Opinion ID: 770748
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Position of Chief of Enforcement

Text: 16 The district court held that Mr. Nguyen did not establish a prima face case here because no Chief of Enforcement position was either posted or filled by the City. The City asserts that the only Chief position available for promotion was the position of Chief of Engineering. Mr. Nguyen admitted in his deposition that he did not bid on the Chief of Enforcement position because it was not open. 17 Q: . . . Did you ever formally apply for chief of enforcement? 18 A: No. Because the position is not open at that point - that moment. 19 Q: Okay. So chief of Bureau of Engineering Services is the only chief positionthat you've applied for with the City of Cleveland? 20 A: That's correct. Because Doug Seaman left, so the vacancy in the Bureau of Engineering and service or the chief engineer position is available. The chief [of] enforcement, Mr. Fasko, still handles that at that point. And there's no advertising to apply for the chief of enforcement; therefore, I did not apply for the chief of enforcement at that time. 21 Although it is undisputed that the City never attempted to fill a Chief of Enforcement position during the relevant time period, in this appeal Nguyen persists in his allegation that the City discriminated against him by failing to promote him to Chief of Enforcement. In his brief, Nguyen argues: 22 As for the position of Chief of Enforcement, the defendant stated that this position was never available for promotion. (Memorandum of Opinion and Order pg. 11, Appx. 35). However Mr. Nguyen stated in his deposition at page 46 that Mr. Marvin Rogers worked as Chief of Enforcement from the first day he was hired. (R. 20, Nguyen depo. at p. 11, Appx. 164). Marvin Rogers held himself out as Chief Engineer but he did the work of Chief of Enforcement. Id. 23 The record is clear that Mr. Rogers and Mr. Nguyen both applied for the Chief Engineer position, and Mr. Rogers (a black man) was awarded that position. The jury considered Nguyen's Title VII claim with respect to the Chief Engineer position and found in favor of the City. It appears from the record that in addition to his regular Chief Engineer duties, Mr. Rogers assumed some Chief of Enforcement duties to cover for a vacancy in the department. But it is undisputed that only one position was posted, one position was filled by Mr. Rogers, and the jury found no discrimination with respect to the filling of that position. Mr. Nguyen's attempt to convert Mr. Rogers' additional duties into another separate position is wholly without merit.