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).

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)

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).

 

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).

3-42: 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).