The applicant's responses were then returned to Psychological Resources for evaluation and scoring. The plaintiff further complains that the test was tainted in that he scored much higher on the same test given in 1993, indicating a problem with either the test or the results. The court finds that the plaintiff has presented no evidence as to why the written test was not proper. The plaintiff has presented no evidence from which a reasonable person could conclude that the written tests were administered, scored, or utilized in any manner that unfairly discriminated against the plaintiff. The fact that the plaintiff scored lower on the more recent test than in a previous year does not support the assertion that the test was in some manner biased.
People change over the course of time, as do tests.
If there was an independent witness who could say the test was biased, the court could consider such evidence, but the plaintiff has presented no such witness. The plaintiff also complains that the interview board was tainted and controlled by Ray Barrett, the chief of police. However, Barrett gave the plaintiff a higher score than any other applicant during the interview portion of the hiring process. Therefore, the plaintiff's allegations of a tainted interview board are unsupported by the evidence. The plaintiff further complains that fifteen percentage points were given to all applicants with prior law enforcement experience, without regard to the extent of such experience.