Opinion ID: 2716913
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Testimony of Cynthia Drake

Text: The defendant also called Cynthia Drake, who was a DOC deputy warden both at the time of trial and when she served on the 2001 interview panel evaluating Mr. Panarello. It was her testimony that a successful candidate for promotion to the position of lieutenant “really needs to know policy [and] procedures [of the DOC].” Ms. Drake testified that plaintiff was dressed in his “fatigues” at the 2001 interview; but she stated that she did not consider his military status when deciding what score to award. She further testified that Mr. Panarello received a low score because his answers were not sufficiently complete. Ms. Drake also corroborated Mr. Caruso’s 14 In the passages from Mr. Caruso’s 2001 and 2002 interview notes quoted in the text, we have conformed the capitalization of letters. - 13 - testimony that the 2001 panel leader, Mr. Partridge, deviated from the interview rankings when recommending candidates to the Director. 6. The Testimony of Silma-Del Langley and Sergio DeSousarosa Silma-Del Langley and Sergio DeSousarosa, both of whom served on the 2007 interview panel, also testified. Ms. Langley testified that she had known plaintiff prior to the 2007 interview and that she observed a great improvement in plaintiff’s manner of thinking between the time when she worked with him in the early 2000s and when she worked with him again in 2006. She testified that her notes reflected her observation that plaintiff had reviewed DOC policies prior to the interview and that she had recommended him for promotion. Mr. DeSousarosa asserted in his trial testimony that he did not factor plaintiff’s military status in his scoring of plaintiff’s interview. 7. The Testimony of Ashbel T. Wall Ashbel T. Wall, Director of the DOC, testified concerning the determination of whom to promote; he stated that he considers the scores of the candidates recommended by the interview panel, any comments on the interview forms, personnel records, absentee records, letters of recommendation, disciplinary records, résumés, and any other information that the candidate chooses to provide. However, he added that it is his practice to look at the interview score sheets and other information pertaining only to those individuals who were recommended by the interview panel. Director Wall stated in his testimony on cross-examination that interview panelists should not consider a candidate’s military status or military-related absence in the interview process, but he also acknowledged that he was not aware of any training at the DOC in 2001 or 2002 relative to discrimination against members of the military. Additionally, he - 14 - testified that the task of filling temporary “three-day rule” positions is left to the assistant director of the relevant division. When questioned about the statement that he allegedly made to plaintiff at the Providence Place Mall, regarding his possibility of promotion while on military leave, Director Wall acknowledged that he did encounter plaintiff at the Mall, but he stated that he did not recall plaintiff asking about his chances of promotion. He added that he did not think that at that time he even knew that plaintiff was on military leave, and he stated that it would have been out of character for him to have made the alleged statement. Director Wall’s wife, Maria DeCarvalho, supported his testimony, stating that, while she did not remember the specific Providence Place Mall encounter with plaintiff, she could not recall any interaction with a DOC employee where Director Wall told the employee he or she would not be promoted while on military leave. Ms. DeCarvalho further testified that she would have been surprised to hear such a statement from her husband because he had expressed pride that the DOC is one of the largest sources of military personnel in Rhode Island.