Rule 7: Classification

Purpose Statement

The classification process is intended to ensure like pay for like work within the city’s merit-based personnel system through the use of a systematic method of individual or group classification reviews.  In re Hamilton, CSA 100-09, 15 (9/17/10).

The classification process is intended to ensure like pay for like work within the city’s merit-based personnel system through the use of a systematic method of individual or group classification reviews.  In re Hamilton, CSA 100-09, 15 (9/17/10).

Using hiring date to determine training requirements rather than the effective date of the rule on mandatory training would require agencies to apply two different training requirements to their current probationary employees, an impractical result that could not have been intended by the CSB. In re Sample, CSA 72-07, 8 (6/12/08), rev’d on other grounds, CSB 10/16/08.

The temporary assignment of higher level duties to a demoted employee during the transition after a lay-off does not require higher level pay. In re Jackson,CSA 103-04, 4 (6/13/05) (decided under former §§ 9-10 and 7-13).


7-10 C:           Classification

CSA bears responsibility for maintaining classifications of positions so nearly alike in the essential character of their duties and responsibilities that the same pay grade, title and specification can be applied, and the positions can fairly and equitably be treated alike under like conditions for all other personnel purposes. In re Hamilton, CSA 100-09, 15 (9/17/10).

CSA bears responsibility for maintaining classifications of positions so nearly alike in the essential character of their duties and responsibilities that the same pay grade, title and specification can be applied, and the positions can fairly and equitably be treated alike under like conditions for all other personnel purposes.  In re Hamilton, CSA 100-09, 15 (9/17/10).

 7-10 G:          Position 

A position is an aggregate composition of duties and responsibilities performed by one employee.  In re Hamilton, CSA 100-09, 15 (9/17/10). 

Project manager was the same position as senior architect where agency transferred the architect duties to project manager, qualifications were almost identical, project manager testified that work was the same, and the job description, evaluations, and workload transition plan defined the work as project management.In re Hamilton, CSA 100-09, 16 (9/17/10).

A position is an aggregate composition of duties and responsibilities performed by one employee.  In re Hamilton, CSA 100-09, 15 (9/17/10). 

Project manager was the same position as senior architect where agency transferred the architect duties to project manager, qualifications were almost identical, project manager testified that work was the same, and the job description, evaluations, and workload transition plan defined the work as project management.  In re Hamilton, CSA 100-09, 16 (9/17/10).


7-20: Classification and Pay Plan

A position is classified by its essential job duties, but the assignments given to each position are controlled by the supervisor. In re Jackson, CSA 103-04, 4 (6/13/05).

Once allocated to a class, only permanent changes to essential duties that comprise a majority of work time and are most important to the position will justify reallocation and a resulting change in pay. In re Jackson, CSA 103-04, 4 (6/13/05) (decided under former § 7-13).

The essential duties of a position are those used by the CSA to allocate each job to a classification and pay plan. In re Romberger, CSA 89-04, 6 (3/2/05) (decided under former § 7-12).

“Knowledge, skills, ability and expertise” necessary to be entitled to a demotional appointment after lay-off are the characteristics or qualifications that allow an employee to succeed in performing a job’s essential duties. In re Romberger, CSA 89-04, 6 (3/2/05) (decided under former § 7-12).

CSA approval is not needed to implement changes to a PEP. In contrast, the job specification establishing the classification and pay to be assigned a job title must be adopted by the Career Service Board. In re Leal-McIntyre, CSA 77-03, 134-03 and 167-03, 4 (1/27/05).

7-31: Establishment of Positions and Assignment of Duties 

The temporary assignment of higher level duties to a demoted employee during the transition after a lay-off does not require higher level pay. In re Jackson, CSA 103-04, 4 (6/13/05) (decided under former §§ 9-10 and 7-13).


7-33 A:           Re-Allocation of Existing Positions

Reduction of a position’s pay grade without a re-allocation audit appears to run contrary to the classification rules, the framework intended to ensure like pay for like work, a core principal of the merit system under the city charter.  In re Hamilton, CSA 100-09, 17 (9/17/10), citing In re Romberger, CSA 89-04, 9 (3/2/05); Hanley v. Murphy, 255 P.2d 1, 4 (Cal. 1953.)

Agency’s acceptance of a private contractor’s reclassification recommendation without a reclassification audit diverged from the career service rules. In re Hamilton, CSA 100-09, 25 (9/17/10).     

Reduction in a position's pay grade without a re-allocation audit appears to run contrary to the classification rules, the process and framework intended to ensure like pay for like work, which is a core principal of the merit system under the city charter.  In re Hamilton, CSA 100-09, 17 (9/17/10), citing In re Romberger, CSA 89-04, 9 (3/2/05); Hanley v. Murphy, 255 P.2d 1, 4 (Cal. 1953.)

Agency’s acceptance of a private contractor’s reclassification recommendation without a reclassification audit diverged from the career service rules.  In re Hamilton, CSA 100-09, 25 (9/17/10).    

7-34: Audits 

The Career Service Rules do not grant an employee the right to suspend performance of a challenged assignment until the completion of an audit. In re Leal-McIntyre, CSA 77-03, 134-03 and 167-03, 8 (1/27/05) (decided under former § 7-22).


7-37: Effective dates 

PEPs do not require approval from the CSA before they are effective. In contrast, changes to a classification and pay plan are not effective until approved by the Career Service Board. In re Leal-McIntyre, CSA 77-03, 134-03 and 167-03, 13 (1/27/05) (decided under former § 7-98).


7-40: Requests for administrative review 

Reclassification is subject to administrative review upon timely request of agency appointing authority. In re Sullivan, CSA 44-08 (6/13/08).

Reclassification was not an involuntary demotion with attendant loss of pay where it was not initiated through discipline, disqualification, or in lieu of separation during a probationary period. In re Sullivan, CSA 44-08 (6/13/08).

The hearing office has no jurisdiction over a reclassification, the sole remedy for which is contained in CSR § 7-40. In re Sullivan, CSA 44-08 (6/13/08).

Administrative review of a classification decision allows an agency to obtain review by the Personnel Director of a classification decision that does not meet its personnel needs. In re Connors, CSA 35-06, 2 (Order 8/9/06).

Personnel Director does not have authority to waive a mandatory educational qualification for an individual applicant. In re Connors, CSA 35-06, 2 (Order 8/9/06), citing In re Bourgeron,CSA 92-03, 102-03, 113-03 (3/8/04).

Back to top

Contact Us

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

Workplace Mediation 
720-913-5719

Feedback