Opinion ID: 2750728
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Holmes’s Employment

Text: In February 2001, Holmes began working as a Probation and Parole Officer, most of that time in the field office in Montgomery, Alabama, where he lives. In March 2009, Holmes moved to the Montgomery field office’s Pardon Unit, where he primarily processed pardon applications. In this assignment, Holmes did not ordinarily perform routine probation and parole officer field work, such as supervising offenders, maintaining field notes, participating in arrests, attending revocation hearings, preparing PSI reports or parole plans, collecting fees and arrearages, collecting DNA samples, and performing drug tests. On June 16, 2013, 3 The record also contains a different, 2010 promotion protocol, effective December 6, 2010, applicable to all classifications of Board employment. Under the 2009 protocol, all candidates on the register were interviewed and under the 2010 protocol, all candidates on the register were “considered,” but only some were interviewed. The 2010 protocol does not contain lists of objective and subjective criteria that must be considered. For summary judgment purposes, we assume that the 2009 protocol, which was specific to probation and parole officers, still applied. 5 Case: 14-11330 Date Filed: 11/13/2014 Page: 6 of 22 Holmes was promoted to Senior Officer in the Montgomery Central Office’s Pardon Unit. Throughout his employment, Holmes received generally positive evaluations, although a few evaluations noted issues with timeliness and attention to detail. Additionally, Holmes’s personnel file contains some disciplinary actions during the years before he moved to the Pardon Unit, including: (1) a 2003 reprimand for failing to accurately report an offender’s sentence end date, which led to three months of wrongful incarceration; (2) notes in his 2003 evaluation about the failure to comply with arrest procedures; (3) a 2004 written reprimand for improper use of an assigned cell phone, making an insubordinate statement, and conducting field activities without the presence of another officer, in violation of office policy; and (4) a 2006 written warning for making an unauthorized request for the criminal history of a supervisor.