the Memorandum of Law in support of this Motion, any Title VII claim based on sex discrimination must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, inasmuch as plaintiff did not file a EEOC Charge for sex discrimination. 4. Further, any Act 100 sex discrimination claim based on alleged acts that occurred before June 24, 2014, a year prior the filing of this Complaint, must be dismissed as they are time-barred based on the statute of limitations of one year. 5. Also, the retaliation claims based on plaintiff’s written statement from February 10, 2012 must be dismissed because said internal complaint is not protected conduct under either Title VII or Act 115, and because any alleged adverse actions prior to July 3, 2014 are also be time-barred. Regarding Title VII, the February 10, 2012 statement does not complain about any prohibit conduct under Title VII. Rather, it expresses a general discontent with the supervisors, which as plaintiff stated allegedly affected all employees, both male and female. Regarding Act 115, internal complaints were not as of February 2012 protected conduct under said statute. 6. With regards to the adverse actions plaintiff has complained of, plaintiff cannot meet her prima facie burden for any cause of action and, further, MVM has articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons for the actions complained of and plaintiff cannot establish pretext. 7. In particular, during the last two years of employment, plaintiff engaged in several violations of MVM and ICE policies and procedures, which merited disciplinary actions. During Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 4 -3- the last year of employment, plaintiff received three disciplinary actions, which included a suspension of employment, for failing to timely report an illegal strip search, as required. 8. Finally, the events that led to plaintiff’s termination included serious security violations. In particular, on June 14, 2014, plaintiff used her MVM uniform and credentials to access secured doors at the Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport (“LMMIA”) in order to accompany her boyfriend to the Jetblue terminal where his flight was leaving from. Plaintiff was off duty at the time and, as such, was not authorized to use her credentials for personal purposes. Plaintiff was at all time accompanied by another Detention Officer who was supposed to be working but who, instead, left her post for approximately two hours with plaintiff to meet her boyfriend and get coffee. In doing so, plaintiff and the other detention officer also engaged in the practice of piggybacking by not following appropriate security measures to access the restricted doors. This resulted in their access through the doors not being recorded on two occasions. 9. Thus, MVM has articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for plaintiff’s termination, to wit, her various violations to MVM and MVM’s client’s, ICE, Standards of Conduct, including a serious security violation at the LMMIA. Further, it is uncontested that ICE, MVM’s client, instructed MVM to remove plaintiff and two other Detention Officers from the Contract and that upon said instruction MVM was contractually required to remove those employees. Plaintiff has not evidence to establish this was pretext for any discriminatory or retaliatory animus. 10. Moreover, this termination is considered with just cause under the Collective Bargaining Agreement that covered plaintiff’s position. The termination was not capricious or arbitrary, but justified under Law 80. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 4 -4- WHEREFORE, MVM respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant summary judgment in its favor on all of plaintiff’s remaining claims, as discussed above RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 15 th day of August, 2016. WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this same date, we electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system. SCHUSTER AGUILÓ LLC Attorneys for MVM, Inc. PO Box 363128 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936-3128 Telephone: (787) 765-4646 Telefax: (787) 765-4611 s/ Ana B. Rosado-Frontanés Ana B. Rosado-Frontanés USDC PR No. 224506 arosado@salawpr.com s/ Gabriel Maldonado-González Gabriel Maldonado-González USDC PR No. 230802 gmaldonado@salawpr.com Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39 Filed 08/15/16 Page 4 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO Alexandra M. Rodriguez Candelario Plaintiff v. MVM Security, Inc. (MVM), and/or MVM International Security, Inc., U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Jeh Charles Johnson, Elpidio Nuñez, Christopher Martin MacHale, The United States Department of Justice, Loretta E. Lynch and/or Rosa Emilia Rodriguez Velez, John Doe, Jane Doe, ABC Insurance Company, Corporation XYZ, All of the Above Named Defendants Acting in their Official and/or Individual Capacities. Defendants CIVIL No. 15-1850 (GAG-SCC) Re: Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964; Employment Discrimination; Retaliatory Discrimination; Gender Discrimination STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE COURT: COMES NOW defendant MVM, Inc. (“MVM” or the “Company”), through its undersigned counsel, and very respectfully submits this Statement of Uncontested Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment: I. GENERAL FACTS REGARDING ICE CONTRACT AND STANDARDS OF CONDUCT APPLICABLE TO PLAINTIFF 1. MVM is a security services firm serving U.S. Government clients including the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). MVM, Inc. (“MVM”). See Dkt #1, Complaint, ¶¶2-3; and Dkt #10, Answer to the Complaint, ¶¶2-3. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 20 -2- 2. ICE provides detention, health, welfare, transportation and deportation of illegal alien detainees and coordinates final removal from the United States. In Puerto Rico, MVM provides services to ICE pursuant to a Contract (“ICE Contract”) at several facilities, including the General Services Administration (“GSA”) Center in Guaynabo and the Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport (“LMMIA” or the “airport”). See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 18; Exhibit 2, Joan Mercado Amended Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶4; and Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶3 and its Exhibit A (ICE Contract), at 17. 3. Employees working under the ICE Contract and other MVM government contracts in Puerto Rico are required to have security clearance by the U.S. Federal Government. See Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶21. 4. Pursuant to the ICE Contract, MVM must immediately remove an employee from duty if any disqualifying information concerning the employee is received or confirmed by the ICE Contracting Officer Representative (“COR”) or the Government. See Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶3 and its Exhibit A (ICE Contract), at 47, §1.15.4. 5. The ICE Contract also provides that ICE may direct MVM to remove any employee who has been disqualified either for security reasons or for being unfit to perform their duties as determined by the COR or other ICE representative. Upon such direction, MVM must take action immediately and notify the COR when the employee is removed from duty. See Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶¶3 and 18 and its Exhibit A (ICE Contract), at 47, §1.15.5; and Exhibit 4, Elpidio Núñez Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶3-4. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 20 -3- 6. Plaintiff began working for MVM on or around March 5, 2007 as an on-call detention officer under the ICE Contract and later became a “Rover,” which is an armed position. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 17-19, 24-26. 7. As a Rover, plaintiff’s duties including processing detainees, escorting them from one place to another, act as custodian, and provide them with meals, clothing, among other things. Plaintiff began her workday at the GSA Center and, from there, she transported detainees to and from the Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport (the “Airport”) and other locations. On Sundays, plaintiff was stationed at the GSA Center for her entire shift as part of the female unit. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 25-27, 18, 42; and Exhibit 5, Jennifer Morales Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶3. 8. According to the MVM Standards of Conduct, which plaintiff received as part of her employment with MVM, the following are examples, among others, of conduct that will not be tolerated by MVM and which may result in discipline up to and including immediate termination of employment: (1) disregard of lawful orders, including written post orders and instructions from supervisors; (2) violation of MVM or client policies, procedures, rules, regulations, or contract requirements, including security regulations; (3) negligence, including sleeping while on duty and failing to perform duties as prescribed; (4) unauthorized activities on post duty including but not limited to working on personal projects or hobbies; (5) fraternization with MVM employees while on duty; (6) any off-duty conduct that impairs the ability to obtain or maintain a security clearance or license; (7) wearing or using MVM uniforms or identification for any reason other than for official business; and (8) any other reason deemed by MVM to be contrary to the interests of the company or its clients. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 19-20; and Exhibit 6, ICE PR Standards of Employee Conduct, under MVM Standards Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 20 -4- of Conduct at paragraphs numbered 9, 10, 13, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, and 29 (bate stamp number 18- 19) 1 . 9. According to the ICE Minimum Standards of Conduct, and causes for Removal from Duty, which plaintiff also received as part of her employment with MVM, the following are examples, among others, of disqualifying information, which require immediate removal from the ICE Contract: (1) failure to immediately report to the Project Manager or ICE Supervisor any violation or attempted violation of the applicable standards; (2) neglect of duty, including sleeping while on duty and failures to carry out assigned tasks (3) conducting personal affairs during official time; (4) and refusing to cooperate with regards to the integrity of the security program at the work site; (5) unethical or improper use of official authority or credentials; (6) violation of security procedures or regulations; and (7) failure to maintain acceptable levels of proficiency or to fulfill training requirements. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 19-20; Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶12; and Exhibit 6, ICE PR Standards of Employee Conduct, under ICE Minimum Standards of Conduct, paragraph number 6, and under Removal from Duty, paragraphs numbered 10, 14, 17 and 23 (bate stamp number 21-22). 10. Plaintiff received a copy of MVM’s employee handbook when she started working for MVM, and she was also given training with regards to her duties as detention officer and on the ICE Operation Manual. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 17-19, 20-25. 1 The bate stamp number refers to the bate stamp assigned to MVM’s production of documents in the case. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 4 of 20 -5- II. PLAINTIFF’S DISCIPLINARY HISTORY DURING LAST TWO YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT 11. On January 18, 2012, plaintiff received a written reprimand for sleeping while on duty. See Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶20, and its Exhibit H. 12. On May 19, 2013, plaintiff received a written disciplinary action for noncompliance with policies and regulations regarding official headcount and use of logbook. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 44-45; and Exhibit 7, disciplinary action regarding Logbook Entries. 13. On August 1, 2013, plaintiff received a written reprimand for failing to properly inspect a vehicle with license plate HVY-015, for which she signed as the primary responsible officer, and using said vehicle after its registration had expired. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 45-46; Exhibit 8, August 1, 2013 disciplinary action for failing to properly inspect vehicle with license plate HVY-015; and Exhibit 5, Jennifer Morales Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶10. 14. On August 22, 2013, plaintiff received a written reprimand for failure to approve the mandatory quarterly firearms qualifications examination on August 15, 2013. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 55-56; Exhibit 9, August 22, 2013 disciplinary action for failure to complete firearms qualification; and Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶25. 15. On December 12, 2013, plaintiff received a written reprimand for not storing her weapon properly as per MVM policy. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 56-57; and Exhibit 10, disciplinary action for not having her weapon stored in safety box. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 5 of 20 -6- 16. On June 19, 2014, plaintiff received a written reprimand and was suspended for three (3) days for failing to timely report an illegal strip search she witnessed by Detention Officer Narciso Torres (“Torres”) on May 21, 2014, as required by MVM policies. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 81 and 89; Exhibit 11, disciplinary action for failing to immediately inform strip search incident regarding Narciso Torres; Exhibit 15, Jennifer Morales Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶19. 17. Ivette González, another Detention Officer, was also reprimanded for not timely reporting the illegal strip search by Torres. Torres, on the other hand, was terminated for carrying out at least two illegal strip searches on detainees. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 90; Exhibit 5, Jennifer Morales Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶18-19, and its Exhibit L. III. FACTS RELATED TO THE LMMIA BADGE, ACCESSING SECURED DOORS AND PROHIBITED PIGGYBACK 18. In order to work at the airport, plaintiff had to go through a process to obtain an Airport Identification Badge (“Airport ID”), which is a different badge from plaintiff’s employee badge. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 27. 19. In order to obtain the Airport ID, detention officers, including plaintiff, have to fill out an application form and go through the Security Identification Display Area (“SIDA”) training which explains the use of the ID and security issues related to said use. The Airport ID application provides that the holder of the ID has to comply with certain federal regulations including 49 C.F.R. §1540. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 27-28, 32-34; Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶4 and its Exhibit B (Aerostar ID Badge Application at 2 (bate stamp number 535)). Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 6 of 20 -7- 20. In order to access LMMIA secured and restricted doors (not open to the public in general), an authorized person has to register the Airport ID through a card reader, enter his/her personal code (chosen by the person) and then open the door. In order to avoid the entrance of unauthorized persons to sterile areas, only one person, with limited exceptions, should go through the door at a time. Therefore, if more than one person was going to pass through a secured door at the airport, each one was required to follow the security process. Thus, the person has to wait to ensure that the door closes so that the next person to access goes through the same process. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 27-29; Exhibit 3 Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶8. 21. The sterile area in the Airport, which has stricter security measures than other areas, is the area beyond the Transportation Security Association (“TSA”) checkpoint that goes to the gates. See 49 C.F.R. § 1540.5. 22. Everyone who has an Airport ID has to take the SIDA training and comply with the Aerostar rules for accessing sterile doors. As part of the SIDA training there is a class that advises everything that a person can and cannot do with his/her Airport ID, including the appropriate security process to access secured doors at the LMMIA. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 28-30. 23. Piggybacking is a term commonly used in the context of Airport security referring to one person following another through an access point without using his or her own identification card and/or security key/code (unless it is an authorized escort). As such, piggyback occurs when one employee gains access through an electronically controlled door utilizing his/her Airport ID and security code and allows an unauthorized person, including a person who does not have an ID or someone who has an ID but does not follow the correct Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 7 of 20 -8- process, to access the restricted area with or without the intent for that person to register his/her entry. See Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶8; Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶10; Exhibit 12, Subpoena to Aerostar and response regarding piggybacking training documents. 24. Piggybacking is a serious security violation which places the security of the Airport at risk. See Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶11. IV. FACTS RELATED TO THE JUNE 14, 2014 EVENTS AND ENSUING DISCIPLINARY ACTION 25. On June 14, 2014 plaintiff had an assigned shift beginning at the GSA Center in Guaynabo starting at 2:00 p.m. However, during the morning of June 14, 2014 Supervisor Detention Officer César Méndez (“Méndez”) called plaintiff on her personal cell phone and asked her if she could start her shift “as soon as possible” before 2:00 p.m., due to the volume of work for that day. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 62; Exhibit 13, César Méndez Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶3. 26. During the phone call with Méndez plaintiff informed him that prior to reporting for duty she would go to the airport to drop off a relative and that she would go in uniform to the airport. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 62-63, 76-79; Exhibit 13, César Méndez Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶3-4; Exhibit 14, Incident Report regarding events from June 14, 2014; Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶¶5-6, and 9 and its Exhibit C (César Méndez Incident Report for the June 14, 2014 events). 27. Plaintiff did not inform Méndez, nor did he authorize, for plaintiff to use her MVM uniform and Airport ID Badge to access secured and/or restricted airport doors while off- duty. See Exhibit 13, César Méndez Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶3-4. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 8 of 20 -9- 28. Early in the morning of June 14, 2014 plaintiff arrived at the airport and called Martha Bonilla (“Bonilla”), a Detention Officer who was working at the airport at the time. Plaintiff and Bonilla met at the American Airlines counter, where Bonilla met plaintiff’s boyfriend. Then, they left plaintiff’s boyfriend at the security checkpoint. Bonilla and plaintiff then went to get coffee and met with plaintiff’s boyfriend at the Jetblue terminal, where his flight was leaving from. They also went to have coffee. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 63-64, 68- 69; Exhibit 14, Plaintiff’s Incident Report regarding events from June 14, 2014. 29. To get to the JetBlue terminal, plaintiff and Bonilla went through Airport secured doors, instead of the checkpoint used by passengers. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 71-72; Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶¶5-6. 30. Bonilla and plaintiff were together at the Airport from approximately 9:03am – 10:44 am. During this time, plaintiff and Bonilla were together the entire time and accessed several secured/restricted doors. Plaintiff off-duty during that time. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 72, 74-76; Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶15- 17 and its Exhibit B (June 14, 2014 Video); Exhibit C (Continuum Access Event Log for Bonilla on June 14, 2014) and Exhibit D (Continuum Access Event Log for Rodríguez on June 14, 2014). 31. On June 24, 2014, MVM received information that plaintiff had gone to the Airport on June 14 in uniform, while off duty, and Bonilla had left her post with plaintiff for approximately two hours. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. 77-78; Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶5. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 9 of 20 -10- 32. MVM also found out, through LMMIA security videos, that plaintiff had engaged in the practice of piggybacking with Bonilla. See Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶¶9, 15. 33. Any time that plaintiff had to access a secured door at the airport, Bonilla would also have to access the same door by following the same security procedure. However, plaintiff and Bonilla passed through the doors at the same time and without following the appropriate security procedure, thus incurring in the prohibited practice of piggybacking. If they had followed appropriate security procedures to go through the secured doors, there would be a record for each time plaintiff passed through a door, and a corresponding time entry for when Bonilla passed the door. However, the time entries for plaintiff and Bonilla do not correspond with each other. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 76, 148; Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶¶10, 15, 16 and its Exhibits B, C and D. 34. Plaintiff accessed several secured doors inside the airport while off-duty, even though the training provided by Aerostar specified that she was not permitted to do so. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 92; Exhibit 15, Plaintiff’s NLRB Statement, at ¶10. 35. On July 2, 2014, plaintiff was given a disciplinary action for accessing LMMIA secured doors on June 14, 2014, while off-duty, and engaging in piggyback. The disciplinary action included a suspension from work and the removal of her Airport ID. The decision to suspend plaintiff was based on her past disciplinary history which included three disciplinary actions in the last year and a prior suspension related to one of those actions. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 96-97; Exhibit 16, July 2, 2014 disciplinary action received by plaintiff for the June 14, 2014 incident; Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶¶10-11. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 10 of 20 -11- 36. On July 10, 2014, Bonilla was given a disciplinary action for leaving her post on June 14, 2014 for approximately two hours with plaintiff, for engaging in the practice commonly referred to as piggybacking, and for using her personal cellphone during this time. The disciplinary action included the removal of Bonilla’s Airport ID. See Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶¶12-13 and its Exhibit D (Employee Improvement Notice given to Bonilla on July 10, 2014). 37. Plaintiff’s and Bonilla’s Airport IDs were removed because of the security violations and misuse of their Airport IDs. As consequence, plaintiff could no longer work at the Airport because she needed the Airport ID to work at the Airport. Plaintiff was placed as an on- call officer, and MVM assigned her work hours as long as it did not require her to go to the airport. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 102-103; Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶19 and its Exhibit E (Email with Exhibit containing acknowledgement receipt of plaintiff’s, Bonilla’s and Santiago’s Aerostar Badge); and Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶10, 13. V. FACTS RELATED TO DAVID SANTIAGO 38. On June 25, 2014, Detention Officer David Santiago (“Santiago”), while on official duty and performing a transportation detail to the LMMIA, failed to store his MVM authorized weapon in the designated area (Airport Police Station), as required, and accessed the LMMIA sterile area with his weapon. Plaintiff was present during the incident along with Detention Officer Heriberto García, and she reported the same to Morales and also wrote an incident report regarding the same. See Exihibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 79-80; Exhibit 17, Incident Report from plaintiff dated June 25, 2014 regarding incident with David Santiago (bate stamp numbers 497-498); Exhibit 4, Elpidio Núñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 11 of 20 -12- at ¶18; Exhibit 18, Camilo Cuellar Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶5; Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶14; and Exhibit 6, ICE PR Standards of Employee Conduct. 39. According to airport regulations and ICE established protocol, MVM armed Detention Officers are not authorized to enter the sterile area of the Airport carrying firearms. In doing so, Santiago engaged in a security violation. See Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶18; Exhibit 18, Camilo Cuellar Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶5. 40. On July 2, 2014, Santiago was given a two-day suspension without pay because he entered a secure area at the LMMIA with his weapon, in violation of security rules. Based on this incident, his Airport ID was removed and he was placed as an on-call Detention Officer. Santiago did not engage in any protected conducted prior to his termination. See Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶¶15, 19 and its Exhibit E (Santiago’s Employee Improvement Notice of July 2, 2014). VI. FACTS RELATED TO ICE REQUEST FOR REMOVAL 41. In compliance with ICE Contract requirements, MVM informed Elpidio Nuñez- Cordero (“Nuñez”) Chief of Detention Operations, Department of Homeland Security and COR for the ICE Contract, of security violations committed by plaintiff, Bonilla and Santiago in two separate incidents at the LMMIA. See Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶¶2-8. 42. Regarding the June 14, 2014 incident, Nuñez, along with Colón, MVM Project Manager, went to the LMMIA and viewed the Closed Circuit Television (“CCTV”) security camera recordings from the LMMIA for June 14, 2014 showing both plaintiff and Bonilla Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 12 of 20 -13- engaging in piggybacking. See Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶9. 43. On June 26, 2014, Nuñez wrote a letter to Javier Erazo-Vélez (“Erazo-Vélez”), AOCC Operations/Security Control Systems Lead, Aerostar Airport Holding LLC, LMMIA, to request a copy of the video recording of June 14, 2014 showing plaintiff and Bonilla piggybacking and the Continuum Access Event Logs for plaintiff and Bonilla for the relevant time period on June 14, 2014. The Continuum Access Event Log shows the access through secured doors using Airport credentials. See Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶13 and its Exhibit A (Email of June 27, 2014 along with attached letter). 44. The video obtained from Aerostar for June 14, 2014 has two clips, the first one starting at approximately 8:59:55 AM and ending at approximately 9:05:00 AM. This first clip shows plaintiff and Bonilla going through airport secured door C2090 at approximately 9:03:18 AM to 9:03:29 AM. The second clip starts at approximately 10:34:55 AM and ends at approximately 10:39:59 AM. This clip shows plaintiff and Bonilla going through airport secured door C2090 at approximately 10:38:26 AM to 10:38:33 AM. The first video clip shows plaintiff swiping her card and entering her personal access code and Bonilla following her without following established procedure. Bonilla swipes her card but she does not enter her personal access code and she does not wait for the door to close before accessing the door. The second video shows both Bonilla and plaintiff accessing the same door one after the other, without following the appropriate procedure of waiting for the door to close before the other one enters Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 13 of 20 -14- her credentials in order to access the door. See Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶15 and its Exhibit B (Video of June 14, 2014). 2 45. From the videos Nuñez saw and the Continuum Access Event Logs for plaintiff and Bonilla for June 14, 2014, Nuñez confirmed that in the period between 9:00am and 10:40am, Bonilla and Rodríguez accessed the following controlled secured doors of the sterile area of the LMMIA: C2090, C2096, C2120, C3054, D2086. See Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶16-17 and its Exhibit C (Continuum Access Event Log for Bonilla on June 14, 2014) and Exhibit D (Continuum Access Even Log for plaintiff on June 14, 2014). 46. The Continuum Access Event Log (“Log”) for plaintiff for June 14, 2014 shows that she accessed door C2090 at 9:03:23AM, but the Log for Bonilla for said date does not show any access for Bonilla for said door around said time. Around this same time, the video shows Bonilla swiping her card through door C2090, but not entering her personal access code and not waiting for the door to close before accessing said door. See Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶¶15, 16 and its Exhibit B (June 14, 2014 Video), Exhibit C (Continuum Access Event Log for Bonilla on June 14, 2014) and Exhibit D (Continuum Access Even Log for plaintiff on June 14, 2014). 47. The Log for Bonilla for June 14, 2014 shows that Bonilla accessed door C2090 at 10:38:26AM, but the Log for plaintiff for said date does not show any access for plaintiff for said door around said time. See Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury 2 On this date, MVM will be filing a motion for leave to file Exhibit B (containing two Airport security video clips for June 14, 2014) conventionally through a CD-ROM and for it to be kept under seal. For ease of reference, we are including as Exhibit 20 images, in .pdf format, captured from said video clips. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 14 of 20 -15- at ¶16 and its Exhibit C (Continuum Access Event Log for Bonilla on June 14, 2014) and Exhibit D (Continuum Access Even Log for plaintiff on June 14, 2014). 48. On June 30, 2014, Nuñez wrote an email to Jesús Cruz, Nuñez’s first line supervisor, with a copy to several ICE and MVM employees, stating Nuñez’s position that the offenses committed by plaintiff, Bonilla and Santiago are disqualifying information that require immediate removal of the employees from performing duties under the ICE Contract. See Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶19 and its Exhibit E (Email of June 30, 2014 with attachment containing acknowledgement receipt of Plaintiff’s, Santiago’s and Rodríguez’s Aerostar Airport ID); and Exhibit 18, Camilo Cuellar Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶3. 49. On June 30, 2014, Colón responded that the employees who committed the offenses had been referred to MVM Human Resources and that they made the decision regarding discipline. On that same date, Nuñez requested that MVM inform what decision it made regarding these three employees. See Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶20 and its Exhibit F (Email of June 30, 2014). 50. By July 23, 2014, Nuñez had not received all the requested information. Therefore, he decided to go up through his chain of command to determine what action to take. See Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶21. 51. Accordingly, on August 4, 2014, Nuñez sent an email to Camilo Cuellar (“Cuellar”), ICE Management & Program Analyst, detailing the two security incidents at LMMIA involving plaintiff, Bonilla and Santiago and recommending that these employees be permanently removed from performing duties on the ICE Contract, based on the seriousness and Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 15 of 20 -16- nature (security) of the violations. See Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶22 and its Exhibit G (Email of August 4, 2014). 52. On August 4, 2014, Cuellar wrote an email to Jay Vergel (“Vergel”), MVM Operations Manager, to request additional information regarding the incidents. On August 5, 2014, Vergel confirmed the violations and stated that disciplinary action had been taken. See Exhibit 18, Camilo Cuellar Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶6 and its Exhibit A at 2-5. 53. Upon consideration of all the facts, Cuellar made the determination that the offenses committed by plaintiff, Bonilla and Santiago, disqualified them from performing work under the ICE Contract between MVM and ICE. Accordingly, on August 12, 2014, Cuellar sent an email to Vergel requesting that plaintiff, Bonilla and Santiago be removed from the ICE Contract immediately. See Exhibit 18, Camilo Cuellar Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶7 and its Exhibit A at 1. 54. At the time the removal determination was made and the email sent to Vergel on August 12, 2014, neither Cuellar nor Nuñez were aware of any administrative charge filed against ICE or MVM, of any internal complaint, of any deposition testimony, or of any other participation in a protected activity under any anti-discrimination statute, by any of the three MVM employees (plaintiff, Bonilla and Santiago). See Exhibit 18, Camilo Cuellar Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶8; Exhibit 4, Elpidio Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶24. 55. Nuñez’s recommendation to remove Rodríguez, Bonilla and Santiago from the ICE Contract and Cuellar’s determination to request removal of plaintiff, Bonilla and Santiago from the ICE Contract was based exclusively on the seriousness of the violations, which represented security violations, and on the provisions of the ICE Contract. See Exhibit 4, Elpidio Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 16 of 20 -17- Nuñez-Cordero Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶25; and Exhibit18, Camilo Cuellar Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶9. 56. Upon receipt of the order of removal and the removal of plaintiff’s security clearance, McHale made the decision to terminate plaintiff’s employment with MVM and the employment of Santiago and Bonilla, based on the Government’s instructions and the ICE Contract. The instruction for removal was given to local management that same day. At that time, McHale had not seen the Charge filed by Bonilla before the EEOC. See Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶17-19 and its Exhibit F (August 12, 2014 email); and Exhibit G, Plaintiff’s Termination Letter (bate stamp number 178). 57. MVM did not give any consideration to plaintiff’s deposition testimony of July 3, 2014 in the case of Wanda Flores Febus v. MVM, Inc., Civil No. 13-1391 (FAB), when making plaintiff’s termination decision. See Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶19. 58. Bonilla and Santiago were also terminated effective August 13, 3014. See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 119-120; and Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶18. VII. FACTS RELATED TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT COVERING PLAINTIFF’S POSITION 59. Plaintiff’s position was covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) signed by MVM and the Government Security Guards Association and its Local 2003 (“the Union”). The Union was the “sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours and other conditions of employment.” See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Depo. at 45, 115-116; Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 17 of 20 -18- Penalty of Perjury at ¶22 and its Exhibit I (Agreement between MVM, Inc. and the Government Security Guards Association and It’s Local 2003 dated June 23, 2013 to June 22, 2016), Article 1, Recognition, Section 1 at 4. 60. The CBA provides that “[t]he Union acknowledges that Employer has entered into a Contract with the Government to provide services under specific terms and conditions, and that the Government has broad discretion to direct the activities of Employer within the scope of the Contract.” See Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶22 and its Exhibit I (Agreement between MVM, Inc. and the Government Security Guards Association and It’s Local 2003 dated June 23, 2013 to June 22, 2016), Article 23, Contract Changes, Section 1 at 25. 61. The CBA provides that “no employee shall be dismissed or otherwise disciplined without just cause unless the employee is removed from working under the Employer's Contract with the Government by the Government, at the request of the Government, or if the employee's credentials are denied or withdrawn by the Government.” See Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶22 and its Exhibit I (Agreement between MVM, Inc. and the Government Security Guards Association and It’s Local 2003 dated June 23, 2013 to June 22, 2016), Article 8, Discipline, Section 1 at 12. 62. The CBA also provides that “[t]he employee may submit a written request for reconsideration with clear justification and supporting documents to the employer no later than ten (10) days from the removal. The employer will present the written request to the government with the understanding that the decision is at the sole discretion of the government.” See Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶23 and its Exhibit I, (Agreement Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 18 of 20 -19- between MVM, Inc. and the Government Security Guards Association and It’s Local 2003 dated June 23, 2013 to June 22, 2016), Article 8, Discipline, Section 1 at 12. 63. Plaintiff did not submit a reconsideration request within ten days of the termination. See Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶24. 64. The CBA also provides that “[a]mong the actions which shall be deemed inappropriate by the Employer under the circumstances, and may result in and establish just cause for discipline, up to and including immediate dismissal, shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following, as determined by the Employer or the Government:  abuse of authority;  neglect of duties;  breach of security; [. . .]  having credentials withdrawn by the Government, or having the Government ask that the employee be removed from working under the Employer's Contract with the Government . . . See Exhibit 3, Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury at ¶22 and its Exhibit I, (Agreement between MVM, Inc. and the Government Security Guards Association and It’s Local 2003 dated June 23, 2013 to June 22, 2016), Article 8, Discipline, Section 2 at 12-13. VIII. FACTS RELATED TO EEOC CHARGE FILED BY PLAINTIFF 65. On September 9, 2014, plaintiff filed a Charge before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). See Exhibit 19, EEOC Charge. 66. In the EEOC Charge, plaintiff only marked the “Retaliation” box. The Charge also states that the earlies act took place on July 3, 2014 and the latest on August 13, 2014. See Exhibit 19. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 19 of 20 -20- In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 15 th day of August, 2016. WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on this same date, we electronically filed a copy with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system. SCHUSTER AGUILÓ LLC Attorneys for Defendant PO Box 363128 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936-3128 Telephone: (787) 765-4646 Telefax: (787) 765-4611 s/ Ana B. Rosado-Frontanés Ana B. Rosado-Frontanés USDC PR No. 224506 arosado@salawpr.com s/ Gabriel Maldonado-González Gabriel Maldonado-González USDC PR No. 230802 gmaldonado@salawpr.com Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 20 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO Alexandra M. Rodriguez Candelario Plaintiff v. MVM, Inc. Defendant CIVIL No. 15-1850 (GAG-SCC) Re: Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964; Employment Discrimination; Retaliatory Discrimination; Gender Discrimination INDEX OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1 Excerpts of Plaintiff's Deposition taken on February 9, 2016 EXHIBIT 2 Joan Mercado Statement under Penalty of Perjury dated June 13, 2016 EXHIBIT 3 Christopher McHale Statement under Penalty of Perjury dated August 15, 2016 a. Excerpts of Contract between MVM and ICE b. Aerostar identification ("ID") Badge Application c. Incident Report provided by Méndez regarding the events of June 14, 2014 d. Disciplinary action given to Bonilla on July 10, 2014. e. Disciplinary action given to Santiago on July 2, 2014. f. August 12, 2014 emails g. Termination letter given to Rodríguez h. Disciplinary action given to Rodríguez on January 18, 2012 for sleeping while on duty. i. Collective Bargaining Agreement in effect at the time of termination. j. Disciplinary actions given to Hernandez and Cruz. EXHIBIT 4 Elpidio Núñez Statement under Penalty of Perjury dated June 9, 2016 a. June 27, 2014 email and letter from Núñez to Erazo-Vélez b. Video obtained from Aerostar for June 14, 2014 c. Continuum Access Event Log for Bonilla for June 14, 2014 d. Continuum Access Event log for Rodríguez for June 14, 2014 e. June 30, 2014 email from Núñez to Cruz, with copy to several ICE and MVM employees f. June 30, 2014 string of emails between Colón and Núñez g. August 4, 2014 email from Núñez to Cuellar Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-2 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 3 -2- EXHIBIT 5 Jennifer Morales Statement under Penalty of Perjury dated August 15, 2016 a. Rover Post Order b. Vehicle Inspection Sheet for vehicle HVY-015 dated August 1, 2013. c. Vehicle Inspection Report for Vehicle HVY-015 dated August 1, 2013. d. Supervisor Logbook dated July 31 to August 1, 2013 e. Rover Logbook dated August 1, 2013 f. Miles Logbook for vehicle HVY-015 for August 1, 2013 g. Keys Logbook dated July 31 to August 1, 2013 h. Vehicle Inspection Sheet for Vehicle HVY-600 dated August 2, 2013 i. Disciplinary action received by Torres titled MVM Form 700-5 Employee Improvement Notice, dated August 1, 2013 j. June 5, 2014 Incident Report signed by Alexandra Rodríguez regarding strip-search incident. k. Memorandum dated June 6, 2014 l. Disciplinary action received by González for failure to immediately report the strip-search incident involving Torres. m. Memo regarding Open Position, dated October 27, 2014. n. November 4, 2014 Memo regarding the assignment of the Female Rover Position. o. Disciplinary action received by Morales on August 7, 2014. EXHIBIT 6 ICE PR and MVM Standards of Employee Conduct EXHIBIT 7 May 19, 2013 disciplinary action for logbook entries EXHIBIT 8 August 1, 2013 disciplinary action related to inspection and use of vehicle HVY-015 EXHIBIT 9 August 22, 2013 disciplinary action for failure to complete firearms qualification EXHIBIT 10 December 12, 2013 disciplinary action for not having her weapon stored in safety box EXHIBIT 11 June 19, 2014 disciplinary action for failing to immediately inform strip search incident regarding Narciso Torres EXHIBIT 12 Subpoena to Aerostar and response re: piggybacking training documents EXHIBIT 13 César Méndez Statement under Penalty of Perjury dated June 14, 2016. EXHIBIT 14 June 26, 2014 email from plaintiff to Morales regarding incident report from June 14, 2014. Incident Report from plaintiff regarding June 14, 2014 piggybacking incident. EXHIBIT 15 NLRB sworn statement by plaintiff dated September 5, 2014. EXHIBIT 16 July 2, 2014 disciplinary action for June 14, 2014 incident. EXHIBIT 17 Incident Report from plaintiff dated June 25, 2014 regarding incident with David Santiago Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-2 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 3 -3- EXHIBIT 18 Camilo Cuellar Statement under Penalty of Perjury dated June 7, 2016. a. August 4 and 5, 2014 string of emails between Jay Vergel and Camilo Cuellar EXHIBIT 19 EEOC Charge EXHIBIT 20 PDF of the video relating to the June 14, 2014 incident EXHIBIT 21 Signed Acknowledgment Aerostar Airport ID Badge. Signed Acknowledgment PRPA Badge Guidelines Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-2 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO ALEXANDRA M. RODRIGUEZ * CANDELARIO, * Plaintiff, * vs. Civil No. 15-1850 * MVM SECURITY, INC. (MVM), and/or MVM INTERNATIONAL * SECURITY, INC.; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS * ENFORCEMENT (ICE); DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND * SECURITY (DHS); JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, ELPIDIO NUNEZ, * CHRISTOPHER MARTIN McHALE, THE UNITED STATES * DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et als., * Defendants. * ----------------------------- The deposition of: ALEXANDRA M. RODRIGUEZ CANDELARIO, the plaintiff herein, was held at the law offices of SCHUSTER AGUILO, LLP, 221 Ponce de Leon Avenue, 15th Floor, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00917, on Tuesday, February 9, 2016, at 9:25 a.m. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 59 17 1 Q. Okay. 2 MS. ROSADO: I'm going to mark it as 3 Exhibit 1 of the deposition. I only have that 4 one copy for that one, but... 5 MR. MARTORANI: You're going to mark it? 6 MS. ROSADO: Yes. 7 MR. MARTORANI: Okay, 8 (Whereupon, the document is marked for 9 purposes of identification as Deposition 10 Exhibit No. 1.) 11 BY MS. ROSADO: 12 Q. You started working for MVM on March 5, 13 2007? 14 A. 2007. 15 Q. Was it March 5th, or you don't recall the 16 exact date? 17 A. March 3, I believe, it was, 2007. 18 Q. Okay. That we can clarify, but we're sure 19 it's March 2007. 20 A. March 2007. 21 Q. In what position? 22 A. Detention officer. 23 Q. How did you find out about this job? 24 A. The newspaper. 25 Q. And who did you interview with? Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 59 18 1 A. I went to the hotel when they conducted 2 the interviews, at the Marriott. 3 Q. You don't remember who you interviewed 4 with? 5 A. No. 6 Q. What were your duties when you started 7 working as detention officer? 8 A. Process detainees, escort them from one 9 place to another, be in the units with them as a 10 custodian, either giving them meals, clothing, 11 etcetera. 12 Q. And this is just for the record. You were 13 working for MVM for the contract that MVM has with ICE, 14 correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And the detainees are illegal aliens that 17 are here in Puerto Rico? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. And they have different classifications of 20 risk, I guess. Some are-- 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. So it's a sensitive position in terms of 23 security. Is that correct? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. And when you started working you received Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 59 19 1 a copy of the employee handbook, correct? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. And you were also given training, correct? 4 A. Uh-huh. Correct. 5 Q. I'm going to show you a document. It's a 6 receipt. Is that your signature-- 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. --on the document? 9 Okay. So this is an "Acknowledgement" of 10 receipt of policy for "Prohibition of Harassment in the 11 Workplace," which I'm going to mark as Exhibit 2. 12 (Whereupon, the document is marked for 13 purposes of identification as Deposition 14 Exhibit No. 2.) 15 BY MS. ROSADO: 16 Q. And you also received MVM's and ICE's 17 standards of conduct, correct? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. All right. So I'm showing you ICE 20 "Standards of Employee Conduct," which has "MVM 21 Standards of Conduct" and "ICE Minimum Standards of 22 Conduct." And its Bates stamped documents are from 23 page 18 of MVM's production of documents to page 23. 24 On page 20, marked 20 of MVM's production of 25 documents, is that your signature? Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 4 of 59 20 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. And then on the page marked with 3 Bates stamp 22, is that your signature? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And on the page marked 23, is that your 6 signature? 7 A. Yes. 8 MS. ROSADO: So I'm going to mark this 9 together as Exhibit 3. 10 (Whereupon, the documents are marked for 11 purposes of identification as Deposition 12 Exhibit No. 3.) 13 BY MS. ROSADO: 14 Q. I'm showing you another document, which is 15 a "Signed Acknowledgement" of the badge guidelines, 16 "PRPA Badge Guidelines and Responsibilities," and it 17 has a date of June 26, 2007. 18 Is that your signature on that page? 19 A. Yes. 20 MS. ROSADO: I'll mark this as Exhibit 4. 21 (Whereupon, the document is marked for 22 purposes of identification as Deposition 23 Exhibit No. 4.) 24 BY MS. ROSADO: 25 Q. I'm showing you another document, or I'm Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 5 of 59 21 1 going to show it to your Counsel first, another 2 document. It's an acknowledgement and receipt of a 3 "Training given in Pre service and Annual refresher 4 training on the ICE Operation Manual," and it's dated 5 June 19, 2009. 6 Is that your signature? 7 A. Yes. 8 MS. ROSADO: I'm going to mark it as 9 Exhibit 5. 10 (Whereupon, the document is marked for 11 purposes of identification as Deposition 12 Exhibit No. 5.) 13 BY MS. ROSADO: 14 Q. I'm showing you a set of three documents 15 Bates stamped 47, 48, 54, through 55. And it's just as 16 examples of the training that you took while you were 17 an MVM employee. So you can look at it and tell me if 18 this is consistent with the trainings that you took 19 while employed at MVM. 20 MR. GIL: Counsel, can you clarify which 21 date this is, please. 22 MS. ROSADO: Which date? 23 MR. GIL: Yeah. 24 MS. ROSADO: I think we should ask 25 plaintiff if she is the one who wrote it. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 6 of 59 22 1 MR. GIL: Yeah. Because I know these were 2 '07, but these, like the date, it can't be '06 3 because she wasn't working there, so... 4 BY MS. ROSADO: 5 Q. Ms. Rodriguez, I'm showing you the 6 document that's Bates stamped with No. 48 of MVM's 7 production of documents. If you can look at it. 8 At the top it says "Date." Is that your 9 handwriting? It's not there. It's here (indicating). 10 MR. GIL: (To the deponent) It's this one 11 (indicating). 12 THE DEPONENT: No, it's not mine. My 13 handwriting is on none of the pages. On the 14 top, yes. On the top. None of the two is my 15 handwriting. 16 BY MS. ROSADO: 17 Q. Okay. But your signature is on all three 18 documents, correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 MR. GIL: (To the deponent) All three? 21 I'm sorry. 22 THE DEPONENT: The signature is mine-- 23 MR. GIL: It is your signature? 24 MS. ROSADO: Counsel. 25 MR. GIL: I'm just saying. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 7 of 59 23 1 MS. ROSADO: I know, but I'll ask the 2 question. 3 THE DEPONENT: --but what's on top, none 4 is mine. 5 BY MS. ROSADO: 6 Q. Right. It's not your handwriting, what's 7 on top, but your signature appears at the bottom of 8 each of the documents. 9 A. Yes. They would give us a document and we 10 would sign it. 11 Q. So from having reviewed the documents, is 12 that consistent with the training that you took while 13 you were employed at MVM? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And you took annual, yearly refresher 16 trainings as well, correct? 17 A. That's correct. And we would also take a 18 test. 19 Q. Okay. Thank you. 20 MS. ROSADO: So I'm going to mark these-- 21 MR. GIL: All of them? 22 MS. ROSADO: --three collectively. Yes. 23 MR. GIL: As Exhibit 6? 24 MS. ROSADO: Exhibit 6. I said three, but 25 there's four documents, so... Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 8 of 59 24 1 (Whereupon, the documents are marked for 2 purposes of identification as Deposition 3 Exhibit No. 6.) 4 BY MS. ROSADO: 5 Q. I'm showing you another document, which is 6 dated November 20, 2013. It's a "Signed 7 Acknowledgement" regarding the identification badge 8 supplied by Aerostar Holdings, Aerostar Airport 9 Holdings. 10 Is that your signature at the bottom of the page 11 where it say "Signature"? 12 A. Yes. 13 MS. ROSADO: I'm going to mark this as 14 Exhibit 7. 15 (Whereupon, the document is marked for 16 purposes of identification as Deposition 17 Exhibit No. 7.) 18 BY MS. ROSADO: 19 Q. Ms. Rodriguez, when you started working at 20 MVM you were an on-call officer, correct? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. Which means that they would call you 23 whenever the need arose. 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. And at some point you bid for the position Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 9 of 59 25 1 of rover, correct? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. And that's the last position you had at 4 MVM, correct? 5 A. It was combined. 6 Q. What do you mean by that? 7 A. They were four days of roll over and one 8 day in the female unit. 9 Q. "Female unit," that's in GSA, GSA Center 10 in Guaynabo? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. As I understand it, your schedule, your 13 last work schedule, was Mondays and Tuesdays off, 14 Wednesday and Thursday from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., and 15 Friday and Saturday from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 16 Is that correct? 17 A. Friday, Saturday and Sunday from 2:00 p.m. 18 to 10:00 p.m. 19 Q. Okay. And then-- 20 A. The rest is correct. 21 Q. And when of those days did you work at the 22 GSA Center? 23 A. Every day. 24 Q. Every day you had to go to the GSA Center? 25 A. That's correct. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 10 of 59 26 1 Q. Okay. Let me just clarify. You said that 2 it was combined. So you did one day at the female unit 3 at the GSA Center. What day was that? 4 A. Sunday. 5 Q. And that was an unarmed post. 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. And then the rest of the days that you 8 were doing the rover function, you had to go to GSA and 9 from there they would tell you where you had to go? 10 A. The position was there as a rover. From 11 there the routes would come out as to where we would 12 have to go with the detainees, or if we had to go 13 someplace else, or to pick up at the airport or pick up 14 in San Patricio or pick up at the jail. But the 15 position per se is at GSA. 16 Q. Okay. I understand. And that post of 17 rover was an armed position, correct? 18 A. It was not armed. It subsequently became 19 armed. 20 Q. When did it become an armed position? 21 A. I believe it was in 2013. 22 Q. And you were armed, correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And as a rover, then you were telling me 25 that you took detainees to different places, including Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 11 of 59 27 1 the Luis Munoz Marin International Airport, correct? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. And to go to the airport you had to have 4 an airport badge, correct? 5 A. That's correct. Because I also did shifts 6 at the airport. 7 Q. You also covered the post at the airport? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. Okay. When was that? Was it on-- 10 A. When someone was absent, when someone went 11 on vacation. 12 Q. Okay. So you could cover that post, if 13 there was a need. 14 A. I covered all of the posts. 15 Q. If there was a need. 16 A. Exactly. 17 Q. And this airport badge is different from 18 your MVM ID, correct? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. In order to get that badge you have to 21 fill out a packet of documents, correct? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. And that badge, that badge gave you access 24 to secure doors at the airport, correct? 25 A. That's correct. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 12 of 59 28 1 Q. That were restricted to the public in 2 general, correct? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. What was the process for you to go through 5 those doors? 6 A. You swipe the card and press the code that 7 you yourself created and you go in through the door. 8 Q. Okay. So you swiped the card through a 9 card reader? I'm guessing there's a-- there's a card 10 reader, you swipe your card-- 11 A. You enter the code and you go in. 12 Q. So you had an individual code specific to 13 you? 14 A. Exactly. 15 Q. And everyone created their own code. 16 Everyone who had that badge created their own code? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. And Aerostar gave you training, the SIDA 19 training, correct? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. And only people with the badge could go 22 through those doors. 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. And if there was more than one person 25 going through, everyone had to follow the process, Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 13 of 59 29 1 correct? 2 A. Sometimes it would be followed, sometimes 3 it wouldn't. 4 Q. But my question is-- 5 A. That's supposed to be the process, but 6 sometimes it would be followed and sometimes it 7 wouldn't. When someone was in a hurry, it wouldn't be 8 followed. 9 Q. So you yourself did not follow that 10 process on occasion? 11 A. Sometimes they would send us on a route 12 and we were on the borderline of the departure of the 13 flights. We would go with the detainees and we would 14 take them through the security doors until we got to 15 the gate and we would obviate the checkpoint with TSA, 16 and none of the detainees had the badge. 17 Q. Of course. Okay. But you said that the 18 correct procedure is that everyone who has a badge has 19 to follow the process that you just explained, correct? 20 A. Exactly. 21 Q. And that is-- 22 A. At first it was punching. Afterward they 23 instituted the code. It wasn't always with the code. 24 Q. What do you mean, "punching"? 25 A. At first the airport card was swiping it, Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 14 of 59 30 1 you would swipe it. It was afterward that they put the 2 access with the code. 3 Q. And when was that? 4 A. I couldn't say. I don't recall. 5 Q. Was it a year before you were terminated, 6 around? 7 MR. GIL: Objection, Counsel. She already 8 answered. 9 MS. ROSADO: Okay. I just want an 10 approximate of time. 11 BY MS. ROSADO: 12 Q. I understand you don't recall the exact 13 date, and that's not what I'm asking. I just want to 14 know if you know an approximate of when that was 15 changed to the code. 16 A. I don't recall. 17 Q. And in the Aerostar training, all of that 18 is covered and discussed, the process to go through the 19 doors, correct? 20 A. Exactly. It would be discussed, but we 21 also violated it when detainees would go through the 22 door, because that's a violation. 23 Q. Who violated it? 24 A. They're supposed to go through the 25 checkpoint. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 15 of 59 32 1 Q. Who? I want do know who specifically 2 authorized you to go through the-- 3 A. Remigio, Mendez, Quinones. Those of us 4 who worked there. 5 Q. Remigio, Mendez, Quinones. Anybody else? 6 A. Those are the three that were always 7 there. 8 Q. Now I'm going to show you a document. 9 This is just one part of the packet of documents that 10 you filled out in order to obtain your airport ID 11 badge. I have other ones here. I'm just showing you 12 the application part. 13 MS. ROSADO: And this is not marked, but 14 we'll follow up in a production with the Bates 15 stamp numbers-- 16 MR. GIL: Yeah. 17 MS. ROSADO: --because we recently 18 obtained it. 19 MR. GIL: Thank you for answering the 20 question. 21 BY MS. ROSADO: 22 Q. All right. So I'm showing you a document. 23 It's Form-- at the top it says "ID Badge Application." 24 It's an Aerostar Holdings document. 25 You recognize this document as the application Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 16 of 59 33 1 you had to fill out in order to get the badge, airport 2 badge? 3 A. Yes, but there are more papers missing 4 here. 5 Q. Right. 6 A. It's not just two. 7 Q. Right. I know. Yes. 8 MS. ROSADO: And I'll follow up with the 9 whole package, Counsel, Bates stamp number. 10 Just in order to save trees-- 11 MR. GIL: That's all right. 12 MS. ROSADO: --we're not going to mark 13 everything, but yeah, I mean, I do have-- or if 14 you want-- 15 MR. GIL: Please provide them in the usual 16 form. 17 MS. ROSADO: Yes. 18 BY MS. ROSADO: 19 Q. I understand there's other documents, but 20 for purposes of this deposition, you recognize this as 21 the application that you filled out in order to obtain 22 your ID badge. 23 MS. ROSADO: And I'm going to mark this as 24 Exhibit 8. 25 THE DEPONENT: That's correct. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 17 of 59 34 1 (Whereupon, the document is marked for 2 purposes of identification as Deposition 3 Exhibit No. 8.) 4 BY MS. ROSADO: 5 Q. Whenever you were transferring or moving 6 female detainees there had to be a woman rover present, 7 correct? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. And if you didn't have the ID-- 10 A. But not necessarily. There were times 11 when there was transportation with a female where they 12 would send two males. It wasn't always a male and a 13 female. Sometimes they would transport a female and it 14 wasn't always a female and a male. Sometimes there 15 were two males transporting females. 16 Q. Okay. The rule or the way it should be is 17 that if there's a female detainee there has to be a 18 female detention officer, correct? 19 A. It should be. 20 Q. So what you're saying is that there were 21 occasions where that was not followed. 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. Do you remember when? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Do you remember a date or an approximate Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 18 of 59 42 1 coworker would do the same procedure. Once we finished 2 the procedure we would go again to the checkpoint to go 3 into the runway up to the designated area, take the 4 detainees out, until secondary. 5 Q. Okay. And when you covered the post at 6 the airport on those occasions where there was a need, 7 what were your functions there at that post? 8 A. The duties there are to get flights out, 9 make arrangements for the detainees' flights. If there 10 are detainees in custody, get food for them. If a 11 foreigner has been detained, provide custody there. 12 That's virtually the duties at the airport. 13 Q. Okay. And your position of rover, as well 14 as all posts, had specific post orders that you had to 15 abide by, correct? 16 A. Exactly. 17 Q. Post orders. 18 A. Exactly. 19 Q. I'm going to show you a document. 20 MS. ROSADO: And I just want to say for 21 the record, some documents are marked 22 "Confidential." There's a protective order in 23 effect in this case. So I'm not going to say it 24 every time, but just know that I'm using them in 25 this deposition, but that doesn't mean that they Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 19 of 59 44 1 BY MS. ROSADO: 2 Q. Oh, you sign the post orders every day? 3 A. Every day. 4 Q. Okay. So you recognize this document. 5 A. That's correct. 6 MS. ROSADO: So I'll mark it as Exhibit 9. 7 (Whereupon, the document is marked for 8 purposes of identification as Deposition 9 Exhibit No. 9.) 10 BY MS. ROSADO: 11 Q. I'm going to show you a document which is 12 an "Employee Improvement Notice" dated May 19, 2013. 13 And what I want to know, are those your initials 14 at the bottom where it says "Officer's Initials"? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. And on the second page, that's your 17 signature on the first line where it says "Officer's 18 Signature"? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. And here, you didn't write any comments in 21 that "Section Two," correct? 22 A. No. 23 Q. This is a "Verbal Counsel/Oral Warning" 24 for filling out something in the logbook ahead of time 25 or before it happened, correct? Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 20 of 59 45 1 A. That's correct. 2 MS. ROSADO: I'm going to mark this as 3 Exhibit 10. 4 (Whereupon, the document is marked for 5 purposes of identification as Deposition 6 Exhibit No. 10.) 7 BY MS. ROSADO: 8 Q. Is there anything you want to say about 9 the prior document? 10 A. That has already expired. It expired 11 after one year. 12 Q. Okay. I saw you saying somewhere that 13 pursuant to the CBA, the collective-- you were covered 14 by a collective bargaining agreement, correct? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. Okay. And I saw somewhere that you stated 17 that based on the collective bargaining agreement 18 warnings expired after a year, correct? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. Okay. So that's what you're referring to. 21 A. Exactly. 22 Q. But you did receive that on that date in 23 May 2013, correct? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. Okay. So I'm showing you another Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 21 of 59 46 1 document, which is a written reprimand dated August 1, 2 2013. 3 Is that your initials at the bottom where it 4 says "Officer's Initials"? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. And on the second page, is that your 7 signature? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And there's no comments there in "Section 10 Two," correct? In the "Employee Comments" section. 11 A. No. 12 Q. On the third page, this is the document 13 that you filled out, correct? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. And it corresponds to the vehicle with the 16 tag HVY 015, correct? 17 A. Exactly. But this isn't the inspection. 18 Q. The inspection date says August 1st, 2013, 19 correct? 20 A. That's correct, but this is not the paper. 21 Q. What do you mean "this is not the paper"? 22 A. Because when this happened, this is not 23 the inspection. It's not the same vehicle. 24 Q. "It's not the same vehicle" as what? 25 A. That was taken that day. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 22 of 59 55 1 MS. ROSADO: Okay. Thank you. 2 So we're going mark this as Exhibit 11. 3 (Whereupon, the document is marked for 4 purposes of identification as Deposition 5 Exhibit No. 11.) 6 MR. GIL: Counsel, pardon the 7 interruption. We're not going to submit or mark 8 (indicating)-- 9 MS. ROSADO: I don't know yet. 10 MR. GIL: Just for illustrative purposes. 11 MS. ROSADO: Yes. 12 MR. GIL: Okay. 13 MS. ROSADO: For now. 14 MR. GIL: Okay. Thanks. 15 MS. ROSADO: We may come back to it. 16 BY MS. ROSADO: 17 Q. I'going to show you another document. I'm 18 going to show you the document "Employee Improvement 19 Notice" dated August 22, 2013. This is for not 20 completing successfully the firearms training, 21 qualification training. Is that your signature-- 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. --at the bottom? 24 And on the second page, you refused to sign. 25 Oh, no. This is another one. I'm not showing you Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 23 of 59 56 1 the-- just look at the first one for now. 2 So this is a document that was given to you on 3 August 22, 2013, correct? 4 A. Uh-huh. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. Can I have the document, please. 6 (Whereupon, the deponent complies.) 7 MS. ROSADO: I'm going to mark it as 8 Exhibit 12. 9 (Whereupon, the document is marked for 10 purposes of identification as Deposition 11 Exhibit No. 12.) 12 BY MS. ROSADO: 13 Q. So now I'm showing you another document 14 dated December 2013. It doesn't have a date. December 15 12, actually, is the date of the charge, based on the 16 document. 17 This is an "Employee Improvement Notice" because 18 your weapon was not found in the safety box and you 19 stated that the gun was located in your private car. 20 Is this something that-- this is a document that 21 was given to you? 22 A. Yes, I saw it. 23 Q. And this one, you refused to sign. 24 A. Exactly. 25 Q. Okay. Why? Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 24 of 59 57 1 A. Why? 2 Q. Yes. 3 A. Because what was put here was not fair. I 4 had already turned in my shift, I had already performed 5 my shift, and everyone does this. 6 Q. Okay. So when you say "rendido turno," 7 your shift was already over? 8 A. Exactly. 9 Q. But in fact, your gun was in your private 10 car, correct? 11 A. I had finished my shift. It was in my 12 car. 13 Q. And where were you? 14 A. At the facilities. I put my weapon in the 15 car. I went into the facilities to get my things 16 because I had already finished my shift. 17 Q. When you are in the facility, your gun is 18 supposed to be in the safety box? 19 A. It's supposed to be there. At first they 20 weren't there. They were in the cars. It wasn't until 21 afterward that they put the safety boxes. 22 Q. When was that? 23 A. I don't have a specific date. 24 Q. But certainly by this date-- 25 A. The administration knows that that's the Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 25 of 59 62 1 BY MS. ROSADO: 2 Q. All right. So, Ms. Rodriguez, we're going 3 to talk about the events of June 14, 2014, and I'm just 4 going to ask you some questions based on the sworn 5 statement that we referred to before. 6 A. Okay. 7 Q. So on June 14, 2014, you had an assigned 8 shift at the GSA Center in Guaynabo starting at 9 2:00 p.m., correct? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. And in the morning your supervisor, Cesar 12 Mendez, called your cell phone. 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. To ask you to go in as soon as possible 15 before your assigned 2:00 p.m. shift. 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. Because there were a lot of detainees to 18 transport that day. 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. You told him that you would show up as 21 soon as possible. 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. Before 2:00 p.m. 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. But that you first had to drop off a Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 26 of 59 63 1 relative at the airport. 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Reason why you were going to go in your 4 uniform to the airport. 5 A. I asked him if I could go in my uniform. 6 He told me to go in my uniform, because I live in 7 Gurabo, so that I wouldn't have to go to Gurabo and 8 come back, and he told me to go in my uniform. 9 Q. Okay. And this relative that you were 10 going to drop off in the airport was your boyfriend. 11 A. My companion. 12 Q. Your romantic partner. 13 A. My companion. 14 Q. Okay. Is this your son's father? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. And what's his name? 17 A. Juan Antonio Santiago Morales. 18 Q. You arrived at the airport between 8:00 19 and 8:30 a.m. 20 A. Approximately. 21 Q. And as soon as you got to the airport you 22 called Marta Bonilla because you wanted her to finally 23 meet your companion. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Marta Bonilla was at that time working at Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 27 of 59 64 1 the airport. 2 A. Exactly. 3 Q. And she agreed to go meet your companion. 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. You also agreed to have a coffee at the 6 airport. 7 A. We called the shift supervisor, which was 8 Mendez, and we told him that we were going to have a 9 cup of coffee and he said fine. At all times we were 10 in communication with the shift supervisor. He knew 11 what we were doing. 12 Q. When did you call him? At what time? 13 A. I don't recall. 14 Q. You called him from what number? 15 A. From my phone. 16 Q. Your cell phone? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And what number did you call him at? 19 A. At the facility. 20 Q. And what is your cell phone? 21 A. At that time it was 501-1988. 22 Q. 787 area code? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And who was your service provider? 25 A. I think it was Claro. I don't recall. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 28 of 59 65 1 I don't know if it was them or-- because I changed the 2 telephone two times in that same year. 3 Q. You changed the number or the service 4 provider, or both? 5 A. Both. I changed the phone twice. 6 Q. Okay. So tell me what's the other phone 7 number. 8 A. 314-1912. 9 MR. MARTORANI: (To the deponent) 787? 10 THE DEPONENT: 314-1912. Area code? 11 MR. MARTORANI: 787 area code? 12 THE DEPONENT: Yes. 13 MR. MARTORANI: Okay. 14 BY MS. ROSADO: 15 Q. Sorry. I believe is it 1912? 16 A. 314-1912. 17 Q. Okay. And who were your two service 18 providers? 19 A. Sprint. 20 Q. And the other one? 21 A. Claro. 22 Q. Claro. Okay. 23 And you don't know which one corresponds to 24 which number? 25 A. The thing is that I changed it twice. I Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 29 of 59 67 1 A. No. 2 Q. Okay. And what number you say the 3 facility? What's that number? Do you know it? 4 A. 774-4162. I think that's it. I already 5 forgot. It's been a year already. 6 Q. Then when you hung up with Bonilla, she 7 showed up at the American Airlines counter where the 8 federal agriculture department is. 9 A. Exactly. 10 Q. And that's a public area where everyone, 11 all travelers, can be. 12 A. Exactly. 13 Q. And you were there with your companion. 14 A. Exactly. 15 Q. Is this person still your companion? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Then from there, both of you, Bonilla and 18 you, accompanied Juan Antonio Santiago to the Jet Blue 19 counter, correct? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. And he did his check in and you left him 22 at the checkpoint, Jet Blue checkpoint. 23 A. Exactly. He stayed at the checkpoint. 24 Q. And he went through the checkpoint, like 25 any other traveler. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 30 of 59 68 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. While he was going through the checkpoint, 3 what were you and Marta Bonilla doing? 4 A. Well, there we called the supervisor and 5 we told him that we were going to have a coffee. 6 Q. So that was after leaving Santiago, 7 Mr. Santiago, at the Jet Blue checkpoint. 8 A. Exactly. 9 Q. At what time was Mr. Santiago's flight? 10 A. I don't remember. It's already been a 11 year, a year plus. 12 Q. Where was he traveling to? 13 A. New York. 14 Q. Direct flight, I assume? 15 A. Exactly. 16 Q. Then it says here that after your 17 companion went through the checkpoint, after he had to 18 put on his shoes again after the inspection, he got 19 lost because there were some changes at the airport 20 gates and they were not properly labeled, so you and 21 Marta Bonilla accompanied him to the Jet Blue gate. 22 A. We were buying the coffee and he called me 23 that he was lost and we went over there, which we 24 encountered him approximately halfway there, and we 25 directed him to the gate. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 31 of 59 69 1 Q. Where did you buy the coffee? 2 A. At Church's, which is inside of the gate. 3 Q. Inside which gate? 4 A. Around where Copa is, which we also bought 5 a coffee for Mr. Abraham Ortiz, who was Marta's 6 coworker that day at the post. He me $5 and when we 7 went back I took him the coffee. 8 Q. Did Marta Bonilla also buy a coffee? 9 A. We had the coffee there and one to go, 10 which was for Abraham Ortiz. 11 Q. Okay. So you drank your coffee, your 12 companion, Mr. Santiago, calls you, and you go meet him 13 inside the gate already. 14 A. No. When we went to buy the coffee, 15 that's when the call came in. We did that and then we 16 went back to do what we were going to do, which was the 17 coffee, because we were in the same area. It's a one 18 minute difference from one place to another walking. 19 Q. You were in the gate where Jet Blue is? 20 A. Exactly. It's a short distance. 21 Q. Yes, but-- okay. I want to know, I want 22 to be able to locate myself. 23 MR. GIL: You have a-- 24 MS. ROSADO: I have the map, but she 25 didn't seem to recognize it. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 32 of 59 70 1 MR. MARTORANI: Then, if I can suggest, 2 just give her a piece of paper and have her draw 3 it out. 4 MR. GIL: But, actually, too, with the map 5 probably, because there's Terminal A, B, C, D, 6 and I believe Jet Blue is in Terminal A. 7 BY MS. ROSADO: 8 Q. So you agree with me that Jet Blue is in 9 Terminal A, correct? 10 A. Uh-huh. 11 Q. "Yes"? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. So I'm going put here a note, "Jet Blue." 14 And American-- 15 A. No, it was Copa. 16 Q. No, but I want to know first-- 17 A. --which is where Church's was near. 18 Q. --where you came in. 19 I want to know first where you first came in, 20 because you first met at the American Airlines 21 terminal, right? 22 A. Exactly. 23 MS. ROSADO: Let's go off the record for 24 one second. 25 (Off the record from 11:18 a.m. to Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 33 of 59 71 1 11:19 a.m.) 2 MS. ROSADO: Let's go back to the record. 3 BY MS. ROSADO: 4 Q. All right. So you were going to order 5 your coffee, but your companion calls, so you don't buy 6 the coffee then and you go with him to the Jet Blue 7 gate, correct? 8 A. That's correct. 9 MR. GIL: Counsel, it's "B." 10 MS. ROSADO: American Airlines is "B"? 11 MR. GIL: Yeah, it's "B." 12 MS. ROSADO: We'll check, but... 13 MR. GIL: Okay. Let's just put it for now 14 "B." 15 BY MS. ROSADO: 16 Q. At this point that we are now, that you're 17 going to the Jet Blue terminal or gate with your 18 companion and Bonilla, had you been to Bonilla's 19 workspace, the post? 20 A. We had gone up before. 21 Q. Up to Marta Bonilla's post? 22 A. Before we went to have the coffee we had 23 gone up to the post and I had left my purse there. 24 Q. So after you left Mr. Santiago at the Jet 25 Blue checkpoint, you went back to Marta Bonilla's post Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 34 of 59 72 1 with her? 2 A. We went to the post to leave my handbag 3 there because when you're going to go through those 4 doors you can't go through with anything in your hands. 5 Q. That's a security measure, correct? 6 A. Exactly. 7 Q. So based on your statement, you went to 8 Ms. Bonilla's work area, which is a restricted area 9 that you can only access with your ID, your airport ID. 10 "Yes"? 11 A. No, she made a mistake (indicating). 12 Q. Okay. So is it correct? 13 A. Yes, it's correct. 14 Q. At this point you were not working, right? 15 You were not on your shift. 16 A. No, I was not on my shift. 17 Q. But Marta Bonilla was. 18 A. Marta, yes. My supervisor was aware of 19 what I was going to do at the airport and at all times 20 he was informed of what was happening at the airport. 21 Q. How many times did you call your 22 supervisor from the airport? 23 A. Several times. I called him at his 24 personal phone and at the facility, because sometimes 25 they call us from their personal phones. They don't Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 35 of 59 74 1 than once. 2 BY MS. ROSADO: 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. I'm not going to give you a number, 5 because I couldn't say. 6 Q. No, no. I don't think you're 7 understanding me, but now, since you changed your 8 testimony a little bit, I do need to clarify. 9 I understand it was more than once, but you 10 don't know exactly how many times. That's correct. 11 A. Exactly. 12 Q. Okay. How long were you with your 13 companion at the gate, at the Jet Blue gate? 14 A. I don't recall. Maybe 20 minutes. I 15 don't know. 16 Q. And all this time Marta Bonilla was with 17 you as well, correct? 18 A. She was with me, yes. 19 Q. And after you left him, you went back to 20 Church's? 21 A. Uh-huh. To buy the coffee. 22 Q. The same place, the same Church's? 23 A. Exactly. 24 Q. You drank your coffee there with Marta and 25 bought one for Abraham. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 36 of 59 75 1 A. For Abraham Ortiz. 2 Q. What did you do after that? 3 A. Well, I took the coffee up, I took my 4 handbag and I went to GSA. 5 Q. How long, approximately, were you at the 6 airport that day? 7 A. I don't know. 8 Q. Around two and a half hours? Does that 9 sound correct? 10 A. I wasn't paying attention to the time. 11 Q. Even though your supervisor had requested 12 that you report to work as soon as possible? 13 A. Exactly. It's to the extent that I can 14 get there on time. 15 Q. At what time did you get to the GSA 16 Center? 17 A. I don't remember if it was-- I don't 18 remember if it was from 11:00-something to 12:00. It 19 was between 11:00 and 12:00. I don't recall. 20 Q. And did you go directly from the airport 21 to the GSA Center? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. You didn't make any stops? 24 A. No. 25 Q. The entire time that you were at the Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 37 of 59 76 1 airport you were accompanied by Marta Bonilla, correct? 2 A. Yes, she was with me. 3 Q. So any time you accessed a secured door, 4 Marta Bonilla also accessed that secured door, correct? 5 A. That's correct. We both have access. 6 Q. All right. Do you know the number of the 7 doors that you go through, the closest one to the post 8 where Marta Bonilla-- where the post was where Marta 9 Bonilla was working that day? 10 A. I don't know the number. 11 Q. Anything else that happened during that 12 time that you were at the airport that we have not 13 discussed? 14 A. Nothing else happened. 15 Q. I'm going to show you a document, which is 16 an e-mail from you to Jennifer Morales, dated June 26, 17 2014, Bates stamped 91. 18 Is this the report that you prepared for 19 Jennifer Morales regarding the June 2014 events? 20 A. She asked for us to write this report and 21 apologizing to the client. 22 Q. Okay. And this is what you did in 23 response? 24 A. That is what I responded. But they never 25 called me to a meeting about this incident. I found Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 38 of 59 77 1 out through third parties of what was happening. 2 Q. So you say Jennifer Morales requested that 3 you write this report. 4 A. She asked us to write a report, each of 5 us, as to what happened, and apologizing to the client. 6 Q. Okay. So when you say "both of us," it's 7 Marta Bonilla and you, correct? 8 A. Exactly. 9 Q. Okay. And how did you know what to write 10 about? I mean, what did Jennifer ask you specifically? 11 A. She told me to make a report as to the 12 incident of June 14th and apologizing to the client. I 13 found out about the situation by Marta Bonilla when 14 they called her to a meeting. They called her to a 15 meeting for a sexual harassment with Abraham Ortiz. 16 That's where the airport incident came from, which was 17 June 24th. She called me and made me aware of what was 18 happening. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. That's when Morales called me and told me 21 to make a report, but no one called me or met with me 22 with respect to this incident. They just asked me for 23 this paper with an apology to the client. 24 Q. And what you wrote here is the information 25 you provided to the company at this time regarding the Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 39 of 59 78 1 events of June 14, correct? 2 A. Exactly. 3 Q. You were not present at the meeting, this 4 meeting that you're talking about, with Marta Bonilla 5 and Abraham Ortiz, correct? 6 A. I was not present. 7 Q. And when Jennifer asked for this, she 8 called you. 9 A. Exactly. 10 Q. And she told you there was a situation 11 about June 14th. You knew what she was talking about. 12 A. I already knew through Marta Bonilla. 13 Q. Marta Bonilla alerted you that this 14 situation had come up about June 14th. 15 A. Exactly. 16 Q. All right. 17 MS. ROSADO: So I'm going to mark this as 18 Exhibit 14. 19 (Whereupon, the document is marked for 20 purposes of identification as Deposition 21 Exhibit No. 14.) 22 BY MS. ROSADO: 23 Q. I'm showing you another document. Then 24 Morales took your report and put it in an incident 25 report. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 40 of 59 79 1 A. Exactly. That's the procedure. 2 Q. Okay. So I'm showing you what's been 3 marked with Bates stamp No. 92 and 93 of MVM's 4 production of documents. That, on the second page, is 5 your signature--correct?--where it says "Officer's 6 Signature." 7 A. Yes. 8 MS. ROSDADO: Okay. I'm going to mark 9 this as Exhibit 15. 10 (Whereupon, the document is marked for 11 purposes of identification as Deposition 12 Exhibit No. 15.) 13 BY MS. ROSADO: 14 Q. I'm going to show you another document. 15 MS. ROSADO: It's not Bates stamped. This 16 is from the ones that you produced. I don't 17 have a copy right now, but it's an incident 18 report from June 25, 2014. 19 BY MS. ROSADO: 20 Q. That's your signature on the second page? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. How does this incident report come about? 23 Why did you write this? 24 A. That was an incident that occurred at the 25 airport. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 41 of 59 80 1 Q. And what happened? 2 A. I was going with my coworker, Santiago, 3 with detainees. We stopped at the police station to 4 leave our weapons. I did the procedure. You get out, 5 unload your weapon, you put it away in the safety box, 6 you get in the vehicle, and your coworker is supposed 7 to do the same thing you did. 8 We left, we went in through the checkpoint, we 9 got the detainees out, and as we were going up the ramp 10 to go to secondary it occurred to me to look at 11 Santiago, and when I looked at his holster he had his 12 pistol. 13 I don't know what he got out at the police 14 station for, because he did get out, he got out. I 15 don't know what he did inside. I don't know what he 16 did because he wound up with his pistol in his holster. 17 Q. And you reported him? 18 A. To my supervisor, Jennifer Morales. 19 Q. Okay. So you informed Jennifer Morales 20 and then you did the incident report that we just saw. 21 A. Exactly. And Garcia, Heriberto was also 22 present. 23 Q. Okay. 24 MS. ROSADO: So I'm going to mark this as 25 Exhibit 16. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 42 of 59 81 1 (Whereupon, the document is marked for 2 purposes of identification as Deposition 3 Exhibit No. 16.) 4 BY MS. ROSADO: 5 Q. I'm going to show you another document. 6 It's another incident report dated June 5, 2014. 7 A. Uh-huh. 8 Q. "Yes"? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. And that's your signature on the 11 bottom where it says "Officer's Signature." 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And this is regarding a strip search that 14 Narciso Torres did on a detainee, correct? By himself. 15 A. A detainee. That's correct. 16 Q. And that's in violation of the company's 17 policies and procedures, correct? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. And I just want to clarify the date here 20 because in the second paragraph it says on June 21, 21 2014, and I believe that should be May 21, 2014. 22 Is that correct? 23 A. I don't understand. 24 Q. Okay. This incident report is dated 25 June 5, 2014, and it talks about an incident that Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 43 of 59 89 1 Q. And you were suspended from employment for 2 this. 3 A. I was suspended for notifying something 4 that was wrong. 5 Q. And here you decline union representation, 6 correct? 7 A. Exactly. Because what for? 8 Q. Here, in "Section Two," "Employee 9 comments," next to "Union Representation Requested," is 10 that your signature? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Your initials, I mean. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. All right. 15 MS. ROSADO: I want to mark this as 16 Exhibit 17. 17 (Whereupon, the document is marked for 18 purposes of identification as Deposition 19 Exhibit No. 17.) 20 MS. ROSADO: And the incident report as 21 Exhibit 18. 22 (Whereupon, the document is marked for 23 purposes of identification as Deposition 24 Exhibit No. 18.) 25 MR. MARTORANI: And which one is going to Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 44 of 59 90 1 be 17 and 18? 2 MS. ROSADO: 17-- 3 MR. MARTORANI: The "Improvement" is 17? 4 MR. ROSADO: Yes. Yes. 5 MR. MARTORANI: Okay. 6 MS. ROSADO: And 18 is the incident 7 report. 8 BY MS. ROSADO: 9 Q. Do you know what happened to Narciso 10 Torres? 11 A. He was fired. 12 Q. As a result of this strip search incident? 13 A. I understand so. 14 Q. All right. 15 MS. ROSADO: Can we go off the record for 16 a second. Or not for a second. Actually, it's 17 noon. Since I'm going to switch gears and start 18 into a new area, is it okay we take a break now, 19 a lunch break, and then come back? 20 MR. GIL: I think it's awesome. 21 MS. ROSADO: All right. 22 MR. GIL: Because I'm hungry. 23 MS. ROSADO: Is an hour fine, an hour and 24 15 minutes maybe? 25 MR. GIL: An hour should be fine. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 45 of 59 92 1 AFTERNOON SESSION (1:02 p.m.) 2 MS. ROSADO: Back on the record. We're 3 back on the record after a lunch recess. We're 4 the same people present as before. The court 5 reporter, the interpreter, and plaintiff, the 6 deponent, remain under the same oath. 7 So, plaintiff, I remind that you're still 8 under an obligation to tell the truth, and 9 nothing, but the truth. 10 EXAMINATION (Continuation) 11 BY MS. ROSADO: 12 Q. Ms. Rodriguez, from this day, on June 14, 13 2014, you accessed several secured doors inside the 14 airport while you were not on your working shift, 15 correct? 16 A. Exactly. It's normal. 17 Q. And based on your statement under oath to 18 the NLRB, in the training that Aerostar provides, they 19 tell you that that is not permitted, correct? 20 A. That's correct. But it's use and custom. 21 Q. And based on your statement to the NLRB, 22 you say the examples that you say of people who violate 23 that rule and you mention Abraham Ortiz and him 24 accompanying his granddaughter to the gate and going to 25 visit his son at the TSA airport. Based on this Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 46 of 59 93 1 statement that you provided under oath, you never saw 2 Abraham Ortiz doing that, correct? 3 A. I haven't seen him, but he mentioned it. 4 Q. Okay. So you know that based on what he 5 told you. 6 A. Exactly. 7 Q. Did you ever report Ortiz to anyone at MVM 8 for doing that? 9 A. No, because I'm not always looking at what 10 people do. 11 Q. Then you mentioned another example of 12 Judith Carrasquillo, one time during May or June 2014, 13 you don't remember the date, the day or the month, you 14 were with Judith Carrasquillo at the airport, in the 15 hotel at the airport, and she left in order to go pick 16 up her daughter at the airport at a gate. Based on 17 your statement, MVM never found out about this, 18 correct? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. And you never reported this to MVM, 21 correct? 22 A. No, because I'm not watching out about 23 people's lives. It's not until it happens to me, when 24 it's up to me, then I say, "Look, this is use and 25 custom. Everyone does this." Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 47 of 59 96 1 Q. I'm going to show you an "Employee 2 Improvement Notice" dated July 2, 2014. 3 MS. ROSADO: Counsel. 4 BY MS. ROSADO: 5 Q. You recognize this memo? At the bottom 6 where it says "Officer's Initials," those are your 7 initials, correct? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. And this was given to you on July 2, 2014, 10 correct? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. And on the second page, that's your 13 signature? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. And your initials, where it says "Section 16 Two," "Employee Comments." 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. And this, they gave you a suspension 19 without pay for the June 14, 2014, incident, correct? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. And in the summary of corrective action to 22 be taken, it says, "Airport badge removal" and 23 "Suspension without pay for five days. From July 9 24 until July 13, 2014," correct? 25 A. Uh-huh. Yes. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 48 of 59 97 1 MS. ROSADO: I'm going to mark this as 2 Exhibit 19. 3 (Whereupon, the document is marked for 4 purposes of identification as Deposition 5 Exhibit No. 19.) 6 BY MS. ROSADO: 7 Q. Now, Ms. Rodriguez, you filed a complaint 8 against MVM, among other codefendants, alleging gender 9 discrimination, retaliation--let me see if there's 10 anything else--and you also included wrongful 11 termination and a general damages claim. 12 Regarding your gender discrimination claim, why 13 do you believe you were discriminated against because 14 of your gender? 15 A. Why? 16 Q. Yes. 17 A. Because there have been occasions where 18 there have been events that are more important, with a 19 gross risk of security, and that incident that 20 happened, which nothing happened, because nothing 21 happened at the airport, they fired us for no 22 justification, when there are people who have committed 23 gross mistakes at the airport and they're still 24 working. 25 Q. But why do you think that it's because of Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 49 of 59 101 1 Q. You're referring to the deposition that 2 you attended in Wanda Flores' case? 3 A. Exactly. When she was pregnant. 4 Q. And that was on July 3, two thousand-- 5 A. That was the day after-- 6 Q. No, excuse me. That was July 21, 2014, 7 correct? 8 A. No. 9 MR. GIL: The deposition was July 3rd. 10 THE DEPONENT: It was the day after I was 11 suspended. The day after, they give me the 12 suspension and the write-up. 13 BY MS. ROSADO: 14 Q. Okay. The one that we just saw that we 15 marked as Exhibit 19, correct? 16 A. Uh-huh. 17 Q. "Yes"? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. I'm sorry. It's just you said "uh-huh." 20 I'm reminding you what I said earlier. 21 And so you testified, and what happened? 22 A. Well, the day they give me the suspension, 23 July 2nd, that day that my supervisor Jennifer Morales 24 told me that it was the last chance I was being given, 25 that the next day when I went to Wanda Flores' Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 50 of 59 102 1 deposition, to put things on a balance. 2 Q. Okay. And based on your statement to the 3 NLRB under oath, you said that you asked her what she 4 was referring to with that comment. 5 A. And she said, "Nothing." 6 Q. And she said what? 7 Okay. So that was the extent of that comment, 8 right? 9 A. Exactly. 10 Q. Okay. Anything else why you think you 11 were retaliated against? 12 A. Well, after that they took my post, they 13 reduced my hours, they put me on call, and like that, 14 until the termination came. 15 Q. Right. On July 2, when they suspended 16 you, they told you they were going to take away your 17 airport badge, right? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Which means you couldn't do the routes to 20 the airport, correct? 21 A. It means that, but they were doing the 22 routes to the airport, new personnel that had arrived, 23 without the badge, and they were doing the routes like 24 as if nothing. 25 Q. And who was that personnel? Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 51 of 59 103 1 A. Centeno did routes. De la Rosa also did 2 routes. The new people who came in at the time. 3 Q. Okay. And do you know if their badges 4 were in process, the process for the badge had already 5 been commenced? Do you know that? 6 A. Whether or not they were in process, I 7 don't know. But if I couldn't do the route for the 8 same reason, for the badge, I imagine the same rule 9 applies to them. If you don't have a badge, you don't 10 have a badge. After that I complained about it and the 11 visitor badges showed up. 12 Q. Who did you complain to? 13 A. The union. The president. 14 Q. When your airport ID badge was removed, 15 you were placed as an on-call detention officer, 16 correct? 17 A. Exactly. 18 Q. And they gave you hours as long as it 19 didn't require you to go to the airport, correct? 20 A. Exactly. 21 Q. I'm going to show you a document which was 22 produced by you. It's some handwritten notes. 23 Are these your notes? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. When did you write this? Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 52 of 59 115 1 documents. 2 And besides this, we received last night 3 the handwritten notes, that are Exhibit 20, and 4 the long statement from the NLRB that I've been 5 making reference. I haven't marked it as an 6 exhibit, but... 7 MR. GIL: The sworn statement, right? 8 MR. ROSADO: One statement, yes. 9 MR. GIL: Yeah. The sworn statement 10 that-- 11 MS. ROSADO: The sworn statement. Yes. 12 MR. GIL: Perfect. So 20 will be like the 13 handwritten notes, 21 will be the index, and 22, 14 probably, or whatever number you're going to 15 assign at the end of it, will be the sworn 16 statement? 17 MS. ROSADO: The sworn statement. Yeah, I 18 have to see-- I think I have-- I have to see if 19 I have another copy here. 20 (Whereupon, the document is marked for 21 purposes of identification as Deposition 22 Exhibit No. 21.) 23 BY MS. ROSADO: 24 Q. Ms. Rodriguez, I'm going to show you a 25 document that's Bates stamped 464 to 494, which is the Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 53 of 59 116 1 collective bargaining agreement in effect at the time 2 of your termination from MVM. 3 MS. ROSADO: I'm not going to mark this as 4 an exhibit because I don't think it's necessary, 5 it's very long, but I just want her to look at 6 it. 7 BY MS. ROSADO: 8 Q. And tell me if you're seen that before and 9 if it's the collective bargaining agreement that 10 applied to your position. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. Thank you. 13 Other than this complaint, the charge before the 14 EEOC against MVM, and the charge before the NLRB, any 15 other complaints, suits, administrative filings that 16 you've done against MVM or any over entity or any other 17 person? 18 A. No. Well, the Department of Labor. 19 MR. GIL: But after the complaint was 20 filed, and recently, she received a note for a 21 class settlement action against MVM for 22 something related to the hours that they work 23 and point five cents or something like that-- 24 THE DEPONENT: Oh, yes. 25 MR. GIL: --and she asked me and I'm just Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 54 of 59 119 1 Q. Until 2010? 2 A. About two years. The complaint is for 3 construction flaws and asbestos and lead. 4 Q. And it's a complaint that you filed 5 personally, or the residents' association? 6 A. All of the residents. The condominium is 7 squatted right now. 8 Q. By other people? 9 A. Uh-huh. Because it's abandoned. 10 Q. And where is that case pending? 11 A. In the federal court. 12 Q. And what is the name of the company that 13 was sued? 14 A. Hill View. 15 Q. And what's the status of that case? 16 A. It's still in court. 17 Q. Any other case that you filed against any 18 company or entity or any particular person? 19 A. No. 20 Q. And, Ms. Rodriguez, you are aware that 21 when you were terminated from employment two other 22 persons were also terminated, Marta Bonilla and David 23 Santiago, correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And you're aware that you were terminated Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 55 of 59 120 1 because ICE requested the removal of you and Marta 2 Bonilla and David Santiago from the contract with MVM. 3 A. That's what we were told. 4 Q. Do you know who in ICE made that 5 determination? 6 A. I don't know. As far as I'm concerned, it 7 was Nunez, and afterward it was supposedly Camilo 8 Cueyar. 9 Q. You've never met Cueyar in person, right? 10 A. No. But as far as I'm concerned, all of 11 this was a pretext because of a complaint that came in 12 the day before we were terminated against Elpidio 13 Nunez, which was filed by Marta Bonilla for gender 14 discrimination. 15 Q. And you were not part of that complaint, 16 right? 17 A. No. But that complaint came in and what a 18 coincidence that in the afternoon that they call us all 19 in to a meeting, and so that it wouldn't be seen as a 20 gender issue, they got rid of her, they got rid of me 21 and they also got rid of David Santiago. 22 Q. And those are your assumptions, right? 23 Based on the timing, right? 24 A. The thing is that I don't find any other 25 reason. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 56 of 59 133 1 acknowledge that-- 2 MR. MARTORANI: Asked and answered. 3 THE DEPONENT: Because I had already 4 gotten off of my shift. 5 BY MR. GIL: 6 Q. Okay. And-- 7 A. I put it in my car, in the safety box in 8 my car. 9 Q. Did you were out of your working hours? 10 MS. ROSADO: Objection. Leading. 11 THE DEPONENT: I had already completed my 12 shift. 13 BY MR. GIL: 14 Q. Okay. Thank you. 15 And No. 12 is, you said it was like the firearm 16 qualification, right? 17 A. Exactly. For example, I had never had a 18 weapon on me. They're teaching us, we're getting 19 training. It's normal that at a certain point in time 20 you would fail if you've never in your life had a 21 weapon. But after that I didn't fail again. I passed 22 all the qualifications. 23 Q. So you take a retest of that, right? 24 A. I got a retraining and I passed it-- 25 Q. And you passed it. Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 57 of 59 140 1 MS. ROSADO: Sorry. But I believe it's 2 more "discipline and penalize for the same 3 situation," the translation. 4 MR. MARTORANI: The translation. 5 MR. GIL: Yeah. 6 MR. MARTORANI: It's "discipline" and 7 "penalize." 8 THE DEPONENT: For the same incident of 9 June 14th. And when we were getting to my car, 10 that I was looking for my IDs to give them to 11 her, she told me that this was the karma law. 12 And I asked her why she was saying that and she 13 said, "No, nothing." I get in my car, she 14 turned back around, and she told me, "We'll see 15 you soon." And I told her, "I can assure you 16 that we'll see each other." 17 BY MR. GIL: 18 Q. Besides that working friction that you 19 have, is there anything else or any other type of 20 friction that you might have with her personally? 21 A. Oh, well, the one over the supervisor, 22 Quinones. 23 Q. Can you explain more about it. 24 A. Well, there was always a rivalry with that 25 supervisor. They are water cooler comments, but Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 58 of 59 148 1 BY MS. ROSADO: 2 Q. And all through those doors you were with 3 Marta Bonilla, correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. So if you both followed the appropriate 6 procedures to go through the doors, there should be a 7 record for each time that you passed through a door a 8 corresponding time entry for Marta Bonilla around the 9 same time for the same door, correct? 10 A. We went through the door like everyone 11 does, the way they showed us, like everybody. The way 12 they showed us when we were at the airport, the way 13 everybody does it. 14 Q. I'm going to repeat the question because I 15 don't think you answered it. 16 If both you and Marta Bonilla followed the 17 process of swiping your card, entering your personal ID 18 code that you mentioned earlier this morning, if you 19 both did that for every secured, restricted door that 20 you passed on June 14, 2014, for each door that you 21 accessed there should be a corresponding record for 22 Marta Bonilla, correct? 23 A. Exactly. 24 Q. Do you have any copies of any of the 25 complaints that you allege you made from 2007 onward? Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-3 Filed 08/15/16 Page 59 of 59 6> Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-4 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 6 6? Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-4 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 6 75 Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-4 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 6 76 Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-4 Filed 08/15/16 Page 4 of 6 77 Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-4 Filed 08/15/16 Page 5 of 6 78 Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-4 Filed 08/15/16 Page 6 of 6 67< Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-5 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 2 67= Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-5 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 2 67> Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-6 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 6 67? Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-6 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 6 685 Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-6 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 6 685 2G Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-6 Filed 08/15/16 Page 4 of 6 686 Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-6 Filed 08/15/16 Page 5 of 6 6862G Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-6 Filed 08/15/16 Page 6 of 6 687 Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-7 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 1 688 Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-8 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 1 689 Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-9 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 1 ?6 Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-10 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 3 ?7 Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-10 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 3 ?8 Case 3:15-cv-01850-GAG-SCC Document 39-10 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 3