Opinion ID: 3023241
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evans’s Allegations

Text: The District Court only considered Evans’s §§ 1981 and 1983 claims based on promotion denials occurring after November 16, 1997. After this date, Evans was denied a promotion twice – once in December of 1997 and once in July of 1999. The reason 4 given for Evans’s December 1997 denial was that he failed a written examination that one must pass to be eligible for the Operations Examiner position for which Evans applied. He took the written Operations Examiner test in October 1997, and it consisted of 24 short-answer questions as well as one essay question. Evans did not answer four and onehalf of the short-answer questions and half of the essay. These portions of the test accounted for about 20% of the total available points. The grader also took off additional points for completed but erroneous answers. Evans received a final score of 55.9% on the examination.4 Evans’s low score on the written examination was given by the promotion committee as the reason he was not eligible for the Operations Examiner position. In July 1999, Evans attempted to apply for the Operations Examiner position but was told that he could not because he was still on probation for piloting a train that ran a red light. He had been found guilty of this infraction in October of 1998;5 this resulted in four weeks’ suspension without pay, coupled with a year’s probation that rendered Evans ineligible to apply for any promotions until October of 1999.6 Along with the §§ 1981 and 1983 claims based on the promotion denials, Evans 4 On the record before this Court it is not clear exactly what was the passing grade for the October 1997 examination, but it is clear that the passing score was higher than 55.9%. Robert Zdanowicz – the scorer of Evans’s examination – testified that the passing grade was usually 70% but that sometimes a slight curve was used. (App. 371a.) 5 Evans unsuccessfully argued at that disciplinary hearing that he directed the driver of the train to stop for the light, but that the driver did not heed his directions. 6 Three weeks of Evans’s four-week suspension were held in abeyance contingent on Evans’s successfully completing the probationary period without incident (which he did), so Evans actually was only suspended for one week. 5 also advanced a retaliation claim under both §§ 1981 and 1983. He contended that the discipline imposed in October of 1998 was retaliation for making two written complaints of racial discrimination. The first complaint was lodged with James Conklin, PATH’s Superintendent of Transportation, in April of 1997 after Evans failed the Operations Examiner test for a second time.7 The second complaint was a letter sent to Congressman (as he then was) Robert Menendez in January of 1998 after Evans learned in December of 1997 that a prior application for promotion to Operations Examiner had been denied.8
The District Court also reviewed Evans’s Title VII claims occurring after May 4, 1997. Evans based these claims on the adverse promotion decisions made in December 1997 and July 1999.