1991 AGN FEB 19 I25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

�.CY�CYC�Ie� The central issue is Rubio's version of how his finger got broken. Rubio now says that he was working, that Maylon walked up to him, grabbed, twisted and broke his finger without any provocation, without any words and for no known reason. It is the opinion of the Civil Service Board that the version of events related by Rubio is insufficient evidence to support the termination of Maylon. Rubio's testimony is contradicted. Rubio made prior inconsistent statements. His first version was that he and Maylon "were messing around. " Then Rubio was told by Joanne Knowles that the City denied him workers' compensation benefits because his version of the events constituted "horseplay. " Later Rubio was granted such benefits. Rubio's current testimony omits that "me and Victor (Maylon) were messing around. " Rubio has benefitted by his current version of the incident over the version he related while he was at the medical facility about an hour after the incident. By changing his version he qualified for, and obtained, benefits previously denied to him. At the scene, Rubio asked his Supervisor to send him to the hospital, but he did not tell his Supervisor that Maylon assaulted him or that Maylon caused his injury. When Rubio was receiving medical treatment his statement as to how he was injured suggested that some horseplay was involved. Rubio's testimony is weak. Unless Rubio is believed, there is no case to support Maylon Is termination. There is not enough evidence to substantiate who was right. The Civil Service Board does not believe that the incident happened as either Rubio or Maylon testified. As noted above, the City Manager stated in the Notice of Termination that he took into account other matters than the Rubio incident. Those other matters might have been the basis for some action at an earlier time. However, no action was taken then and it is too late to act on them now. -4-