Opinion ID: 2816696
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiffs’ Applications for Promotion

Text: A Signal Helper could, through a multi-step process, become eligible for promotion to the position of Assistant Signal Person. 2 First, he must successfully complete his 90-day probationary period. Second, he must apply for an open Assistant Signal Person position. Third, he must be invited to take the “Skilled Craft Battery Test” (the “SCBT”). After passing the SCBT, he would be considered eligible for promotion to Assistant Signal Person. The plaintiffs’ claims center on whether they were denied the opportunity to take the SCBT as a result of impermissible retaliation. So we delve rather deeply into the facts sur- 2 The duties of Signal Helpers and Assistant Signal Persons overlapped to some degree. Assistant Signal Persons, however, could perform skilled tasks, such as connecting electrical wiring, that Signal Helpers were not permitted to perform. No. 14-2707 5 rounding the SCBT and Union Pacific’s promotion procedures. It is worth noting at the outset, however, that neither the plaintiffs’ briefs nor materials in the record below fully explain Union Pacific’s promotion procedures. So gaps exist in the factual background as it has been presented to us. It is uncontested that both Burks and Jones passed their 90-day probationary periods, so both were eligible to apply for open Assistant Signal Person positions. According to Schop, whose account of the application process appears to be uncontested, employees could apply in two ways. Under what we’ll term the “external” method, the employee could submit an application through Union Pacific’s public website. The company listed its open Assistant Signal Person positions in every geographic zone and “seniority district” 3 on the site. The employee would then apply separately to each open position that was of interest—say, a position in Addis, Louisiana, or in Waco, Texas. The applicant could apply for positions in any seniority district through this method. Under the “internal” route, the employee could apply into a centralized applicant pool. That pool would be open only to current Union Pacific employees. If an Assistant Signal Person position became available in the applicant’s seniority district, the employee would be invited to take the SCBT. Applications to the pool eventually expire, after which time an applicant must reapply if he remained interested in taking the SCBT. 3 The term “seniority district” appears throughout the record, but remains undefined. The parties shed no light on its meaning. 6 No. 14-2707 An employee could elect to apply through either or both of the application methods. Under either method, it is unclear whether any additional “screening” steps were taken by Union Pacific between an application’s submission and any subsequent invitation to take the test. Some record information suggests that someone—either a human resources official or someone else—would review the applicants to make sure they met all listed qualifications. Other evidence suggests that applicants must have obtained positive referrals from their current managers in order to be considered, implying that some form of review occurred after the initial submission. In any event, the plaintiffs provide no information about this portion of the promotion process, so the factual description on this point remains absent.
After Burks completed his probationary period in August 2011, he spoke to foreman Storbeck about his promotion potential to Assistant Signal Person. According to Burks, Storbeck made a phone call to an employee named Nate Gutmann to ask how a signal helper could be promoted to Assistant Signal Person. Gutmann in turn asked another employee, Bernard Kachnowski, what actions were required. According to Burks, Kachnowski faxed a response to Gutmann, which was then sent to Storbeck, stating that “to be promoted, the signal helpers have to take a series of tests to see if they [sic] capable of learning electronic background.” The record suggests that Burks was mistaken about the form this communication took—it appears to have been an email exchange between Storbeck, Gutmann, and Kachnowski. In any event, the email stated substantially what Burks related—that the Signal Helpers must take a series of No. 14-2707 7 tests to see if they were “capable of learning the electronic part of being a Signalman.” In that email, Kachnowski also stated that “Jesse [Stearns] can call someone from HR to set up the testing.” From this point, the facts of Burks’s application process become muddled. In his brief, Burks claims that he believed that Stearns was setting him up with HR to take the SCBT. He cites to his own deposition testimony in support of that contention, but the cited testimony does not indicate whether Burks was at the time aware of the communications passing between Storbeck, Gutmann, and Kachnowski. Nor does it indicate that anyone told Burks that the SCBT was being arranged for him. Burks also claims that he was not informed that he was required to apply for an open position in order to be invited to take the SCBT, either prior to or immediately following his 90-day probationary period. He states that he was informed of the need to apply for an open position only at the time that he was notified that his Signal Helper position was being abolished. The record indicates, however, that in either June or July, Burks became aware that other employees from his Signal Helper class had been told to go online to apply to open positions. According to Union Pacific, and this appears to be uncontested by Burks, Burks applied for an open Assistant Signal Person position in October of 2011. He applied only via the “internal” application method, joining the “pool” of eligible applicants. Union Pacific claims that no positions became available in Burks’s seniority district, and his application to the pool expired in January of 2012. Burks did not reapply, and he was never invited to take the SCBT. 8 No. 14-2707
As for Jones, recall that he completed his probationary period in April 2011. Jones claims that he submitted an online application for open positions, apparently using the internal method, in May 2011. After hearing nothing from the railroad (or being told there were no positions available—the evidence is contradictory on this point), he contacted his union representative, Harry Doucet, for help. Doucet in turn contacted Union Pacific by email. Employee Tonya Eggspuehler responded that there was no application on file for Jones. She provided by email the link through which Jones should apply to the pool. Doucet told Jones to reapply on or about June 28, 2011, the same day he communicated by email with Eggspuehler. Jones did not apply to the pool until September 2011, and his application expired in January 2012. He did not reapply, and he was never invited to take the SCBT.