Opinion ID: 2155919
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The TAP Decision

Text: Administrative Judge Robin J. Nash, of the TAP, initially heard testimony in this matter on June 3, 1992, July 6, 1992, and July 29, 1992, but subsequently was replaced by Chief Administrative Judge Gregory Lattimer, without objection from the parties. During the initial hearing before the TAP, Beatrice Smith, Assistant Director of Personnel, District of Columbia Personnel Office (the DCOP), testified on behalf of the District. Karen Qawiyy, who was formerly employed with the DPAH as the chief of the Office of Administration and Management, offered testimony for Mr. King who also testified on his own behalf. [4] Ms. Smith, who testified as an expert in the field of personnel management and classifications in the District government, maintained that Mr. King's competitive level was properly constructed and explained that when positions are eliminated in a RIF, job descriptions and categorized competitive levels are considered based upon the compatibility of the positions. Therefore, the competitive levels should consist of all positions in the same pay system . . . series and same grade level with similar duties and responsibilities and qualifications, requirements with the same working conditions except union positions. . . . Although there were other jobs that had position descriptions that were similar to Mr. King's, Ms. Smith stated that there were no other positions that were established for the singular purpose of eliminating drugs in assisted housing. On cross-examination however, Ms. Smith indicated that her opinions were solely derived from her review of documents, and that she did not contact DPAH management to confirm the factual basis for her analysis. Ms. Qawiyy worked for DPAH from February 1988 until February 1996 and coordinated all personnel actions with the DCOP. Furthermore, she played a direct role in creating job descriptions for all of DPAH's positions, identifying functions, staffing and actual job descriptions. She stated that the special assistant positions were designed to be interchangeable to facilitate the movement of people to different parts of the DPAH. She declared that the drug knowledge requirement in Mr. King's position description did not distinguish his job from other positions because the reference to drugs did not delineate the function or duty of the position. Ms. Qawiyy stated that neither she, nor the Director of DPAH at the time, ever approved the selective placement factor of knowledge of District drug enforcement law[,] regulations and guidelines, with respect to Mr. King's position. On November 23, 1993, Judge Lattimer filed an initial decision in Mr. King's case. Earlier, on September 13, 1993, Judge Lattimer had granted Mr. King's motion to limit [Ms. Smith's] testimony to opinions based upon evidence of record and personal knowledge. Judge Lattimer decided that Ms. Smith's testimony[,] which was factual in nature and based upon [her] review of documents not in evidence, consultation with individuals who did not testify, or hearsay, was stricken from the record. . . [even] though such testimony formed a great deal of [her] testimony. Judge Lattimer credited Ms. Qawiyy's testimony but discredited Ms. Smith's testimony. As he put it: I find it beyond astonishing that the Government's expert witness [Ms. Smith] never consulted with anyone from DPAH prior to testifying that the establishment of [Mr. King's] competitive level was proper. Even more incred[ible], I find, is the additional fact that the [DPAH] officials who were heard in this matter disagree with the position advanced by the Government and specifically, with the testimony of the Government's expert witness. Furthermore, Judge Lattimer found that: The testimony of [Ms.] Smith is totally devoid of substance, or any indicia of reliability whatsoever . . . . [T]he Government advances a position that is supported by nothing more than the testimony of an alleged expert, who has no personal knowledge of the way the Agency works, no familiarity with the Special Assistant positions, and who has had no discussions with anyone from the Agency, at anytime, about anything remotely associated with the issues in this case. Although the District was given the opportunity to present a fact witness prior to the issuance of Judge Lattimer's decision, it did not do so. After analyzing all the evidence presented in the case, Judge Lattimer concluded that the Government: failed in all respects to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that [Mr. King] was properly released from his competitive level or that it properly established [Mr. King's] competitive level. . . . Therefore, I find that [Mr. King's] competitive level was improperly constructed as a matter of law. In concluding that Mr. King's competitive level was improperly constructed, Judge Lattimer found, contrary to the testimony of Ms. Smith, that several DPAH special assistant positions were interchangeable. In fact, as even Ms. Smith agreed, seventeen components applied both to Mr. King's special assistant position and at least to one occupied by another special assistant. These components included: legislative analysis; policy analysis; managing and planning; and advising and reporting regarding program goals and resources. Judge Lattimer also relied on the testimony of Ms. Qawiyy, stating: As to the interchangeability of the Special Assistants at the [DPAH], the person responsible for creating the positions, duties and responsibilities, identified twelve (12) positions that were interchangeable, [These positions are identified as positions 1-8 and 9-21 in [Mr. King's] Exhibits 2, 2a and 2b]. As to the position occupied by Kyla Williams, that Ms. Smith agreed had (17) similar components with the position of [Mr. King], Ms. Qawiyy specifically notes that it is 100% compatible with [Mr. King's] position. Significantly, the testimony of Ms. Qawiyy is uncontested on these issues. Ms. Qawiyy asserted that drugs did not distinguish Mr. King's position, and that DPAH had no responsibility for drug enforcement. Furthermore, as the person responsible for the development of position descriptions for the DPAH special assistants, she did not identify thorough knowledge of federal, District of Columbia drug enforcement law, regulations, or guidelines as a selective factor for Mr. King's position. Similarly, Judge Lattimer specifically found that: [U]nder the knowledge requirements of [Mr. King's] position description, there are four requirements preceding knowledge of drug enforcement laws. This fact alone would tend to suggest that the emphasis Ms. Smith placed on the knowledge of drug enforcement laws was somewhat misplaced. Consequently, Judge Lattimer determined that not only was Mr. King's competitive level constructed improperly, but also that the way in which it was established constituted harmful error because Mr. King was not released from his position in proper retention order since he was denied one round of competition, even though he was not the junior DS-301-14 special assistant at the [DPAH].