Opinion ID: 2968110
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Open position is submitted to HR for posting.

Text: The hiring manager ensures the position description is complete and correct; adding, and weighing the values of, necessary competencies. HR Compensation establishes the salary grade of the position at or below the salary grade of the previous incumbent (if any). No preferred candidates exist in this system. 2. HR posts the position in ShRINE (sic) for ten working days. 3. The hiring manager establishes an interview panel. With the HR lead, the hiring manager selects appropriate individuals, based on their job knowledge and familiarity with the position, to sit on an interview 8 ANDERSON v. WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER CO. panel. The panel consists of three members, one of whom must always be the hiring manager. 4. Self-nominating individuals submit their qualifications to HR-Staffing. Submitted qualifications can include a Personal History form (OSR 27-13) and/or resume. 5. Individuals nominated by others submit their qualifications to HR-Staffing. With their consent, candidates can be nominated by others. Nominations are not restricted to managers. The hiring manager cannot nominate. Candidates submit a Personal History form (OSR 27-13) or resume and copies of their last three performance appraisals to HR-Staffing. 6. HR confirms that applicants meet posted position requirements. Eligible candidates are identified based on minimum requirements listed in the position profile. 7. HR-Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) reviews the list of applicants for consistency with corporate and affirmative action planning. 8. HR-Staffing submits eligible applicants to the hiring manager. 9. Within five working days of receiving the material from HR-Staffing, the hiring manager selects candidates for interviews. 10. All applicants are informed of the status of their application. ANDERSON v. WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER CO. 9 11. Individuals selected for an interview receive a candidate information package regarding the interview process. 12. The hiring manager schedules and conducts, with the panel, interviews within 10 working days after candidates are notified of their status. 13. The hiring manager selects the candidate who best meets position requirements. The final decision is made by the hiring manager with input from the other two interview panel members and after review by the HR lead. The next level of management must also review and approve the selected candidate. 14. HR-EEO review candidate selection for consistency with corporate and affirmative action planning. 15. If a promotion is necessary, HR-Compensation, HREEO, and the division HR lead review the decision to ensure that all relevant criteria are met. 16. HR-Staffing prepares a formal offer and the hiring manager extends the offer to the candidate. 17. The candidate accepts or rejects the offer within two calendar days. 18. The hiring manager informs all interviewed candidates and the sending manager of the selected candidate of the selection process outcome. 19. The selected candidate is released to the new position within four weeks of acceptance. If the releasing manager and the hiring manager both agree, the release time-frame can be shortened. The release time-frame cannot exceed four weeks. 10 ANDERSON v. WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER CO. Under the Competency Based System, hiring managers can evaluate applicants in six core competencies: teamwork, leadership, communications, business results, self-management, and employee development. The hiring managers can also evaluate applicants using selected functional competencies that are specific to the position for which the manager is hiring. For example, a particular functional competency could be [p]roficient in heating, ventilation and airconditioning design, and the CBPS manual explains that [f]unctional competencies can be derived from the responsibility section on the job description. Each competency is assigned a weight, using a number from one to five, in which five is [m]ost important relative to other competencies and one is [l]east important relative to other competencies. The interview panel then selects candidates for interviews and then interviews each selected candidate. Each applicant who is interviewed is evaluated by the interview panel using the core and functional competencies. The interview panel determines a weighted score for each applicant on each core and functional competency. The panel determines the weighted score by multiplying the weight given to each competency (one to five) by the applicant’s rating for each competency. The panel rates the applicant on a scale of one to five, with a five meaning [d]emonstrates exceptional competence and a one meaning [d]id not demonstrate expected level of competence. The panel determines the applicant’s total weighted score by adding together the weighted scores for each competency. The hiring manager then selects the candidate for the position, after noting the total weighted scores for each candidate, and records the basis for selecting the chosen candidate. The second program instituted at the Savannah River Site was the Ranked Performance Pay Process, or RP3. The Site began using the program in 1997 to rank exempt and selected overtime position employees for merit increases in salary. Two major factors are utilized under the RP3 system to determine which employees should receive merit raises. Job performance constitutes 75% of the ranking given to an employee, and the remaining 25% is derived from rankings on Site Imperatives. Site Imperatives are the basis of how we [Site employees] each are expected to accomplish the business objectives of our work group, division, and company as a whole. The five Site Imperatives are safety, disciplined operations, cost effectiveness, ANDERSON v. WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER CO. 11 continuous improvement, and teamwork. Each Site Imperative is weighted five percent in the total ranking, with the total for all five constituting 25% of an employee’s final ranking. Under the RP3 system, each manager must use the RP3 electronic evaluation worksheet to rate each employee in the manager’s organization. The evaluation process begins with the smallest unit of organization, the department or section. Once the initial rankings are computed for the department or section, all employees within a single work group are ranked by the next level of management. At the next step, the rankings for a division, each division’s manager may integrate the work group rankings to achieve a ranking of employees within the division. The division manager may rank all employees in various combinations. Among the combinations suggested by the RP3 system manual are (1) total ranking of all employees; (2) rank within separate work groups; (3) managers, leads, and professionals; (4) salary grade clusters, i.e., all SGL 16 employees or all SGL 32 to 34 employees; or (5) managers, leads, and professionals by salary grade clusters. The employee rankings for each division are then broken into performance categories consisting of the high 15%, the middle 80%, and the low five percent. Final rankings are approved by the division manager, and merit salary increases are awarded based on each division’s budget and salary guidechart. The Human Resources Compensation department must approve any merit increases that are outside of the salary guidechart. All employees, regardless of their ranking percentage, are eligible for merit increases, but the top 15% may receive the highest merit increases. Another factor that contributes to the size of a merit increase is whether the employee is above or below the midpoint of their salary grade. For example, if an employee is an A performer whose salary level is below the midpoint of his salary grade, he is eligible to receive a merit increase, the amount of which may be different if he is an A performer whose salary level is above the midpoint of his salary grade. In ranking their employees for job performance, which accounts for 75% of an employee’s ranking, the RP3 manual instructs managers to consider the following factors: 12 ANDERSON v. WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER CO. Job expectations Quality and quantity of work Position scope (performance against position description) Support to achieving commitments Feedback from others (managers, peers, or customers) Awards, recognition Performance standards (leadership, judgment) For job performance, an employee receives a rating of either Low, meaning [c]onsistently performs at a level below expectations, or Mid, meaning [c]onsistently performs at the level of expectations, or High,  meaning consistently performs at a level that exceeds expectations. Managers also use the low, mid, or high rankings to evaluate their employees in the five Site Imperatives. The RP3 manual lists the performance indicators that managers should use when determining whether an employee should receive a low, mid, or high rank for each imperative. In her lawsuit, Miss Anderson complains about three separate instances in which she sought and subsequently failed to receive a promotion. In 1997, Miss Anderson applied for the position of Administrative Assistant in the Environmental Restoration Division. The hiring manager, Miss Gail Toddings, posted the opening using the CBPS, and approximately 150 employees applied for the position. After the Site’s Human Resources department evaluated the applications, 30 to 40 resumes were sent to Miss Toddings. The outgoing administrative assistant, Miss Laboris Curry, assisted Miss Toddings in evaluating the resumes and choosing 15 people to interview. Miss Toddings made the final decision on who would be interviewed. Miss Anderson was selected for an interview, and she interviewed for the position on December 15, 1997, before an interview panel chaired by Miss Toddings. The interview panel recommended and Miss Toddings selected Mrs. Linda Clarke for the position. Mrs. Clarke, a white woman, received the highest consensus rating, a score of 190, among all of the employees who were interviewed.1 Miss Anderson received 1 190 was the highest rating among the employees interviewed for the position. Mrs. Clarke and another employee, Miss Shirley King, both received scores of 190. (JA 11107-11108, 11115-11116) Miss King is a white woman. (JA 11169) ANDERSON v. WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER CO. 13 a rating score of 136, the second-lowest score given by the interview panel. The interview panel gave its lowest rating score of 129.5 to a white female employee. In 1998, Miss Anderson applied for the position of Administrative Assistant in the Business Development and Community Outreach Division. Miss Anderson was not selected for an interview on the basis of her low scores for the functional competencies of the position. Only two applicants received higher scores in core competencies than Miss Anderson, but eight applicants had higher ratings in the functional competencies. Miss Anderson received a rating of 59 out of a possible 72 for core competencies and a rating of 9 out of a possible 57 for functional competencies, for a total rating of 68. In contrast, the individual chosen for the promotion, Mrs. Brenda Pearson (formerly Miss Brenda Boggs), a white woman, received a rating of 60 out of a possible 72 for core competencies and a rating of 57 out of a possible 57 for functional competencies, for a total rating of 117. Mrs. Pearson received the promotion, and Miss Anderson did not. Miss Anderson also alleges that she was denied a promotion from SGL 28 SOP to SGL 30 while in her position as administrative assistant in the university relations group. She complains that she was told she had to work in her current position for two to four years before she could receive a promotion in place. She contends that white employees received promotions in place without having to work in their positions for two to four years.