[IPAC-List] Civil service eligible lists and USERRA
Lance Seberhagen
sebe at erols.com
Wed Mar 27 14:44:36 EDT 2013
The Milwaukee case settled in favor of the plaintiff. City failed to
provide make-up promotional exam for returning veteran, as it had done
for other returning veterans.
*CONSENT DECREE*
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/emp/documents/crivellocd.pdf
Signature - Seberhagen & Associates
*Lance Seberhagen, Ph.D.
Seberhagen & Associates
9021 Trailridge Ct
Vienna, VA 22182
Tel 703-790-0796
www.seberhagen.com
*
****
On 3/27/2013 2:15 PM, Maloney, Michael wrote:
> Signature - Seberhagen & Associates
>
> Check this out
>
> http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/emp/documents/crivellocomp.pdf
>
> Michael Maloney
>
> Personnel Analyst II
>
> ___________________________________________
>
> 750 Piedmont
> Columbus, OH 43224
>
> *Direct:*614.645.7494
>
> www.columbus.gov <http://www.columbus.gov/>__
>
> *From:*Lance Seberhagen [mailto:sebe at erols.com]
> *Sent:*Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:52 AM
> *To:*Partain, Steven C.
> *Cc:*ipac-list at ipacweb.org
> *Subject:*Re: [IPAC-List] Civil service eligible lists and USERRA
>
> There is no reliable and valid way to convert (or equate) a score from
> one promotional exam to another promotional exam. This is especially
> true in public safety promotional exams in which candidates are ranked
> down to a fraction of a point. Therefore, the one remaining candidate
> from the old eligible list should be required to take the new
> promotional exam and compete on an equal basis with all other applicants.
>
> If the last remaining candidate on an eligible list were away on
> military duty, he/she would not be available for promotion, so the
> selecting official would have no choice but to administer another
> promotional exam if the vacant position needs to be filled before the
> candidate returns from military duty.
>
> Under USERRA, returning military members generally have the right to
> be re-employed in the job that they would have attained if they were
> not absent for military service. However, candidates on an eligible
> list have no guarantee of promotion, and their status on the eligible
> list has a limited duration. Therefore, it does not appear that
> returning military members have a right to a promotion, or a spot on a
> new eligible list, unless there is case law to the contrary.
>
> *USERRA Fact Sheet*
>
> http://www.dol.gov/vets/programs/userra/userra_fs.htm
>
> *Lance Seberhagen, Ph.D.
> Seberhagen & Associates
> 9021 Trailridge Ct
> Vienna, VA 22182
> Tel 703-790-0796
> www.seberhagen.com <http://www.seberhagen.com> **
>
> *
>
>
>
>
> On 3/26/2013 1:45 PM, Partain, Steven C. wrote:
>
> To those of you practicing in civil service-regulated
> environments, I have a question that is pretty esoteric and may
> not resonate with anyone, but I thought I'd give it a shot with
> this group:
>
> We have local civil service rules (which must be consistent with
> principles of state civil service law) providing the appointing
> authority two names from the top of a ranked eligible list to be
> considered for one promotional vacancy. When the list is
> comprised of a single individual, the appointing authority may
> elect to consider that individual in isolation, or cancel the list
> to exercise its right to two eligibles to consider, and conduct a
> new exam to generate a new eligible list. If the latter, the
> individual who was impacted may transfer his/her eligibility to
> the new list based on previous score but can opt to retest and
> take higher score.
>
> I don't know how typical that structure is in other civil service
> environments, but my question is really about removing this
> transfer of eligibility provision altogether. We're exploring the
> idea of eliminating this provision but are concerned about impact
> to legally protected groups. The primary one that comes to mind
> is military service personnel covered under USERRA. If Joe Guard
> is deployed and unavailable to be considered for a vacancy, and
> the list is cancelled (prior to expiration), it would seem that at
> a minimum USERRA would require us to extend his eligibility.
>
> Again, I don't know how common this eligibility transfer provision
> is in other civil service rules, so this may not resonate. But if
> anyone has a parallel set of provisions and has addressed this, I
> would appreciate your input.
>
> Thanks,
>
> *____________________________________________________*
>
> *Steven Partain | HR Manager*
>
> Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue
>
> Direct: 503-259-1292
>
> www.tvfr.com <http://www.tvfr.com/>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
>
> IPAC-List
>
> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org <mailto:IPAC-List at ipacweb.org>
>
> http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nine.pairlist.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20130327/e839b4a3/attachment.html>
More information about the IPAC-List
mailing list