[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.


Signature - Seberhagen & Associates

*Lance Seberhagen, Ph.D.
Seberhagen & Associates
9021 Trailridge Ct
Vienna, VA 22182
Tel 703-790-0796


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