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

Heading: The Testimony of Carol Getter

Text: Carol Getter was a correctional officer who held the rank of lieutenant when she served on the 2002 interview panel. At the time of trial she had retired from the DOC after more than thirty years of service. She testified that, when serving on the interview panel, she looked for a candidate who was self-confident, who was knowledgeable about departmental policies and procedures, and who would represent the department in a “beneficial light.” Ms. Getter stated at trial that plaintiff arrived for the interview wearing his military uniform, mentioned that he was on military leave, and specifically told the panel that, according to law, his active duty status could not be held against him with respect to promotion. She further testified that, from her perspective, plaintiff’s military uniform was a “positive factor;” she also stated that she did not recall any comments by other panel members about the uniform. It was Ms. Getter’s further testimony, however, that plaintiff acknowledged during the interview before the panel that he was not up-to-date on DOC policies and procedures; she added that he asked that he be allowed to “shadow” another lieutenant for a couple of weeks if he were to receive the promotion. She stated on cross-examination that it would have been possible for plaintiff to brush up on DOC policies even though he was on military leave. Ms. Getter stated that plaintiff’s military status did not affect her interview score, but she did acknowledge on cross-examination that she factored his absence from the DOC into her score. Specifically, she testified that she indicated in her interview notes that plaintiff was not - 10 - available for immediate service as a lieutenant in order to alert the pertinent officials in case the position required an immediate presence. Ms. Getter testified that, while plaintiff could have been promoted while on military leave, it was her belief that absence “should be a factor” in deciding whom to promote. She noted at trial that the individuals whom she scored higher had impressive computer skills and were knowledgeable about policies and procedures; she noted that one had even developed a “spork”13 utensil for the DOC, which saved money.