Yes, training and experience. I have a sample at the end of Exhibit A. Programmer analyst project leader. The specification came out February 9, 1998. It is 35 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 based on training and experience. The only time that a written examination was administered was when there was a possibly that I would qualify. The upper level's project leader and programmer analyst supervisor was training based on training and experience.
So were you given the opportunity to take the test? That's what I'm asking you.
No. They developed a written examination in which -- that I feel would have been biased anyway.
And do you know how many people applied for that position?
And how many 36 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 passed?
And I would assume that somebody would have passed. And if so, if there were an opening, why would you still be doing that work?
As I was trying to point out earlier, I have been doing project leader work from the day I got picked up as a programmer. Unfortunately back then, we were at PCC. They didn't have anyone to do the electronic print programming, and the entire conversion was waiting to be done, which included the processing of the payroll checks and several other items, which, not only did I complete the conversion, I did all of the job source libraries, I completed all the forms, put all the tax forms, payroll checks, and the police administration (unintelligible) communication module as well as their printers, and basically wrapped all up in a nice, neat little package. And that was a project before I even considered being a project leader. You know, if you did want to take a look at this, I could leave this. I created the 37 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 run book, which processes all of the forms for the City of Philadelphia departments and agencies.
Just the one time. And then they changed the specifications.
Were they using the language in the department at that time, the Natural of the program?
They just started using it. They was converting from COBOL to Natural.
Most of the people who 38 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 were in systems development. But at the time, see, actually, that eligibility occurred when I was in the information center, and I was the only PA-III in the information center.
And then I went into systems development. So, see, there would be no 14 eligibility if you no longer had that unit. (Unintelligible) funny stuff with the budget. You know, you start switching things around because you want to, you know, create this other slot and so you re-spec, and then you take the money allocated in the budget for a particular position in a particular unit and then you reallocate those funds too, and then you create another unit, you create another position, and then there's no need for the eligibility.
Councilwoman Clark? 39 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154
Miss Richardson, I did not hear all of your statement, but I'm now looking through this book that you passed out. I'm reading your memo dated August 21, 1995. It's the orange tab in the book, near to the back. It says -- it's a memo to Karl Bortnick from you on employee evaluation, and it's a very short memo. It says: "Karl, please reconsider the improvement needed." And then in a handwritten note is a statement: "Alison, check with Kathy and also ask for a three- to six-month reevaluation of that factor. Karl." And that handwritten note is dated 8/22, so the day after you gave him your memo, he responded to you.
Telling you to ask for a reevaluation. Then I fast-forward to the next tab, "Performance Report for Permanent Employee." And while I'm not going to read all of it, I just look at where the checks are; you have an overall superior rating, with one satisfactory and one 40 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 outstanding.
Okay, I understand that. I'm looking at this 1998 evaluation, which appears to have corrected any deficiencies that might have been the subject of the 1995 "improvement needed" performance review. Was that your assessment, that you had what -- whether it was fair or not, that you had now been evaluated by a supervisor who saw your overall performance as superior.
Now, in response to a comment that Councilwoman -- it might have been Tasco -- as to why you are in an acting position now that a test has been completed and some people have been appointed, what was your answer to why you're acting when there are people on the register who have passed the test?
The way things work over there is sometimes -- see, a general category 41 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 -- sometimes data processing requests come in and it doesn't require Natural, it doesn't require COBOL, it doesn't require FORTRAN. It's just data-processing requests. It's like having to press dial-in to our data center, and it requires various activities. And most of the programmer analysts are so focussed on a specific language --
Miss Richardson, excuse me. What you're telling me is interesting but not relevant to the question. If an exam has been given which generated an eligibility list, were all of those people placed?
And you're still acting, doing the work that they are being paid to do? Is that what your suggestion is?
You do in, an acting position, what they do under the title for the money and the resume points?
How long have you done that? 42 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154
Well, if I start with the electronic printing project, I would say since about -- 8
Miss Richardson, 9 has it been two years, two weeks, two months? 10 Tell me that. 11
About four years. 13 Now, Miss Richardson, this circumstance 14 made you unhappy, did it not? 15
I went to Councilman 19 Nutter at the time when I was working on the GIS project.
Okay, now stop. You went to a politician, but what about in your chain?
Yes, I went to my union rep. 43 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154
My union rep had this to say to me: You're not doing advanced work; you don't get advanced training until you do advanced work.
So your union rep did not represent you in the way that you thought you should have been.
Okay. Did you file a complaint, did you ask to have a review? Who is your boss? Do you then have a right to go to your boss's boss for a review?
Prior to having an immediate supervisor, I basically took assignments from management.
Well, whoever management is, did you tell management that I'm working out of my classification, I'm being prohibited from positions that I qualify for, and 44 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 that has the effect of costing me money? 'Cause that is the situation, isn't it?
Yes, but, you know, I felt that as I was progressing through the programmer analyst series, there's always a lot of work, and you never mind helping out do the work, even when it is over the scope of your job specification. But it wasn't until I was permitted not to continue to progress through the series that then, you know, I did write memorandums requesting the consideration.
Were you asking in your memos to have this corrected? Do you want somebody to promote you according to the work that you're doing? What were you asking for? What did you want to have done? What remedy did you see?
You were requesting anticipation of eligibility to do what?
To become a program 45 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 analyst project leader.
So you want to be promoted to the work that you're doing?
The specification just -- it just wasn't that long ago before the specification came out, but they put human services only.
So they walled you out because you worked in the wrong unit to compete for the position.
Yes. At one time, as the positions would come out -- as the position came out, it wasn't department-specific. Now, what they do is too, you know, department- specific, and since I'm not in that department, then again, I cannot compete for the promotion. 46 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154
So they walled you out because you don't work in the unit from which they are selecting.
So is this a problem with no solution? You can't transfer in, they won't let you work from where you are, they won't promote you and pay you at a level that you think you're qualified for, so you are between the proverbial rock and the hard place.
Yes. I was just hoping to get years in and then maybe -- 17
Okay, you were 18 hoping to have a hearing so that maybe what? 19 Tell me what you want this process to result in. 20
Right. You don't want to be eligible; you want to be the job that you're already doing, don't you?
Yes. 47 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154
She wants the title and all the perks, including the pay. You need the resume points so that you can be eligible for the next job. As long as you are acting in a position, you can't do a thing with it resume points-wise.
Can I just ask one question, if I may. How long have you been working at that category? You said four years?
You do that when assignments come up and if for some reason, I don't know if it's my skills to be able to --
It's an on-and-off thing. The electronic print, that started in 1989. I did the personnel analysis 1990 until, I believe it was, 1996 and there's documentation in there to prove it. The project down at the Police Department, that lasted for a year. So --
So that's what the project leader does? Is that the work that a project leader does? 48 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154
When you can take the application and you do -- you make sure all of the work gets done without intervention of a technical superior.
Is there a position description that describes this job?
How long have you been doing that work as a project leader? You say you're doing work but you're not getting paid for it.
You can do the work, but in order to get in the programmer analyst series, you must take the programmer analyst trainee written examination on Programmer Analyst I, so regardless of whether you're doing project leader work or not, you have to progress through PA-I, PA-II, PA-III, which is --
Right. And I became eligible for project leader at the end of 1993.
'93, so five years. 49 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154
The immediate supervisor because there is a programmer analyst supervisor after project leader.
And you work with other people on your team and you supervise them. But in order to become a project leader, you have to know all the systems that you're dealing with, correct?
And you know those systems 'cause you keep doing project after project after project.
So now you're saying, Well, let me just be a supervisor as opposed to the hands-on person.
The project leader is still hands-on; it's the supervisor level about project leader.
Now, at one point, they offered it to me on a temporary basis only if 50 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 I agreed to go to the prisons to help straighten out the data-processing --
Well, we know the prison story, we know the prison story.
Then I told them, You're only going to give it to me long enough to go up there to fix the problem.
And it's going to cost me the money in transportation and inconvenience. So I told 'em I didn't want a temporary appointment.
Because, it seems to me, if they ever thought that you were eligible enough to offer it to you in writing, that obviates the necessity to prove that you're eligible.
I didn't like that situation because I felt that I was already there 51 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 and --
Yeah. I have a memorandum in which I sent a memo to Lou --
Miss Richardson, I know that you're getting nervous because two or three of us are asking you questions at the same time, and we don't mean to make you nervous, but that question is a yes- or no-question.
It doesn't have to be today. Miss Richardson, if there is a writing and if you can produce it, it seems to me that you are in a substantially better position because at some point, somebody in your management chain believed that you had all of the qualifications to be a fully certified employee under that position 52 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 description and that title, right?
Stop. That's what you need to do, you need to put that material in our hands. It doesn't have to be today, but that's how you gather your evidence. And a lot of that other stuff, whether it was inconvenient, whether it cost you money is not relevant to me, it's not relevant to your qualifications to do the job. Those are working conditions, those are not qualifications, okay?
Are there any other questions for this witness? (No further questions.)
We'll follow up with you in our office with Miss Frazier.
Yes. And I'll give you a copy of the memorandum here, okay.
Thank you. 53 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154
Okay, could we have Mary Miller Turner. (Mary Miller Turner comes forward.)
Yes. Good afternoon, City Council. Thank you for allowing me to come down to share with you my experience in seeking employment with the City of Philadelphia in the capacity of auditor in the controller's department. I originally applied for this position in '92, I took the test. I was told that I failed the test by 2 points. The City had a policy where we can audit the test, which I did do, and I questioned six questions which were erroneously marked incorrect. I put in an appeal within the City of Philadelphia and supported this appeal with documentation, including excerpts from a text, the copy of the text, the publication and the year it was published. After one year of trying to find out 54 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 the outcome of that appeal, I was told I was denied the appeal because the City could not find or locate the text. I was told to apply again for the position which, in fact, I did do. And roughly in July of '94, I took the civil service exam again for auditor. I passed the exam, I passed the qualifying oral exam. And my name was put on the registrar. At that time, I was told to keep myself abreast of my position on the registrar, which I did do. And I became a little apprehensive in reference to my possibilities of ever securing a position because I declined on the registrar instead of inclined. And in doing so, I sought the assistance of a Mr. Benton (ph.), an attorney, to find out my correct status on the registrar. And when the information came back to him, I had, at that time, fallen to first place, but the City had cut off their hiring because it was the end of the fiscal year. I believe it was on November 6, 1995 that I interviewed for the City of Philadelphia. And upon my entrance, I was told to fill out another application, which I did do. I 55 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 interviewed with a Mr. Wise, Mr. Scaperotto, and Mr. Tkaczuk -- I may have the names mispronounced, and I apologize. During those interviews, these individuals were more concerned with my present occupation, which was working in the capacity of a substitute teacher, freelancing, accounting, and were not really considering me for the job. They were asking me what did I have to do to become a teacher instead of considering me for the position that I was there for. And I explained to them that originally, my application fell to substitute teacher because I was also on a list with the School District of Philadelphia for a financial management position. I took the substitution because it was income, and I'm self-supporting. And I told them I did not want to become a teacher, that I was seeking the position in the controller's department. Well, roughly about the 8th or 7th or 8th of November, I received a letter telling me that I did not receive the position for the auditor and that -- I called down to personnel to 56 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 find out my current status on the list and was told that I wasn't on the list at all anymore. And apparently what Mr. Wise, Mr. Tkaczuk and Mr. Scaperotto used was is what you call a "Rule of 2" to disallow me the position as auditor for the controller's department and then removed my name subsequently from the list from any further consideration. Should I continue?
Okay. At that point, I became upset because I had been applying for this job -- waiting, actually, for this type of job, had passed the qualifications for the job, and it was just these three individuals who took away my opportunity for this job, and I thought I had been unjustly treated. So I filed a complaint with EEOC who, in turn, did not investigate my complaint. They stated that they passed the complaint over to the Pennsylvania -- excuse me, the Philadelphia Human Relations Commission. And in trying to find out their findings as to why I was denied the 57 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 position, I was told that they also did not investigate my complaint, and I was subsequently issued a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. I did file a case in the Federal District Court, claiming that I was unfairly treated and had a denial of opportunities for employment with the auditor's department. The case -- let me back up. During the discovery for the case, I found out that on November 6th, they did, in fact, hire two individuals, but when they turned the registrar, or sent it back after removing my name, there was still a vacancy to be filled. At that point, I was -- I did not have an attorney, I must say. I could not afford an attorney, I didn't have a -- I was representing myself. So I knew they had a vacancy still to be filled and I had again been denied, I knew that under Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, amended in 1991, that that was an illegal practice to deny a qualified candidate for a position and then continue to seek like candidates with the same qualifications. 58 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 So I did a thorough discovery, and I found out that -- well, they would not release to me the names of the two people who they placed on the registrar above me in the earlier part of 1995; they did not give me that information. But I also found out that Mr. Tkaczuk, who was the individual who was doing, I guess, the main decision-making here never considered me for the job. The issue here was consideration. Although on the face, it appears that he did do so by allowing me to have the interview, I was never considered, as stated he in his deposition, because he was more concerned with a notation I had put on the application when I came in on November 6th as opposed to qualifications for the job. And that notation was whether or not I had been previously terminated for a position, and I had noted yes after, filing a grievance against Mellon Bank, I was wrongfully terminated. During the interview, he did ask me about that termination, and I explained to him that it was not in the capacity of accountant, that I was working in a clerk's position. It was 59 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 a wrongful termination, and the documents submitted for this termination, the court had found to be fraudulent, but I did not successfully win the case. In his deposition, he noted that he was not concerned with my background, not even concerned with the fact that I had just finished auditing a company independently here in the Philadelphia area -- just the fact that I had been terminated. And he denied me the position or any further or future opportunities for the position as a auditor with the controller's department.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't state my name. My name is my name is Mary Valestine Miller Turner.
Miss Turner, this has been a traumatic experience for you, I am 60 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 sure. Did you say that you were issued a right-to-sue letter by the EEOC?
And has your case progressed? What has happened to that case?
Well, the case was dismissed. After the depositions were taken, the City said their procedure of a Rule of 2 and entered a motion to leave, which means to close the case. I was to have days to respond to 13 this motion. However, the Honorable Herbert J. 14 Hutton of the United States District Court Eastern Division closed the case on the sixth day, without my response.
So your complaint is that you are a qualified candidate for a position of auditor, and that there came a point when were the first person on the registry.
And that under the Rule of 2, they were able to go around you as the number-one person, pick somebody who was lower than you, then take your name off the list. 61 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154
Well, and also too, during discovery, all other candidates that had been on that list that my name was originally on were either hired, offered the job and declined the position, with the exception of myself.
When you filed your lawsuit, what was the basis of your lawsuit, race and sex?
So what is your status now? Your case has been dismissed from federal court.
My status is I'm not working for the City of Philadelphia in the capacity of auditor. And at present, I'm working as an apprentice teacher, doing what they recommended that I do. I've had to change my career because of denial of employment in certain civil service capacities. So at present, I am working as an apprentice teacher for the Philadelphia School 62 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 District.
What would you like this committee to do? When you came here, what remedy did you seek?
Well, my first remedy would be just to look at your rules in reference to hiring individuals. I was very disappointed to find that my name was being able to -- the City was able to remove my name from the list after I had passed the written and oral portion, which were the qualifications for the job, as stated on the application that was publicized. They did not say that once my name came up on the registrar, I would be again interviewed and the possibility that I would be denied the position.
Now, let me see if I can restate your situation. You took an examination and you passed both the written and the oral.
You went on the registrar. 63 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154
And they hired down to, and including, people whose scores were no higher than yours.
Well, when it got time to my list, they did hire people whose scores were higher than mine.
Okay. So then you don't have a complaint about that. Now you're saying that they hired somebody whose score was the same as yours or lower.
Okay, the same, okay. So as to those whose scores were higher, you make no complaint.
Well, no. But they were above me on the list. 64 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154
Right. If they were above you on the list, we take it that their scores were higher so you raise no complaint as to them same. As to those who had the same and lower is where you feel discriminated; is that correct?
Well, no. I felt as though I was discriminated against because these three Caucasian individuals made this decision to bar me work --
But, Miss Turner, let me help you frame your situation. After those whose scores were higher than yours, there's no 15 complaint, right?
Well, no, because they just no received the position before it was offered to me, so I could not complain about that.
Right. I want to take their condition off the table now.
As to those people who had the same score as you or lower who were hired and you were not, that's where you see the discrimination being. Yes? 65 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154
Well, no, because when it got down to me, there was no one lower. I was, at that time, the first on the list. And what they did was pair me with -- where they had a new testing, there was no other candidates on the list that I was originally on. So what they did do was generated another registrar and then paired me with those candidates who had the higher score and said they were more qualified than myself when, if you look at qualifications educational-wise, I had more than them in accounting and finance capacity as far as credits earned. It is true that they did have more recent continuous employment in the field of accounting, but it was true that I also had employment, recent employment in the field of accounting.
Right. You really have a tough situation, and perhaps the toughest thing is that your case has been dismissed. Are you barred from bringing your case on those same facts?
Well, I believe that it 66 11/17/98 LABOR & CIVIL SERVICE - Pub. Hearing - Res. 980154 would be yes because the Third Circuit Court of Appeals would not allow me to bring it because they would say it's untimely at this point.
Right. Well, the thing that also too I was hoping to be viewed from City Council is the rule itself. I mean, if an individual takes the exam, qualifies, passes the exam, both written and oral, which is what's publicized as the only qualifications needed for the position, it stands to reason that once that person's name -- or once they reach that person's name on the registrar, they should be offered the position. As the lady who was just here stated, that all people who were on the registrar that she was speaking of were hired also. When it comes to me --