Opinion ID: 2716913
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Plaintiff’s Testimony

Text: After Mr. Truman’s testimony, plaintiff took the stand. With respect to the 2001 promotional process, Mr. Panarello testified that, when he “showed up for the panel,” Mr. Caruso asked him why he was wearing his military uniform and then stated: “It’s not going to look good.” Moreover, plaintiff stated that he had scored higher on the written examination than four of the five people who were selected for promotion. He further testified that he and his wife had encountered Director Wall and his wife at the Providence Place Mall a few weeks before Christmas in 2000. According to plaintiff, when discussing the likelihood of promotion while the DOC can fill that position by “taking someone of lower rank and placing them into [the] position    .” In his testimony, Mr. Truman characterized such a personnel action as “a temporary appointment;” and he further testified that an individual can stay in a “three-day rule” position for only six months before he or she will lose seniority benefits from his or her previous position. According to Mr. Truman’s testimony, the decision as to whom to appoint to a “threeday rule” position is confided to the sole discretion of Director Wall. The “three-day rule” was also sometimes referred to as the “eleven-day rule” in the trial testimony. 8 Mr. Truman acknowledged that plaintiff had told him that, if he were offered a promotion, he would leave military service and return to the DOC. However, plaintiff testified that he still would not have been able to start immediately due to the necessity of: (1) giving adequate notice that he was leaving his military position; and (2) training a replacement. -6- plaintiff was on military leave, Director Wall stated: “I would not promote you to a position of lieutenant if you’re not here to do the job. I need someone to do the job.”9 Mr. Panarello next testified about his 2002 interview, and he indicated that panel member Carol Getter had remarked about the fact that he was on active military duty. In addition, plaintiff testified that Walter Whitman (also a panel member) told him that “it would not be a good management move to promote [him] to the position of lieutenant;” plaintiff added, however, that Mr. Whitman also stated that Director Wall would make the ultimate decision.10 And he also acknowledged that Mr. Whitman commended him for his military service. The plaintiff then proceeded to testify with respect to the “three-day rule” position (see footnote 7, supra) that was offered to him in June of 2002; he stated that he was asked to start working in that position right away11 but that he told the person who offered him the position that he would not be able to start until late August or early September due to his military duties. It was plaintiff’s further testimony that he was not given the “three-day rule” position because he could not start immediately—whereas, he added, he later learned that the position was not filled until late October or early November. 9 The plaintiff’s wife, Maryann Panarello, gave confirmatory testimony at trial with respect to plaintiff’s testimony about the chance meeting with Director Wall at the Providence Place Mall. 10 The plaintiff acknowledged at trial that Mr. Whitman’s statement came in response to his own question to Mr. Whitman about his chances of promotion to lieutenant. 11 The plaintiff testified that he was offered the position on a Friday and was expected to start the following Monday. -7- The plaintiff further testified that, when he returned to the DOC in 2006, he once again sat for the written examination for promotion to lieutenant—this time ranking 27A.12 Thereafter, in September of 2007, he was promoted to lieutenant. He stated at trial that, except for the fact that he had obtained a bachelor’s degree in 2007, his qualifications had not changed dramatically from the 2001 and 2002 interviews to the time of his promotion in 2007. On cross-examination, plaintiff acknowledged that in his deposition he had expressed his understanding that the written examination score was without significance once a candidate received an interview. He further recognized, in testifying on cross-examination, that his interview score in 2001 ranked him eleventh of twelve candidates. The plaintiff also admitted to bringing his military service to the attention of the 2002 interview panel of his own accord. Specifically, he testified that he thought that he needed to educate the interview panel about the USERRA. His cross-examination also elicited the following facts: (1) that he was unaware that there are National Guard regulations prohibiting the wearing of a National Guard uniform to a civilian interview; (2) that his interview score in 2002 ranked him fifth of seven candidates; (3) that he did not review current DOC policies before his 2002 interview, despite the fact that they were available at the training academy; (4) that one of the candidates selected for promotion in 2002, one Joseph Mullensky, also had a military background; and (5) that the other candidate selected in 2002 was one William Bove, who had approximately twenty years of managerial experience and ten years of labor relations experience. 12 In 2006, Mr. Panarello sat for the written examination for promotion to lieutenant a second time because, pursuant to § 36-4-22(a)(1)(ii), a “promotion list[]” generated from a written examination for promotion is only “in effect for a period of three    years    .” -8- 3. The Testimony of Joseph Forgue, Jr. and John Lavery After plaintiff’s testimony concluded, two additional witnesses were presented on his behalf—Joseph Forgue, Jr. and John Lavery. At the time of trial, Mr. Forgue was a DOC Special Investigator. He testified that he had served in the Rhode Island National Guard and that the DOC had failed to select him for an interview for promotion to lieutenant in 2001 and 2002 even though he had passed the written examination for lieutenant and was ranked eleventh; he further stated that, when he returned from active duty, he expressed interest in serving as the Chief of the Special Investigations Unit on a temporary “three-day rule” basis but was not given that opportunity. He added that he was not given the “materials or opportunity” to take a make-up written examination upon his return from a 2004 deployment. Mr. Forgue indicated at trial that he believed being away on military leave put him at a disadvantage with respect to being promoted. However, he did acknowledge in his testimony on cross-examination that he had served as temporary Chief of the Special Investigations Unit on a number of occasions and that he was later interviewed for the position of Chief on a permanent basis, although someone else was ultimately selected. At the time of trial, Mr. Lavery was a DOC training instructor; he had served in the Massachusetts National Guard for approximately twelve years, receiving an honorable discharge in 2002. He alleged in his testimony at trial that, upon his return from overseas duty, he was informed by the DOC that he still had to complete a six-month probationary period which had started before his military leave. According to his testimony, he took issue with the DOC’s position on his probationary period because he believed that the probationary period should have expired while he was on military leave. He further testified that he had engaged in a dispute with the DOC concerning bidding rights, pay, retirement, sick time, and vacation time due to the -9- DOC’s requirement that he serve the remainder of his probationary period upon returning from military leave, but he acknowledged that the bidding rights issue was resolved in his favor.