[IPAC-List] Civil service eligible lists and USERRA

[Lance Seberhagen]

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>