encounter at the May 2006 rally) – making sure, of course, to rigthe pre-termination hearing to reach a predetermined conclusion.
As Santini and Díaz tell it, Ríos was a nightmareemployee – a vulgar person who routinely humiliated and terrorizedcoworkers and supervisors alike, by word and action. Arrogant anddefiant, Ríos, they say, lied through his teeth about Santini'sshouting and throat-slashing motion at the May 2006 rally. Ríos,not Santini, was the real villain, they insist. Giving Santini themiddle finger, Ríos yelled, "You are going down." No one boughtRíos's story, they quickly add, because, after an investigation,prosecutors found no reason to charge Santini with anything. Ríoshad a record of disciplinary problems as long as the proverbialarm, but everyone always treated him above-board, all the waythrough the pre-termination hearing and firing – or so theirargument goes.
Convinced that he had been let go because of his PDPmembership and his exercise of free-speech rights, Ríos and hisdomestic partner, Emma Velázquez Rodríguez, filed this federal-court suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having apparently lived
A commissioner on the municipality's Commission to Resolve
Complaints and Personnel Affairs ("commission" for short) ran thehearing.Pertinently, the statute provides that "[e]very person who,
under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, orusage, of any State . . ., subjects, or causes to be subjected, any-3-