Opinion ID: 2716913
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Testimony of George Truman, Jr.

Text: George Truman, Jr. was the first witness called by plaintiff. Mr. Truman was the Associate Director of Human Resources at the DOC when the events at issue in the instant case took place. By the time of trial he had retired from the DOC. Mr. Truman testified about the promotional process for corrections officers in general and about Mr. Panarello’s situation in particular. We summarize below the essential portions of his testimony. Corrections officers interested in promotion to the position of lieutenant would begin the process by sitting for a written examination.2 Those who score high enough on that examination are deemed qualified for promotion. When lieutenant positions become available, typically the candidates with the highest scores on the written examination are granted interviews before an interview panel;3 at those interviews, each candidate is asked the same set of questions. It is uncontested that, by that point in the process, a candidate’s examination score is no longer of significance; a sufficiently high score earns a candidate entry to the interview process, but it then 2 The promotional process within the DOC falls under the aegis of Rhode Island’s Merit System statute, which is codified in G.L. 1956 chapter 4 of title 36. 3 Mr. Truman testified that it is possible that one or other of the candidates interviewed would not have been a candidate with a top examination score—because, for example, a candidate may decide that he or she is not interested in being promoted at that time or may be unavailable. -3- ceases to play any further role. Each panelist ranks every candidate’s answers to the abovereferenced set of questions individually, and then the scores awarded by the various panel members are combined to provide each candidate with an overall interview score. The panel then compiles a list of the candidates ranked according to their overall interview scores. The panel also makes specific recommendations as to which candidates should receive a second interview.4 Those recommendations do not necessarily reflect the overall interview scores; for example, a candidate who ranked sixth in overall interview score could still be recommended by the panel as the top candidate to fill an open lieutenant position. The recommended candidates are then interviewed by Ashbel T. Wall (Director of the DOC) and an associate director.5 The ultimate decision as to who will be promoted is made by Director Wall. Mr. Panarello sat for the written examination in 1999, and he placed “7-B” out of hundreds of examinees. In 2001, there were five vacant lieutenant positions for which twelve corrections officers, including plaintiff, were interviewed. Seven candidates were then recommended to be promoted to lieutenant. The plaintiff was not one of them. In January of 2002, plaintiff wrote to Mr. Truman contending that his military leave status had had “a negative impact on [his] promotion to Lieutenant” and stating that there was “absolutely no reason to justify not promoting” him. He alleged in the letter that Director Wall himself had told him that he would not be promoted while on military leave and that David Caruso, one of the members of the 2001 interview panel, had “chastised” him for appearing at the interview in his military uniform. The plaintiff concluded his letter by expressing his wish to 4 Mr. Truman testified that interview panels sometimes make recommendations and sometimes do not. It was, however, the testimony of Ashbel T. Wall (Director of the DOC) that interview panels usually do make a recommendation. 5 Whenever we refer to an interview in this opinion we are referring to the initial round of interviews. -4- be promoted “immediately in the order which [he] scored on the [written] exam,” with seniority backdated to April of 2001. As a consequence of plaintiff’s letter, a meeting was held between Mr. Truman and plaintiff. While Mr. Truman testified that he had no recollection of that specific meeting, plaintiff testified that such a meeting did take place—although he added that the only result therefrom was Mr. Truman’s statement at the meeting that Director Wall made the final decision about promotions. In May of 2002, there were additional vacancies for a position as a lieutenant, and Mr. Panarello was once again interviewed. Mr. Caruso was again a member of the interview panel. The plaintiff acknowledged, while being cross-examined at trial, that members of the panel were aware that he was on military leave because he brought his military service to the attention of the panel while explaining the significance of the USERRA to them. After participating in the interview process this second time, Mr. Panarello was again not recommended for promotion.6 On May 2, 2002, plaintiff sent Mr. Truman another letter alleging that his active duty status had again had a negative effect on his chances for promotion to lieutenant. In that letter, plaintiff alleged that Walter Whitman, a 2002 interview panelist, had told him that “as long as [he was] out on military leave [he] would not be eligible for promotion to the position of [lieutenant].” The third incident of alleged discrimination occurred in June of 2002, when plaintiff was offered a “three-day rule” appointment as a lieutenant for a temporary period.7 The offer was 6 Mr. Truman testified that the management staff at the DOC in 2001 and 2002 was not familiar with the requirements of the USERRA. At trial, Mr. Truman acknowledged that in his deposition he used the word “clueless” to describe the level of familiarity which the DOC management staff had with respect to the USERRA. Lieutenant Colonel Denis Riel of the Rhode Island National Guard testified that he conducted a USERRA training session at the DOC in 2006. 7 With respect to the “three-day rule” Mr. Truman testified that, when there is a vacant position for an extended period of time due to the fact that an individual is on some type of leave, -5- withdrawn when plaintiff informed the DOC that he was not available to start immediately due to the fact that he was on military leave.8 Mr. Truman testified that being immediately available was a prerequisite to a “three-day rule” appointment. The plaintiff responded to having the offer of a “three-day rule” position withdrawn due to his unavailability by sending another letter to Mr. Truman alleging that “the discrimination [he] encountered while on military leave [was] an ongoing issue.” Finally, as plaintiff testified, he was promoted to lieutenant, in 2007, after his return from military leave.