Human Resource Center
Human Resource Center
 Employee Resources
 Rule 3: Recruitment and Examination Minimize

In general

 

Based on the merit-based principles governing the career service personnel system and rules, employees who have served for longer periods are entitled to more protection from lay-off than those with less seniority within the same lay-off unit and classification.  In re Hamilton, CSA 100-09, 15 (9/17/10), citing City Charter § 9.1.1.; CSR 14-44. 

Lay-off plan’s divergence from career service rules was considered in determining whether selection process in lay-off plan was arbitrary or capricious.  In re Hamilton, CSA 100-09, 25 (9/17/10). 

Back to top

 

3-12: Charter Provision (This section removed effective May 4, 2007) 

In order to establish a prima facie age discrimination claim under CSR 3-12, appellant must show: 1) he was a member of the protected age group; 2) he was capable of performing the job for which he applied; 3) a younger person was chosen; and 4) evidence exists from which a reasonable fact-finder might conclude the employer intended to discriminate in the choice of candidates. The burden then shifts to the agency to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for choosing the younger person. In re Macieyovski, CSA 60-04, 4 (7/27/05),citing Carter v. Newman Mem. County Hospital, 49 Fed. Appx. 243 (10 Cir. 2002) (decided under the former §3-12). 

Where appellant’s claim of age discrimination under CSR 3-12 consisted of his belief that he had been a victim of discrimination, there is no evidence upon which to find that a prima facie case had been established. In re Macieyovski, CSA 60-04, 4 (7/27/05) (decided under the former §3-12).

Back to top

 


3-15 and 3-16: Selection Responsibilities 

Based on the merit-based principles governing the career service personnel system and rules, employees who have served for longer periods are entitled to more protection from lay-off than those with less seniority within the same lay-off unit and classification.  In re Hamilton, CSA 100-09, 15 (9/17/10), citing City Charter § 9.1.1.; CSR 14-44. 

Lay-off plan’s divergence from career service rules was considered in determining whether lay-off was arbitrary or capricious. In re Hamilton, CSA 100-09, 25 (9/17/10). 

Since CSR §§ 3-15 and 3-16 do not dictate how an appointing authority assigns acting duties acting director did not violate this rule, where these rules are applicable only to those hired from outside the Agency or who move from one position into another permanently.  In re Anderson, Connors, 61-10, 63-10, 66-10, 67-10, 8 (12/22/2010).  

Back to top

 


3-20 - 3-22: Recruitment 

Since CSA recruiting rules do not apply to assignments of acting duties, acting director did not violate the rules which govern the CSA recruitment process when he appointed an acting division chief, .  In re Anderson, Connors, 61-10, 63-10, 66-10, 67-10, 8-9 (12/22/2010).   


 3-23 A.1.d.  Restricted recruitments 

Agency failed to consider applicability of classification and lay-off protection in devising lay-off and transition plans when it decided to fill the replacement jobs by a competitive hiring process open to employees not in the lay-off unit or classifications affected by the lay-off plan, diluting the rights of employees selected for lay-off.  In re Hamilton, CSA 100-09, 17 - 18 (9/17/10).

Back to top

 


3-30: Examination

Acting Director of Sheriff’s Department did not violate the rules that govern the CSA examination process when he appointed an acting Division Chief, where CSA examination rules do not apply to assignments of acting duties. In re Anderson, Connors, 61-10, 63-10, 66-10, 67-10, 8-9 (12/22/2010).   


3-32: Disqualification of Applicants 

Agency failed to consider applicability of classification and lay-off protection in devising lay-off and transition plans when it decided to fill the replacement jobs by a competitive hiring process open to employees not in the lay-off unit or classifications affected by the lay-off plan, diluting the rights of employees selected for lay-off. In re Hamilton, CSA 100-09, 17 - 18 (9/17/10).  

Acting Director of Sheriff’s Department did not violate the rules that govern the CSA qualification rules when he appointed an acting Division Chief, where CSA qualification rules do not apply to assignments of acting duties.  In re Anderson, Connors, 61-10, 63-10, 66-10, 67-10, 8-9 (12/22/2010).

Back to top


3-37: Request for review 

Applicant disqualified from competing for a position may request reconsideration of the decision. In re Connors, CSA 35-06, 2 (8/9/06) (decided under former §3-42). 


3-41: Request for Certification 

Where CSR § 3-41 only applies to new appointments and permanent promotions, acting sheriff’s department director is not constrained in the process he chooses to appoint an acting uniformed personnel, nor is he constrained in the duration of such acting appointments. Consequently, he did not violate this rule in appointing an acting Division Chief outside of the provisions of this Rule.  In re Anderson, Connors, 61-10, 63-10, 66-10, 67-10, 7 (12/22/2010).   


3-42: Re-instatement List 

Since agency is not required to place appellant’s name on reinstatement list until after the date of her layoff, her claim that the agency failed to do so prior to layoff must be dismissed without prejudice as premature. In re Frazier, CSA 24-08, 3 (4/30/08).

Back to top


 
 Contact Us Minimize

OHR Employee Relations Unit
201 W. Colfax Ave., Dept 412
Denver, CO 80202

For general employee relations questions contact:
Peter.Garritt@denvergov.org
HR Supervisor, Employee Relations and Records
720 913-5671

Mark.Croteau@denvergov.org
Staff HR Professional
720 913-5654

For ADA questions contact:
Wilma.Springer@denvergov.org
ADA Coordinator
720 913-5620

To leave a message, please call:
(720) 913-5710