Opinion ID: 217808
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Challenged Hirings

Text: In the fall of 2005, the City sought to hire seven firefighters. Three of these positions were funded by a federal Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant. The grant outlines its purpose: The purpose of the SAFER grants is to award grants directly to volunteer, combination, and career fire departments to help the departments increase their cadre of firefighters. Ultimately, the goal is for SAFER grantees to enhance their ability to attain 24-hour staffing and thus assuring their communities have adequate protection from fire and fire-related hazards. The Grantee Responsibilities include: Grantees, to the extent possible, will seek, recruit, and appoint members of racial and ethnic minority groups and women to increase their ranks within the applicant's department. The 2005 hiring process resulted in the certification of 48 candidates on the eligibility list. [2] The list included three protected-group candidates: Torgerson, Mundell, and another female not a party to this appeal. Torgerson is a member of the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin. At the time of his application, he was a volunteer firefighter in Wisconsin. Torgerson had completed three years of college toward a degree in fire protection, including completion of Firefighter I and Fire Inspector I courses, for which he held certifications. He was certified as an EMT-Basic by the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians (NREMT) and the Minnesota Emergency Medical Services Regulatory Board. Mundell, at the time of her application, had several part-time jobs, including serving as a public education assistant for the City presenting fire-safety programs to second- and fourth-graders in Rochester (she was hired for the hourly position after e-mailing the Fire Chief inquiring about a volunteer position). She had an associate degree in business management and a diploma in intensive care paramedics from a local community college. She held a NREMT certificate, her EMT-Basic license, and licenses for completing the Firefighter I and Firefighter II courses. Based on the written and physical-agility phases of the process (Phases I and II) and veterans' points, Torgerson ranked 45th, and Mundell 46th, of 48 candidates. Both advanced to the panel interview, Phase III. Mundell was interviewed by Battalion Chief Charles A. Hermann, Olmsted County HR Risk Management Analyst Joan Till-Born, and Commissioner Joseph R. Powers. Torgerson was interviewed by Hermann, Till-Born, and Commissioner John Withers. Torgerson and Mundell agree that the questions asked were what they anticipated based on the list of possible questions, and that none of the questions were inappropriate. Mundell and Torgerson ranked 37th and 41st, respectively, on the panel interview, Phase III. This scoringcombined with their scores from Phases I and II and the veterans' points awarded to others placed Mundell 40th on the final eligibility list and Torgerson 45th. [3] The Commission unanimously certified the eligibility list of 48 candidates at its meeting on November 22. Of the top eight candidates on the eligibility list, seven received veterans' points, including the top sixa substantial impact on rankings among the top candidates. On December 15, Fire Chief David A. Kapler requested that the Commission forward candidates from the eligibility list to fill six vacancies. On January 9, 2006, he requested another candidate (to replace a terminated firefighter)bringing the total vacancies to seven. At a January 18 meeting, the Commission discussed the purpose of the SAFER grant and whether the Commission should expand the certification to include protected-group candidates. At the meeting, the City's HR Director Linda Gilsrud noted the minimal differences in the total points between candidates on the eligibility list. [4] Gilsrud explained the SAFER grant, stating that its purpose is to ensure qualified protected class applicants are considered for employment opportunities within the City. She told the Commission it has a unique opportunity to consider protected class candidates for the seven firefighter positions. Attending the meeting, the Mayor agreed and strongly encouraged the Commission to seriously consider the protected-group candidates while working within the established procedures. Commissioner Powers said that although all candidates on the eligibility list are qualified, the rank order should be carefully considered. Commissioner Powers added that he had the opportunity on the interview panel to interview one of the protected class candidates [Mundell] and believed we would not be doing justice by recommending their appointment to the position at this time because he would not want to recommend candidates who would not be successful. Commissioner Field noted the limited number of protected class candidates participating in the Firefighter curriculum, and suggested the City consider allotting the financial resources for allowing protected class candidates educational opportunities. After this discussion, the Commission unanimously agreed to certify to the City Council the rule-of-three candidates in rank order for six appointments, and for the seventh appointment, the rule-of-three candidates plus an expanded certification of three protected-group candidates. As a result, the top nine candidates, plus the three protected-group candidates, faced the final stage: an in-depth background investigation, medical and psychological examinations, and an interview with the Fire Chief. Torgerson and Mundell thus advanced to the final stage for the seventh position, while retaining their 45th and 40th rankings, respectively. Because all three protected-group applicants were certified for one position (the seventh), at most one of them could be hired. Fire Chief Kapler, with the assistance of the deputy Fire Chief, interviewed the candidates ranked 1 through 9all malesand the three protected-group candidates. When interviewing the top-ranked candidates, Kapler looked for a red flag. Something that shows up. It could be a gut-level feeling . . . that might give us a clue that there is a concern about a candidate. When interviewing the protected-group candidates, Kapler looked for something that might have been missed. Is there some quality or attribute this person brings that didn't come out in the test that we can say, wow, this is a strong candidate regardless of their test scores. Kapler initially decided not to recommend Candidate 3 because he did not possess National EMT Registration, and Candidate 4 because he did not show up for his interview or update his contact information. Kapler then requested four additional candidatescandidates ranked 10 through 13whom he interviewed. In a February 13 memorandum, Kapler made his recommendations to the Commission. In addition to not recommending Candidates 3 and 4, Kapler stated that he also did not recommend Candidate 10 because he was not eligible for EMT National Registry before the [eligibility] list was certified and Candidate 11 because he did not demonstrate the level of maturity and preparedness to be successful. Kapler's memorandum said he did not recommend the three protected-group candidates because they had not demonstrated themselves to be equally or better qualified than the individuals recommended. According to Kapler's notes from the interview, he found that Torgerson had awkward communication, came across as unsophisticated, had difficulty communicating, lacked the characteristics other applicants possessed, and did not demonstrate anything to make himself more qualified than what his score already indicated. Kapler did not recommend Mundell because during the interview she did not demonstrate that she was equally or better qualified than the candidates at the top of the eligibility list, or show that she was better qualified than her test scores may have indicated. At his deposition, Kapler acknowledged that his February 13 memorandum did not give a particular reason, or an objective reason, for not recommending them. The deputy Fire Chief's notes from the interview indicate that Mundell was not a standout. The deputy Fire Chief's notes on Torgerson say he was a talker, nice, odd, and a BSer (which the deputy testified meant I couldn't believe everything he said). The deputy Fire Chief concluded that Torgerson also was not a standout. The Commission, with all three commissioners present, discussed Kapler's recommendations on February 27. Also on that date, Kapler withdrew his recommendations for two more candidatesCandidate 2 because Kapler did not expect the results of his medical examination in time for hiring, and Candidate 5 because he did not have his NREMT certification on the date the eligibility list was certified. In sum, of the top 13 ranked candidates, Kapler did not recommend six, leaving only seven recommended candidates (at least nine are needed for the rule of three). Kapler requested four more candidates to interview, but the Commission tabled the matter. At the end of the February 27 meeting of the Commission, during other business, two of the candidates that Kapler did not recommend for lacking NREMT certification questioned the meaning of Current NREMT certification OR registry eligible, which had appeared in the written information from the Commission and on the website. After discussing the conflicting information given the candidates, the Commission tabled the issue, requested clarification from the Fire department, and then voted unanimously to permit candidates 3, 5, and 10 (collectively, registry-eligible candidates) to continue in the selection process. According to the City's HR director, the City decided that the registry-eligible candidates were qualified because it determined there was an ambiguity or conflict in information provided to the candidates about the meaning of registry eligible. On March 15, Kapler recommended Candidates 1 through 3, and 5 through 10, to satisfy the rule of three for seven positions. [5] Kapler testified he changed his recommendation on the registry-eligible candidates because once [the Commission] ruled that in their opinion that these candidates did meet the intent of the stated requirements, . . . these candidates were now qualified. Kapler did not mention the protected-group candidates or Candidates 11 through 13 in his March 15 memorandum. At a Commission meeting that same day, Commissioners Withers and Powers voted to present to the City Council the candidates as finally recommended by Fire Chief Kapler. Commissioner Roger Field was not present at the meeting. Without discussion, following the rule of three, the City Council appointed Candidates 1 through 3, and 5 through 8 as firefighters on March 20, 2006. Shortly after the Council's appointments, the media reported that Candidate 3 had been convicted of vehicular homicide eight years before. [6] An emergency Council meeting was called on March 29 to decide whether to reconsider the appointments. Immediately before the meeting, Council Member Carr had a conversation with Commissioner Withers who allegedly told Carr that the Commission wanted to hire Candidate 3 (the convicted felon) because he was the absolute big, strong firefighter type, or he was a big guy and that he'd make a good firefighter. [7] At the meeting, Carr tried to discuss whether the City had complied with the SAFER grant. The city attorney advised the Council that compliance with the SAFER grant was not a topic for the emergency meeting. The Council did not discuss the SAFER grant. On the recommendation of the City Administrator, the Council voted not to reconsider the seven appointments, resulting in the hiring of Candidates 1 through 3, and 5 through 8. In response to calls about the appointments, Council Member Carr investigated the City's hiring process. During the course of his investigation, Carr came to believe that the SAFER grant required the City to seek, recruit, and appoint women and minorities, although he understood that the Commission and city attorney disagreed with him. At a council meeting about three months after the hirings, Carr questioned Fire Chief Kapler about the hirings, the SAFER grant, and the protected-group candidates Torgerson and Mundell. Carr testified that Kapler said, I interviewed them and . . . I found them unfit. Carr further testified that about a year after the emergency meeting, he called Commissioner Field: I saidthe first question I asked [Field] was are you aware of all of the terms and conditions of the SAFER grant. And then he said, what do you mean? And I said, well, they stipulated you hire women and minorities. And he said I knew nothing of that. He said had I known, I would have recommended that the City not take the grant. He said the City should never have taken the grant if that was the stipulation. Torgerson and Mundell filed discrimination charges with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The MDHR found that the evidence did not substantiate Torgerson and Mundell's allegations, and dismissed the charges. The EEOC adopted the MDHR's findings, and also dismissed the charges. Torgerson and Mundell then sued in district court, asserting disparate-treatment claims of national-origin discrimination, and sex discrimination, respectively. The City moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted.