Kelley v. Metropolitan County Board of Education of Nashville and Davidson County, TN Reply Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants and Brief as Cross-Plaintiffs

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

GRADSON A. JOHNSON, et al. )
)Plaintiffs, )
)V. )
)WILLIAM L. BALL III, )

Secretary of the Navy, )
)Defendant. ) 
)

Case No. 73-702-CIV-J-M

JOINT PRETRIAL --------------- STIPULATION

JULIUS L. CHAMBERS 
CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON 
RONALD L. ELLIS 
CLYDE E. MURPHY

99 Hudson Street 
Suite 1600
New York, New York 10013 
(212) 219-1900

ROBERT W. MERKLE
United States Attorney 

JOHN E. LAWLOR, III
Assistant United States 

Attorney
JAMES H. PHILLIPS

Senior Trial Attorney
EDWARD DAWKINS

1248 West Edgewood Avenue 
Jacksonville, Florida 32208

DANIEL E. O'CONNELL, JR. 
Associate Chief Trial 
Attorney 

RICK HIPPLE
Trial Attorney 
Litigation Office 
Office Of The General 
Counsel
Department Of The Navy 
Washington, D.C.

20360-5110 
(202) 746-1020

JAMES R. DIKEMAN 
Assistant Counsel 
Naval Aviation Depot 
Naval Air Station 
Jacksonville, Florida 

32212
(904) 772-5507

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

I. General Statements of the Cases by the Parties ......... iv
A. Plaintiffs' Major Contentions ...................... iv
B. Defendant's Major Contentions ...................... vi

II. List of Exhibits To Be Offered At T r i a l ...........  II-l
A. Plaintiffs' Exhibit L i s t ........................  II-l
B. Defendant's Exhibit L i s t ........................  II-l
C. Objections to Plaintiffs' Documents ...........  II-l

III. List of Witnesses...................................  III-l
A. Plaintiffs' Witnesses ..........................  III-l
B. Defendant's Witnesses ..........................  III-l
C. Objections to Plaintiffs' Witnesses ...........  III-l

IV. List of Depositions to be Used At Trial for Purposes
Other Than Potential I m p e a c h m e n t .................  IV-1

A. Plaintiffs' Depositions ........................  IV-1
B. Depositions of Plaintiffs' Experts ...........  IV-1

V. Statement of the Facts that are Admitted Along with
Reservations Regarding Such Facts ........................  V-l

VI. Statement of Issues of Law on Which There Is
A g r e e m e n t ............................................ VI-1

VII. Statement of Those Issues of Fact Which Remain to Be
Litigated.......................................... VII-1

A. Plaintiffs' Disputed Issues of Fact............  VII-1
B. Defendant's Disputed Issues of Fact............  VII-1

VIII. Issues of Law Which Remain For Determination by The
C o u r t ............................................ VIII-1

A. Plaintiffs' Statement of Disputed Issues of Law. VIII-1
B. Defendant's Statement of Issues of Law. . . . VIII-1

IX. STATEMENT OF ANY DISAGREEMENT AS TO APPLICATION OF 
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE OR CIVIL PROCEDURE . . . .  IX-1
A. Defendant's Position Regarding the Effect of

Sanctions.......................................  IX-1
B. Plaintiffs' Position Regarding Sanction . . . .  IX-5

X. LIST OF ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS & OTHER MATTERS ........  X-l
XI. SIGNATURE OF COUNSEL.................................  XI-1 l

l



I . General Statements of the Cases by the Parties

A. Plaintiffs1 Major Contentions
Plaintiffs Gradson A. Johnson, S.K. Sanders, Marcus G. 

Ellison, and Willie Robinson1 claim, on behalf of themselves and 
all proposed class members, /that the defendant discriminated 
against them on the basis of race and that the Court must enjoin 
the defendant's discriminatory practices and grant affirmative 
relief therefrom. The allegations of the plaintiffs can be 
summarized as follows: Whether the defendant has maintained a
policy, practice, custom or usage of discriminating against pla

I-ii ii



intiffs and other black persons in the class on the basis of race 
or color with respect to terms, conditions and privileges of 
employment. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the defendant 
discriminates against plaintiffs and other members of the class by 
utilizing a promotion system which relies on a series of subjective 
decisions which result in a discriminatory failure to fairly 
evaluate and recommend plaintiffs and members of the class for 
promotion within the defendant's work force.

As relief, plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction prohibiting 
the defendant from maintaining a policy, practice, custom, or usage 
of discrimination against plaintiffs and other members of the class 
because of their race and color with respect to compensation, 
terms, conditions and privileges of employment. In addition, the 
plaintiffs seek to recover compensation in the form of lost wages, 
and reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in the prosecution 
of this action against the defendant.

Further plaintiffs' contend that by order, this Court has 
established that this action may proceed as a class action; that 
the named plaintiffs are the proper representatives of that class; 
and that the third party administrative complaint filed by Mr. 
Andrew Norris on behalf of the Concerned Minorities Of NARF is a 
proper basis for this action.

Finally, Plaintiffs' contend that the sanctions imposed by 
the Magistrate regarding the introduction of certain evidence do 
not, as the Defendant contends, elimainate any claim of disparate 
impact by plaintiffs. First, plaintiffs' contend that no order of

I-iii iii



the Magistrate so restricts the theory on which plaintiffs may 
pursue their case. Second, this Court rejected the Defendant's 
invitation to adopt their interpretation of the sanctions issued 
by the Magistrate, and specifically rejected the contention that 
the sanctions precluded plaintiffs' from persuing claims based on 
a disparate impact theoy. And, third, the decision of this court 
is consistent with the law of the Eleventh Circuit, and with the 
Supreme Court's recent opinion Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust. 
No. 86-6139, (June 29, 2988).

B. Defendant's Manor Contentions
1. Scope of the Class Claims

a. Plaintiff's Johnson, Sanders, Ellison, and Robinson 
are not proper named plaintiffs in this case because none of them 
exhausted their administrative remedies and none of them timely 
filed suit in the case.

b. Plaintiff Norris's third party administrative 
complaint does not serve as a proper basis for the lawsuit because 
this action was not filed within 30 days of defendant's final 
decision relative to the third party complaint.

c. The only administrative complaint on which this 
action can possibly be posited is the individual complaint of 
plaintiff Andrew Norris that was filed with the NARF on June 5, 
1973 .

d. The only class issues that can be properly raised in 
this action are those issues properly raised by Mr. Norris in his

I-iv iv



individual administrative complaint filed on June 5, 1973, together 
with those issues that could reasonably be expected to grow out of 
the administrative investigation of Mr. Norris's individual 
complaint. Further, the only class claims that can be properly 
raised by Mr. Norris are those for which he had legal standing.

e. Mr. Norris's individual complaint covered a claim 
that he should have received a non-competitive promotion as a 
result of a job grading action taken with respect to NARF FWS 
employees who were classified as electronics mechanics.
This job grading action involved the application of new job grading 
standard issued by the U.S. Civil Service Commission.

f. Defendant contends that the outer limit of the scope 
of the class claim covered by Mr. Norris's individual complaint is 
NARF non-competitive promotion actions for FWS employee based on 
the application of new or revised job grading standards.

g. Defendant contends that Willie Moran is deceased 
and no longer a plaintiff, the Court having substituted Emma Moran 
as a class member on plaintiffs' motion.

2. Effect of Sanctions
A number of sanctions have been imposed by this Court on 

plaintiffs for discovery abuse. These sanctions, for the most 
part, prohibit plaintiffs from introducing evidence relating to 
certain claims made in their Complaint. The effect of these 
sanctions is to remove these claims as potential issues in this 
case. However, it should also be noted that a number of these 
matters would have been precluded in any event by the legal

I — v v



requirements limiting the scope of proper class claims to those 
properly raised in a proper administrative complaint and to those 
for which proper named plaintiffs have standing to litigate.

In preparation of the defense in this case, defendant has 
relied on these sanctions. Moreover, this Court has previously 
stated:
[Need cite and language that sanctions are clear on their face.]

A principal (but not the only) effect of the sanctions is to 
eliminate any disparate impact claim by plaintiffs. Those issues 
surviving the sanctions are limited to disparate treatment, that 
is the question of whether there has been any intentional 
discrimination by defendant.

3. Class Claims.
a. Defendant denies that there has been any pattern and 

practice of discrimination against black employees in the various 
promotion procedures utilized at NARF.

b. In the event that there are any employment practices in 
addition to promotions that are proper class claims, defendant 
denies there has been any pattern and practice of discrimination 
against black employees in any of these employment acts and 
practices at the NARF.

4. Claims of the Named Plaintiff.
a. Defendant denies that there has been any discrimination

I-vi vi



b. Defendant denies that there has been any discrimination 
against plaintiff in the employment acts and practices that were 
identified by the named plaintiffs as a result of discovery 
conducted in this case and that are in addition to those covered 
in their administrative complaints.

5. Claims of Class Member Witnesses.
Defendant denies that there has been any discrimination 

against the class member witnesses in the employment acts and 
practices involving those witnesses have been identified as a 
result of the discovery conductteed.

against plaintiffs in the employment acts and practices identified
by the named plaintiffs in their administrative complaints.

I-vii vii



II. List of Exhibits To Be Offered At Trial

A. Plaintiffs' Exhibit List
Plaintiffs' exhibits are set forth in Appendix I.
While the Court's order does not require the parties to state 

their objections to the exhibits or witnesses of the opposing 
party, plaintiffs would note for the record that they are presently 
engaged in reviewing the proposed exhibits of the defendants. 
First, as the Court is aware, because of the late arrival of a new 
set of statistical exhibits, the plaintiffs have not yet completed 
their review of the defendant's statistical case.

Additionally, while the defendant served the plaintiffs, with 
some 40 boxes of proposed exhibits a fire in the offices of 
plaintiffs co-counsel destroyed these exhibits. Plaintiffs, with 
the cooperation of the defendant has made arrangements with a 
commerical copier, and this material is currently being reproduced.
B. Defendant's Exhibit List

Defendant's exhibit list is attached here to as Appendix II.

C . Objections to Plaintiffs' Documents
Defendant objects to all of plaintiffs' statistical documents 

on several grounds:
1. Most if not all documents are based in part on data that 

encompasses activities that occurred outside the relevant time 
period, and includes temporary employees and student aids who were 
excluded from the class. For example exhibits, TT, UU, WW, and XX,

I Erl



all calculate disparities using data from 1971 to the start of the 
relevant time period of April 1, 1973. The data in these exhibits 
cannot be separated to eliminate this misleading and irrelevant 
data.

2. All of plaintiffs' statistical data has been derived from 
the PADS database and ethnic tape for employee history and 
plaintiffs' pro-op database that plaintiffs developed. Even then, 
plaintiffs repeatedly changed the databases in the course of 
preparing the exhibits produced by Dr. Shapiro. Defendant has 
repeatedly objected to the use of the PADS database on the ground 
that the high level of inaccuracy distorts the results and misleads 
any user. In addition, plaintiffs' expert admitted that no check 
was ever made to ensure the accuracy of their pro-op database. 
Finally, defendant has only recently (February 22, 1988) obtained 
copies of the programs used by plaintiffs to analyze this data. 
Analysis of these programs may reveal additional errors in the 
database.

3. Defendant objects to the class certification exhibits on 
the grounds that plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Martin Shapiro has 
testified that he will not rely on these exhibits in his testimony 
at trial.

3. Defendant also objects to both the class certification 
exhibits and statistical exhibits provided in connection with the 
deposition of Dr. Martin Shapiro on the grounds that they are 
irrelevant because they contain data relating to persons outside 
the class (i.e., temporary employees and pre-1973-only employees)

132-2



and are barred by the sanctions imposed by this Court on 
plaintiffs' evidence.
B. Specific objections

1. Statistical Exhibits: Defendant objects to plaintiffs
statistical exhibits (class certification and those identified in 
Dr. Shapiro's deposition) on the grounds of foundation, 
authenticity, completeness, hearsay, relevance, and accuracy. When 
plaintiffs identify the exhibits Dr. Shapiro will rely on at trial, 
defendant will be able to state his objections with greater 
specificity.

1. Willie W. Moran: Defendant objects to the exhibits
listed under Willie W. Moran on the grounds of hearsay, relevance 
and foundation and notes that Mr. Moran is deceased and his 
interest has been replaced by his wife, Emma Moran. Mr. Moran was 
removed as a plaintiff in this case and his wife has not been 
identified as a witness. In addition, Mr. Moran retired in June 
1973, three months after the start of the relevant time period. 
During that time he applied for no promotions and alleges no 
discrimination. Mr. Moran's claims of discrimination occurring 
before the relevant time period has no relevance in this Stage One 
proceeding.

2. Marcus G. Ellison: Defendant objects to Ellison exhibit
number 4 on the grounds of hearsay.

3. Andrew Norris: Defendant objects to Norris exhibits 
numbers 15, 18, 19, and 20 on the grounds of hearsay.

4. S.K. Sanders: Defendant objects to Sanders exhibits

ID-3



numbers 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 on the grounds of relevance.
5. Gradson A. Johnson: Defendant objects to Johnson exhibit 

number 4 on the grounds of hearsay.
6. Willie James Robinson: Defendant objects to Robinson

exhibits numbers 13 and 17 on the grounds of hearsay.
III. List of Witnesses

A. Plaintiffs' Witnesses
The list of witnesses plaintiffs will or may call is set forth 

in Appendix III.
B. Defendant's Witnesses

The witnesses that defendant will call at trial are 
listed in Appendix IV. The witnesses that defendant may call at 
trial are listed in Appendix V.
C . Objections to Plaintiffs' Witnesses
Martin Mador Defendant objects to the identification of Martin 
Mador as a witness for plaintiffs on the grounds that Mr. Mador 
was never identified as a potential witness by plaintiffs. In 
fact, defendant was informed that Mr. Mador would not testify as 
recently as answer no. 2 of Plaintiffs' Answers to Defendant's 
Seventh Set of Continuing Interrogatories, served January 27, 1988. 
This response is consistent with plaintiffs' position regarding Mr. 
Mador going back as far Mr. Mador's deposition on November 15, 
1985.

When this Court ordered plaintiffs to produce their expert 
witnesses for deposition at no cost to defendant, Plaintiffs

III-l



provided Martin Mador as one of the expert witnesses. At that 
deposition, Mr. Mador testified that he had not done any work on 
the data in this case since the certification hearing and did not 
intend to testify as a witness in this case. As a result, the 
deposition was concluded and much of the material to be explored 
was addressed to Mr. Oliver, the new witness supplied as a 
substitute for Mr. Mador.

IIZ-2



IV. List of Depositions to be Used 
At Trial for Purposes Other 
Than Potential Impeachment

A. Plaintiffs' Depositions
The Plaintiffs' intend to introduce the deposition of Andrew 

Norris as well as the testimony of Andrew Norris and Willie Moran 
from the Class Certification hearing. This testimony and 
depositions will be introduced in there entirety.
B. Depositions of Plaintiffs' Experts

1. Martin Shapiro
OCTOBER 25, 1985:
page 37, lines 1 to 20;
page 39, line 22 to page 41, line 4 ;
page 41, line 20 to page 42, line 20;
page 48, line 3 to page 49, line l;
page 53 , lines 3 to 5;
page 60, line 22 to page 61, line 3;
page 71, line 5 to page 72, line 20 ;
page oCO lines 11 to 15;
page 86, line 19 to page 87, line 5;
page 107 , line 1 to page , 109, line 13
page 125 , lines 12 to 18 r

page 132 , line 3 to page 133, line 21;
page 138 , lines 13 to 21 /
page 154 , lines 6 to 18;

IVt-1



page 155, lines 5 to 19;
page 156, lines 1 to 9;
page 158, lines 6 to 8;
page 162, line 7 to page 163, line 9;
NOVEMBER 7, 1985:
page 224 , line 21 to page 225, line 3
page 235, line 11 to 236, line 1;
page 242, lines 6 to 17;
page 246, lines 11 to 17;
page 253 , lines 5 to 21;
page 276, lines 3 to 21;
page 285, lines 18 to 22;
page 288 , line 21 to page 289, line 4;
page 293 , lines 5 to 14;
page 294 , line 21 to page 296, 1ine 4;
page 296, line 9 to page 297, line 4;
page 299 , lines 2 to 3;
page 299, lines 8 to 17;
page 303 , lines 9 to 16;
page 303 , line 22 to page 304, line 4;
page 308, line 9 to page 309, line 3;
page 309, line 11 to page 310, line 18
page 312 , lines 12 to 21;
page 313 , lines 4 to 17;
page 316, lines 6 to 10;
page 322 , lines 7 to 12;

IVJ-2



page 324, lines 14 tc> 15;
page 325, lines 13 tc• 17;
page 326, lines 1 to 13;
page 326, line 21 to page 327, line 2;
page 329 , lines 9 to 11;
page 330, lines 3 to 8;
page 331, lines 20i tci 21;
page 332 , lines 5 to 10;
page 334 , lines 11. tc> 17;
page 334 , line 21 to page 223, line 3 ;
page 339, lines 7 to 10;
page 339, line 19 to page, 340 , line: 1
page 341, lines 7 to 13 ;
page 341, line 22 to page 342 , line 7
page 343 , lines 4 to 19;
DECEMBER 5, 1985:
page 359 , lines 14 toi 21;
page 364 , line 22 to page 365, line 12
page 440, lines 6 to 15.

Stephen Oliver
DECEMBER 19, 1985
page 16, line 5 to page 17, line 4;
page 17, lines 7 to 11;
page 20, lines 11 to 21;
page 31, lines 7 to 16;
page 32, line 15 to page 34, line 6;



page 34, line 21 to page 39, line 11 r

page 44, line 20 to page, 51 line 3;
page 51, lines 7 to 17;
page 53, line 7 to page 54, line 19;
page 57, line 16 to page 61, line 4;
page 66, lines 4 to 16;
page 72, line 11 to page 73, line 19 /
page 84, line 19 to page 86, line 8;
page 96, line 4 to page 98, line 3;
page 98, line 4 to page 99, line 9;
page 99, lines 10 to 17;
page 109, line 9 to page 111, line 12;
page 111, line 13 to page 113, line 4;
page 114, lines 3 to 13;
page 116, line 22 to page 117, line 6;
page 120, lines 9 to 21;
page 122 , line 8 to page 123, line 13;
page 123 , line 14 to page 125, line l;
page 136, line 11 to page 137, line 14
page 143 , lines 4 to 22 ; and
page 148 , line 20 to page 151, line 3 .

Depositions of Plaintiffs
1. Gradson A. Johnson 

JUNE 1, 1984
page 27, line 4 to page 29, line 12; 
page 76, line 10 to page 77, line 1;

I\fl-4



page 77, line 20 to page 82, line 1;
page 86, lines 10 to 25;
page 91, line 9 to page 92, line 22;
page 95, lines 1 to 22;
page 95, line 24 to page 96, line 23;
page 97, lines 10 to 20;
page 98, lines 13 to 18;
page 99, line 19 to page 100, line 7;
page 104, line 23 to page 105, line 5;
page 107, line 1 to page 108, line 3;
page 109, lines 5 to 15;
page 111, lines 5 to 13; and
page 114, lines 3 to 8.

2. Marcus Garvey Ellison
JUNE 5, 1985
page 25, line 15 to page 26, line 16;
page 41, lines 4 to 16;
page 44, lines 9 to 13;
page 51, line 16, to page 53, line 2;
page 60, line 24 to page 67, line 3; and
page 68, line 1 to page 69, line 4.

3. S.K. Sanders
JUNE 6, 1984
page 85, lines 21 to 25.

4. Willie J. Robinson
MAY 30, 1984

I\5-5



page 57, line 19 to page 58, line 20; 
page 62, line 20 to page 63, line 9; and 
page 120, line 2 to page 125, line 20.

5. Andrew Norris
JUNE 8, 1984
page 57, lines 12 to 23; and
JUNE 20, 1984
page 11, lines 3 to 13.

D. Defendant's Objections to Plaintiffs' Depositions
Plaintiffs have designated testimony of Andrew Norris and 

Willie Moran, both deceased, at the class certification hearing as 
depositions. This testimony does not qualify as depositions 
permitted under Rule 32, Fed.R. Civ. P. , for use in court 
proceedings.

Plaintiffs have designated only one deposition, that of Andrew 
Norris. However, plaintiffs have failed to indicate, either for 
this deposition or for the class certification testimony described 
above, the specific pages and lines proposed to be published to the 
trier of facts as required by the Pretrial Order dated June 10, 
1987 and Local Rule 3.06(c)(6). Defendant also expects to object 
to substantial portions of this testimony when plaintiffs identify 
the proposed pages and lines on various evidentiary grounds, 
including lack of personal knowledge on the part of the witness.

I\&-6



V. Statement of the Facts
that are Admitted Along with 
Reservations Regarding Such Facts

B. Industrial Setting
1. The Role of NARF-JAX

a. NARF-JAX is a depot level maintenance facility of 
the Naval Shore Establishment. It is a guasi-commercial activity 
with civilian personnel and naval officer upper management. The 
mission of NARF-JAX is to provide the full range of high guality 
(aviation) maintenance, engineering, logistics, and support 
services to the fleet at a competitive price (including the 
manufacture of parts no longer available from the originals 
manufacture). It is not just a peacetime operation, but has the 
capability of expanding on very short notice. NARF-JAX is a core 
industrial resource; essential to mobilization in an emergency, 
and economically competitive in peacetime.

b. There are six Naval Air Rework Facilities (NARF's) 
in the country, including NARF-JAX. The Navy maintains a large 
fleet of fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft, a percent of which 
is continually in for rework and overhaul. For instance, in mid 
1978, the Navy had a total of 5,298 aircraft in the active 
inventory, of which 685 (12.9%) were being reworked.

c. During the period of interest, NARF-JAX worked
primarily on the following aircraft: the A-7 Corsair II; the A-6
Intruder (engine only); and the P-3 Orison (airframe only); with

V-l 1



lesser numbers of RA-5 Vigilante; and the S-2 Tracker. Aircraft 
maintenance is an important consideration in flight safety. 
Because military aircraft are often flown at the limits of their 
capability, improper rework can seriously degrade an aircraft, 
endangering the crew or impeding a mission. Aviation accidents 
cost the Navy over 90 lives/year and over $300,000,000/year during 
the period of interest. The A-7, A-6, and P-3, taken together, 
comprise 26% of the flight hours, 22% of major accidents, 23% of 
fatalities, and 33% of the total costs.

2. The Rework Process
a. NARF-JAX is a large industrial complex. It covers 

102 acres, has about 41 buildings, and employed roughly 2450-3100 
people during the 1973-1982 time period. The rework process is 
intricate, and requires a complex facility, highly trained 
personnel, and highly sophisticated logistics and management 
systems in order to operate effectively.

b. NARF-JAX performs standard depot level maintenance 
functions for aircraft, engines, aircraft components, and ground 
support equipment. That means that the aircraft and its engine(s) 
and components are completely taken apart, cleaned inspected, 
refurbished, repaired, rebuilt, reassembled, inspected, and 
(flight) tested by NARF-JAX. It manufactures parts when commercial 
sources are not available. It also provides technical and 
professional services in support of rework of specific aircraft, 
engines, and aircraft components. Finally, it perform calibration

V-2 2



of electronic instruments for both the fleet and NARF-JAX itself.

3. Naval Aircraft Reworked
a. During the period of interest NARF-JAX reworked over 

2000 aircraft. The vast majority of those aircraft were the A-7 
Corsair II (77.8%) (a light attack, carrier based, jet aircraft), 
the P-3 Orion (10.5%) (an anti-submarine patrol, land based, 
turboprop aircraft), the S-2 Tracker (7.3%) (an anti-submarine 
patrol, carrier based, reciprocating engine aircraft), and the RA- 
5 Vigilante (3.1%) (a high speed reconnaissance, carrier based, jet 
aircraft).

b. During the period, NARF-JAX reworked 1607 A-7 
aircraft of which 1065 were the A-7E variant. The A-7E is powered 
by the Allison TF41 turbofan gas turbine engine, and has a range 
of 2851 miles (with both external and internal fuel). It carries 
a large amount of electronic gear for communication, navigation, 
and combat purposes. It is capable of carrying a wide range of 
armament.

c. Starting in 1975, NARF-JAX processed 218 P-3 Orion 
aircraft, of which 92 were the P-3C variant. The P-3C is powered 
by four Allison T56 turboprop gas turbine engines and has a range 
of 2383 miles (135,000 lbs. gross weight). It has also carried an 
assortment of armament for the destruction of submarines.

d. A total of 150 S-2 Tracker aircraft were processed 
during the period. The S-2 is powered by two R1820 reciprocating 
radical engines, and has a range of 1300 miles. It carries a crew

V-3 3



of four, and has electronic gear for submarine detection, 
communication, and navigation. It too carries an assortment of 
armament for the destruction of submarines.

e. A total of 65 RA-5C Vigilante aircraft were processed 
during the period. It carries a crew of two and is powered by two 
J79 turbojet engines. It's top speed is twice the speed of sound 
and it has a maximum range of 2,600 miles (internal and external 
fuel). It carries electronic gear and cameras for reconnaissance 
and does not normally carry armament.

f. Aircraft return to NARF-JAX at planned intervals. 
The A-7 is returned for rework at approximately four year 
intervals. The P-3 is returned on an interval that starts at five 
years and drops to three and one-half years as the aircraft ages. 
The S-2 and RA-5 are returned every two years.

g. The philosophy of maintenance n the Navy has changed 
over time. At first the approach was to completely rebuild (or 
zero time) an aircraft each time. That philosophy has evolved into 
a methodology called Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM). The 
concept is one of returning a subassembly or item to service for 
a period of time after repairing, rebuilding, and refurbishing only 
those parts that need it. As a consequence, there have been 
several programs of rework in force during the time period of 
interest: Progressive Aircraft Rework (par); Standard Depot Level 
Maintenance (sdlm); Aircraft Condition Evaluation (ace); and 
MIDTERM.

h. The capabilities of NARF-JAX are considerable. It

V—4 4



has the ability to repair virtually any part of the aircraft. 
However, the system of inspection used ensures that only those 
parts requiring rework are actually processed. This results in a 
cost effective operation, but makes planning work for NARF-JAX a 
challenging task.

4. Aircraft Engines Reworked
a. NARF-JAX reworks reciprocating engines, turbojet 

engines, and turbofan engines. IN 1973, the majority of engines 
reworked were reciprocating. The number of reciprocating engines 
reworked declined steadily during the period of interest, and were 
then phased out shortly thereafter. The number of turbojet engines 
reworked remained relatively constant over the period, while the 
number of turbofan engines increased. A total of 9039 engines 
completed processing during the period (3228 reciprocating, 3551 
turbojet, and 2260 turbofan).

b. In concert with the changing maintenance philosophy 
of the Navy, the rework operations on engines also changed 
emphasis. At the beginning of the period of interest, 75% of the 
engines reworked were overhauled (zero timed). By the end of the 
period, almost 88% were being repaired (returned to service for a 
specific period of time). Overall, 62.4% of the engines were 
overhauled during the period of interest.

5. Aircraft Components Reworked
a. Throughout the period 1973-1982, aircraft components

V—5 5



were reworked by NARF-JAX. During the period almost 80% of the 
hours earned on components was on the Navy Stock Program. Just 
over 11% was earned on other services (primarily the USAF). In 
many cases, NARF-JAX serves as the only source for reworked or 
newly manufactured component parts of a given type. During the 
fiscal years 1977-1983, NARF-JAX processed a total of 342,797 items 
to a ready-for-issue status. A total of 4,543,445 man-hours were 
earned on this effort. By component category, 13.4% was on 
avionics, 32.4% was on aircraft, 13.7% was on sheet metal, 17.2% 
was on engines, 21.4% was on instruments, and 1.9% misc.

6. Management and Organizational Structure
a. NARF-JAX is an industrial activity of the Naval Shore 

Establishment funded under the Naval Industrial Fund and under the 
command and primary support of the Commander, Naval Air Systems 
Command (NAVAIR). Command, management coordination, and technical 
control for NARF-JAX is delegated to the Assistant Commander for 
Logistics/Fleet Support NAVAIR, who exercises this responsibility 
through the Naval Aviation Logistics Center (NALC) in Patuxent 
River, MD.

b. NARF-JAX Commanding Officer is held accountable for 
the efficiency, effectiveness of performance, and economy of 
operations. NARF-JAX is run by military personnel at a management 
level above the department level. Reporting to the Commander (and 
the Executive Officer) are the Production Officer, the Management 
Services Officer and Comptroller, and the Quality Assurance

V-6 6



Officer. In addition, the Safety Director and the Deputy Equal
Employment Opportunity Officer report to the Commander.
The Production Officer oversees the:

(50000) Production Planning and Control Department;
(60000) Production Engineering Department;
(90000) Production Department; and 
(02X00) various Project Officers.

The Management Services Officer and Comptroller oversees the: 
(10000) Administrative Services Department; and 
(20000) Management Controls Department.

The Quality Assurance Officer oversees the:
(30000) Weapons Engineering Department; and
(40000) Quality and Reliability Assurance Department.

b. In 1978, the Weapons Engineering Department was 
renamed as the NAVAIR Engineering Support Office (NESO). By the 
end of 1979, it operated outside NARF-JAX as a separately funded 
unit.

c. Organizationally, Departments are subdivided into 
Divisions. Divisions are subdivided into Branches. Branches (in 
the case of the Production Department) are subdivided into Shops.

7. Performance Requirements
a. The three aspects of performance requirements are 

standards, specifications, and quality assurance. Performance

V—7 7



standards provide the standards and norms that guide and regulate 
the application of NARF-JAX resources in the seguence of steps 
required for a particular rework operation on a specific aviation 
product (aircraft, engine, or component).

b. Technical specifications for particular components 
and systems are most often found in applicable technical 
maintenance manuals and associated documents and drawings. Quality 
assurance is a concern of virtually every NARF-JAX employee. 
Quality begins with the artisans, who must have the knowledge and 
skills to do the job. They are responsible for the certification, 
and in many cases, the nondestructive testing of the work. 
Standards are necessary to ensure that the quality product is 
produced in the cost effective manner.

8. Resources: Overview of Trade, Technical, and Support
Skills_______________________________________

a. NARF-JAX performs a variety of assignments for
aircraft rework, engine rework, component rework, and aircraft
repair and modification. This requires that a variety of trade,
technical, and support skills be present in the NARF-JAX employee
base. The Federal Civil Service has two pay systems. One is the
Federal Wage System (FWS) for blue collar workers. The other is
the General Schedule (GS) for white collar workers. Under both
the FWS and the GS systems there are a significant number of unique
job categories that exist at NARF-JAX.

V—8 8



9. Trade Skills
Based on a criterion that at least 50 permanent employees 

hold a specific job title, there are 11 major trade occupations at 
NARF-JAX.

10. Technical Skills
Based on a criterion that at least 15 permanent employees 

hold a specific job title, there are 9 major technical positions 
at NARF-JAX.

11. Technical Documentation
The artisans at NARF-JAX are supported by a voluminous 

comprehensive technical data system. When the artisan works on a 
particular component or subassembly, there are normally certain 
technical data that are necessary to the successful completion of 
the overhaul, repair, or rework of a component or subassembly. 
The data fall into three major categories: technical manuals,
technical directives, and engineering drawings and associated data.

12. Facilities and Capital Equipment
NARF-JAX has 41 buildings with approximately 1.5 million 

square-feet of floor space and a replacement cost of over 122 
million dollars. Equipment in the facility had an original 
procurement cost of 55 million dollars. As of 1983, 42% of the
equipment was less than 10 years old and 69% was less than 15 years

V-9 9



13. Work Flow
a. The basic work flow through NARF-JAX can be

categorized as rework/repair, manufacturing, and calibration. All 
products undergoing rework/repair require basically the same set 
of steps to be performed: induction, initial examination and
evaluation (E&E); disassembly? follow-up E&E; repair; inspection? 
reassembly; and test. The rework/repair process requires a great 
deal of documentation. Master Data Records (MDR's) are a data base 
of rework requirements for all standard products. Operating 
Documents are generated from the MDR's which specify the operations 
that need to be performed for a given product. Planning and 
control functions range from day-to-day accounting to long range 
(6 to 10 year) planning.

b. Many required replacement parts are no longer 
available from the original manufacturer and, consequently, are 
manufactured by NARF-JAX. Also the calibration of aircraft and 
test equipment is performed on in-house equipment and on equipment 
in the operating squadrons and in intermediate maintenance 
facilities.

14. Engineering Assignments
The equipment reworked by NARF-JAX has continuing needs 

for engineering analysis and design. For those systems for which

old. Approximately 87% was judged to be in fair to excellent
condition. Several example shops are described in some detail.

V-10 10



NARF-JAX has engineering responsibility (cognizance) the 
Engineering Support Department provides the reguired services. As 
of 20 December 1978, NARF-JAX had responsibility for 31 different 
aircraft, engines, and/or pieces of eguipment, plus over 100 items 
of avionics and related support eguipment. These items are 
assigned for rework at NARF-JAX or other NARF's.

15. Similarity of Work
The work performed at the NARF throughout the period from 

1975 through the present is guite similar. The vast majority of 
the reguired knowledges skills and abilities have been the same or 
substantially similar throughout this time period.

16. Work of the NARF
a. The main function of NARF is the rework, repair, 

and modification of aircraft engines, components (including flight 
instruments, electronics, test eguipment, mechanical and hydraulic 
systems, metal surfaces, electrical systems, and ordnance), and 
ground support eguipment (including tow tractors, aircraft power 
units, hydraulic jacks, and work stands). A number of different 
aircraft are reworked at NARF, including the A-7 attack bomber and 
the P-3 patrol plane. Engines and components reworked at NARF may 
be from aircraft being simultaneously reworked, or may be inducted 
separately. Some of the engines and components reworked at NARF 
are from aircraft reworked elsewhere.

b. The aircraft, engines, components, and ground support

V-ll 11



equipment reworked at NARF are extremely complex and varied, as are 
the industrial processes performed. Consequently, NARF employees 
are skilled in diverse trade areas and possess a wide range of 
highly specialized knowledges and abilities. Many of the 
instruments, devices, tools, and types of equipment worked on are 
one-of-a-kind, requiring workers to draw on their highly 
specialized knowledges and abilities to devise solutions to 
problems and complete their assignments. Due to the highly 
technical nature of the aircraft and equipment reworked, much of 
the work must be precise and/or to very close tolerances. In much 
of the work, the consequences of error are extremely serious and 
include possible injury or death to the workers or those flying on 
the aircraft, as well as damage to extremely expensive aircraft and 
equipment.

c. To perform this complex rework, NARF employs 
individuals in a wide variety of job classifications, each 
encompassing different specialized skills and abilities. Work on 
aircraft involves a number of job classifications, including 
Equipment Cleaners, Sandblasters, Sheet Metal Mechanics, Aircraft 
Mechanics, Aircraft Electricians, Electroplaters, and painters. 
Work on engines is performed primarily by Aircraft Engine Mechanics 
as well as by Equipment Cleaners, Sandblasters, Electroplaters, 
Machinist, Painters, and Pneudraulic Systems Mechanics. Work on 
components is performed by employees in a wide variety of job 
classifications, including Electronics Mechanics, Instrument 
Mechanics, Electronic Integrated Systems Mechanics, Aircraft

V-12 12



Mechanics, Sheet Metal Mechanics, Welders, Aircraft Electricians, 
Aircraft Ordnance Systems Mechanics, Electrical Equipment 
Repairers, Powered Support Systems Mechanics, and Machinists.

d. In addition to a broad range of job classification 
in these production jobs, NARF also employs a variety of non­
production employees. These include different types of engineers 
(aerospace, electronics, and mechanical) and technicians to provide 
design services and technical engineering guidance; Production 
Controllers, Planner and Estimators, and Progressmen to schedule, 
monitor, and expedite the flow of work; Quality Assurance 
Specialist to monitor and maintain the quality of work; numerous 
trade employees to maintain the physical plant at which the work 
is done; Tools and Parts Attendants to store and deliver materials, 
tools, and parts; and various clerical, accounting, computer, and 
management personnel to provide administrative services.

e The Jacksonville NARF consists of nine departments,
which are divided into divisions, branches, sections, and shops. 
The departments as of May 1987 were as follows;

000 Commanding Officer
200 Management Controls Department and Comptroller 
300 Engineering Department
400 Quality and Reliability Assurance Department 
500 Production Planning and Control Department 
600 Production Engineering Department 
700 Material Management Department 
800 Flight Check Department

V-13 13



900 Production Department
At various times relevant to this litigation, the above 

departments have been alternately known as or augmented by the 
following: Administrative Service Department; Weapons Engineering
Department; and Flight Testing.

e . The Production Department employs more than 50 percent 
of the civilians employed by Jacksonville NARF. and is divided into 
four divisions: Process and Manufacturing Division; Avionics
Division; Weapons Division; and Power Plant Division.

C. THE CIVIL SERVICE PERSONNEL SYSTEM 
1. Overview

a . Statutory Basis
Many Acts of Congress strongly influenced the 

development and formation of personnel rules and regulations for 
the federal government including staffing and classification. One 
of these, the Pendleton Act, established a centralized personnel 
agency to monitor and control civil service employment in the 
federal government. This agency, originally the Untied States 
Civil Service Commission (CSC), later became the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) as a result of the Civil Service Reform 
Act of 1978. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 also contains 
the "Merit System Principles" of federal personnel management. 5 
U.S.C. 2301. These principles include: selection and advancement 
based on the relative ability, knowledge, and skills of the 
qualified applicants; and that employees receive fair and equitable

V-14 14



treatment in all aspects of personnel management.

b . The Federal Personnel Manual
OPM publishes the Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) 

which is the central component of the Federal Personnel System. 
The FPM contains rules and regulations governing civilian personnel 
management in the federal government and instructions and guidance 
for the implementation, administration, and review of federal 
personnel programs. Subjects included in the FPM are classified 
into nine major areas: (1) OPM; (2) General Personnel Provisions;
(3) Employment Retention; (4) Employee Performance and Utilization; 
(5) Position Classification, Pay, and Allowances; (6) Attendance 
and Leave; (7) Personnel Relations and Services (General); (8)
Insurance and Annuities; and (9) General and Miscellaneous. Each 
of the nine major subject areas is divided into chapters with each 
chapter addressing a specific personnel program.

c . Classification and Qualification Standards
OPM also has the primary responsibility for organizing 

and systematizing the personnel policies and procedures for federal 
agencies. It is responsible, pursuant to statute, for the
development of two central components of the Federal Personnel 
System: classification standards, used to ensure that positions
with similar duties and difficulty levels receive similar pay, and 
qualifications standards, used to ensure that certain minimum 
requirements are met in order to qualify for entry into an

V-15 15



occupation or grade level. These standards have a direct bearing 
on the manner in which jobs are classified and applicant 
qualifications are determined at all federal agencies including 
NARF. Separate classification and qualifications standards have 
been developed for white collar (GS) positions and blue collar 
(FWS) jobs because of the distinct differences between them.

d. GS Classification Standards
The General Schedule (GS) pay system includes 

positions which are primarily professional, administrative, 
technical, or clerical in nature. For positions within the is pay 
system, OPM has developed detailed standards which allow 
classification specialists to compare positions within their 
agencies against the standards and to evaluate the characteristics 
and level of the position in a way that will be consistent with 
the way similar white collar positions are classified throughout 
the federal government.

e . Handbook X-118: GS Qualification Standards
In addition to classification standards, OPM has 

developed qualification standards for GS positions which are 
published in the Handbook X-118, Qualification Standards for 
Positions Under the General Schedule. This handbook presents the 
minimum qualifications necessary to be selected for each occupation 
or grade level. It identifies the knowledge, skills, and abilities 
(KSAs) required for selection to each position as well as the

V-16 16



minimally qualifying level of education or amount of experience.

f. FWS Job Grading Standards
The Federal Wage System (FWS) covers skilled trades, 

craft, and labor jobs. Jobs in FWS are organized into occupations 
and job families which are defined in terms of the nature of the 
work performed. For jobs within this pay system, OPM has developed 
the Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) Supplement 512-1, "Job Grading 
System for Trades and Labor Occupations," which presents job 
grading standards for occupations with large numbers of incumbents, 
usually occupations that occur in more than one agency.

g . Handbook X-118C: FWS Qualification Guidelines
In addition to the classification-related job grading 

standards, OPM has developed qualification standards for FWS jobs. 
These are described in the Handbook X-118C, internal Qualification 
Guides for Trades and Labor Occupations. This handbook includes 
a general explanation of the FWS system; identifies KSAs and other 
personnel characteristics, collectively known as basic worker 
requirements, necessary for selection; and provides examining 
guidelines along with a description of the process for rating 
applicants.

h . Other Directives and Instructions
NARF must also comply with a variety of other directives 

and instructions when filling position vacancies. Specifically,

V—17 17



they must act within the framework of guidelines defined by OPM in 
the FPM of which the classification and qualification standards are 
a part, DOD personnel policy issuances, DON issuances, and command 
and activity instructions. The purpose of the DOD and DON systems 
is to clarify OPM standards and instructions as they relate to 
Defense and Navy employees, practices, positions, and regulations. 
These supplemental regulations, directives, and instructions are 
used to ensure internal consistency among departments, agencies, 
commands, and activities and compliance with the laws governing 
them. Taken together, the regulations and instructions issued by 
OPM, DOD, and DON are voluminous (in fact, each alone is 
voluminous), comprehensive, and detailed.

2. Pay Plans and Pay Systems
a . Pay Plans within Each Pay System

The jobs at NARF are classified into two major pay systems: 
(1) the General Schedule (GS) pay system which includes the "white 
collar" positions, and (2) the Federal Wage System (FWS) pay system 
which includes the "blue collar" jobs. Within each pay system, the 
various jobs are further identified b y pay plan and occupational 
series. The following lists the pay plans for both the GS and FWS 
pay systems:
Pav Svstem Pav Plan Code Pav Plan
GS GM General Schedule 

Pay Plan
GS General Schedule

FWS WG Wage Grade
WS Wage Supervisor

V-18 18



WL Wage Leader
WD Production Facilitation
WN Supervisory Production 

Facilitation
WT Apprentice
WP Printing
YV Summer Aid
YW Student Aid

The WX. WB, and WY designators are not now in use. They were 
formerly used to designate, respectively, inspector ratings, trade, 
craft, and manual laboring ratings, and supervisory inspector 
ratings. They were replaced, respectively, by WG. WG, and WS 
designators.

b . Job Series Codes
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) assigns 

specific series numbers to jobs in either the GS pay system or the 
FWS pay system. For the GS pay system, job series numbers range 
from 1 to 2,499. Numbers 2,500 and above are used for FWS jobs. 
The complete identifying code for any given job consists of first, 
the two letter pay plan designation (WG, GS, etc.), followed by the 
four digit occupation code, (e.g., 5704), followed by a one or two 
digit designation of level (e.g., 07 or 7 to indicate grade 7).

c . FWS Job Identification
All blue collar occupations (Federal Wage System)

V—19 19



at Jacksonville NARF are identified by a four digit code. The 
first two digits indicate the job family. The second two digits 
specify the particular occupation. For example, 8600 identifies 
the engine overhaul family. The third and fourth numbers ranging 
from 01 to 99, stand for specific occupations within the family. 
For example, 8602 identifies the aircraft engine occupation within 
the engine overhaul family.

d. Pay Grades and Steps
Each pay schedule is divided into levels, identified 

by numbers, and generally and employee identified by a higher grade 
number in either the General Schedule or the Federal Wage System 
has higher rate of pay than an employee identified by a lower grade 
level. There are however exceptions to this rule, for example, a 
top step of a particular grade may exceed the first step of a 
higher grade, thus making the actual pay of the lower grade 
employee exceed that of the higher grade employee, if the lower 
grade employee is at the top step of the grade when the higher 
grade employee is at the first step of the grade.

Each pay level is further divided into steps, and the higher 
the step the higher the base rate of pay. Thus a WG-10, step 2 is 
likely to be paid more than a WG-10, step 1. The Federal Wage 
System grades are divided into five steps with each higher 
successive step representing a higher rate of pay. The General 
Schedule follows the same basic pattern, and there are, in most 
grades, ten steps, each having a progressively higher rate of pay

V—2 0 20



in each grade.
Given the same numerical level and step, an employee in the 

regular non-supervisory schedule (WG) makes less than an employee 
in the leader schedule (WL), and an employee in the leader schedule 
(WL) makes less than an employee in the supervisory schedule (WS). 
For example, the following hourly rates were taken from the March 
23, 1980, Jacksonville wage rates:

WG-10/Step 1 is paid $8.84 
WL-10/Step 1 is paid $9.72 
WS-10/Step 1 is paid $11.50
e . FWS Job Levels

The U.S. civil Service Commission (now known as the Office of 
Personnel Management) groups the trades and labor jobs (FWS) into 
five categories: (1) Worker-trainee jobs; (2) support jobs? (3)
Apprentice jobs; (4) Jobs emphasizing trade knowledge; and (5) 
High-level supervisory jobs. The workers at NARF-JAX fall heavily 
in the group (4) of "Jobs emphasizing trade knowledge."
Under the FWS system a person can theoretically start at the helper 
level, move to the worker level, and then to the journeyman level. 
At the top level is the foreman. Additionally, some of the job 
positions at NARF_JAX only utilize one or two of the grade levels 
even though there are more on the books (in the Civil Service 
Standards). Another path for becoming a journeyman is to enter as 
an apprentice, and complete the established training program to 
become a journeyman. There may be more than one journeyman level. 
Most helpers enter at wage grade (WG) level 5 and most workers are

V-21 21



wage grade level 7 or 8. Skilled journeymen are usually wage grade 
9, 10, or 11. Once an employee reaches the foreman level, his 
designation usually becomes Wage Supervisor (WS) .

2. The Merit Staffing Program at NAS Jacksonville

a. Introduction
For purposes of explanation, personnel actions 

at NARF are divided into three categories:
1) Competitive actions under the Jacksonville NAS 

(local) Merit Staffing Program,
2) Exceptions to competition under the local Merit 

Staffing Program, which will also be referred to as noncompetitive 
actions under the local Merit Staffing Program, and,

3) Personnel actions, both competitive and 
noncompetitive, taken in lieu of actions under the local Merit 
Staffing Program. These actions were taken in accordance with 
regulations by the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, 
and the Civil Service Commission (the Office of Personnel 
Management after the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978).

b . Promotions. Lateral Moves and Downgrades
Personnel actions can effect promotions, lateral 

moves, and downgrades. Chapter 5 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations determines whether or not a move is a promotion

V-22 22



(Section 531.202 (h) for GS and Section 532.401 for FWS) . Under 
this chapter, moves within a pay plan are categorized as upward, 
lateral, or downward, based upon a comparison of the pay grades of 
the "from" and the "to" positions. For moves from one pay plan to 
another, however, a simple comparison of the two numerical pay 
grades is not sufficient to identify the direction of the move. 
This is because the same numerical pay grade (e.g., 7) is 
associated with a different rate of pay for each pay plan. For 
example, an apprentice at grade 7 of the WT (Apprentice) pay plan 
would be paid less than a supervisor at grade 7 of the WS (Wage 
Supervisor) pay plan, even though both employees were at grade 7. 
Source: 5 C.F.R. §531.202(h) (1982); 5 C.F.R. §532.401 (1982).

Under these regulations, moves into FWS jobs except those 
within the same pay plan, are technically categorized as upward, 
lateral, or downward moves based upon a comparison of the 
"representative rates" of pay in the "from" and "to" positions. 
An individual's actual rate of pay is determined by the step 
attained within his/her grade, as well as the pay plan and grade. 
Due to the existence of steps within grades, no one rate of pay 
reflects the pay rate of all workers in a pay plan and grade 
combination. 0PM regulations specify a single step rate as the 
"representative rate" of pay for each pay plan to be used to 
determine whether a movement into an FWS job will be categorized 
as upward (promotion), lateral, or downward (demotion). If the 
representative rate in the new pay plan and grade is higher than 
that in the previous pay plan and grade, the move is considered an

V—2 3 23



upward move. If the two representative rates are the same, the 
move is considered lateral; if the representative rate in the new 
pay plan and grade is lower than that in the previous pay plan and 
grade, the move is considered downward.

For moves from the FWS to the GS pay system, OPM regulations 
specify that the actual rate of pay rather than the representative 
rate is to be used in the promotion determination decision.

c. The Competitive Merit Staffing Program

(1) Initiating the Process
When positions became vacant or new 

positions were needed, NARF supervisors submitted a Standard Form 
52 (SF 52) via their higher level supervisors to CPO, [Central 
Personnel Office!

Within CPO, the reguest to fill a vacancy was first reviewed 
by the Wage and Classification Division to determine that the 
position was correctly classified. Next, the Staffing Specialist 
in the Employment Division of CPO ascertained there were no 
employees with a claim to the position under existing regulations. 
Then, the source of candidates was determined. Typical sources of 
candidates available to Selecting Officials were all employees of 
activities serviced by CPO, and all Federal employees in 
Jacksonville, Florida.

In order to develop a rating plan, the Staffing Specialist

V-24 24



analyzed the position with the help of management Subject Matter 
Experts.fDefinel They consulted OPM and CPO documents regarding 
the position, and identified duties and reguirements related to 
the position.

During the period covered by this report, different methods 
of soliciting applications were used, depending upon the 
anticipated number of vacancies. One-of-a-kind vacancies were 
announced on an open and close basis; i.e., applications were 
accepted only for a specified period of time. Where freguently 
recurring vacancies were expected, early in the time period the 
vacancies were announced by CPO as "open continuously." After an 
initial cut-off date for filling the first vacancy, applications 
continued to be accepted. Periodically, these subseguent 
applications were rated and eligible applicants were integrated 
into the existing registers. Later in the time period, anticipated 
recurring vacancies were also handled by "multiple listing 
announcements." Positions were advertised on a Multiple Listing 
having a specified open and close date and a register of eligibles 
was established. The announcement was then re-opened for receipt 
of new applications biannually or at some point when there were not 
enough eligible applicants to meet the needs of the user. 
Applications received in the new open period were rated and 
applicants determined to be eligible were integrated into the 
existing register.

All announcements provided a brief description of the duties 
to be performed, the gualification reguirements, and the elements

V—2 5 25



which would be rated. For General Schedule (GS) positions, a 
statement regarding time-in-grade requirements was also included. 
Supplemental Questions and Questionnaires were prepared as part of 
the vacancy announcement to elicit information from the employee 
geared directly to the rating elements developed prior to the 
announcement.

(2) Filing Applications
Applicants were responsible for filing 

their own applications. Typically, applicants reviewed the vacancy 
announcement, then completed an updated Personal Qualifications 
Statement, SF 171, and delivered it to CPO. The applicants were 
expected to address the rating elements shown in the announcement. 
The applicants' descriptions of their experience and training on 
the SF 171 were to be as current and as accurate as possible.

Normally, questions were included in the body of the 
announcement to assist applicants in describing their experience 
and training or a Supplemental Questionnaire with specific 
questions related to the rating elements was made a part of the 
vacancy announcement. The vacancy announcement requested that 
applicants include the appropriate supervisory appraisals completed 
by their immediate supervisors and/or their latest annual 
performance ratings. Typically, a separate application was 
required for each announcement in which the applicant was 
interested. When an announcement covered several types of 
positions, a separate application was required for each.

V-2 6 26



A supervisory appraisal of performance completed by the 
immediate supervisor and reviewed by the next higher supervisory
level within the past year.____ This appraisal indicates the
supervisor's assessment of the applicant's quality and quantity of 
work. The overall ratings which can be assigned are Outstanding, 
Satisfactory, and Unsatisfactory. In addition, to verify certain 
data on an application, information must be submitted concerning 
awards received, date received, brief description of justification, 
and the amount of monetary award, if any; brief description of 
adopted suggestions; brief description of ~iob related training and 
development.

The supplemental information or supplemental form called for
in the announcement. Applicants are often reauested to submit an
additional supplemental form desianed to aive detailed, specific
information recjardina the work experience shown on the SF-171.
These additional supplemental forms differ between trades as to
their lencrth and complexitv. Their purpose is to add to
information on the SF-171 and not to replace that basic
application.

(3) Review of Applications by the Staffing 
Specialist

The Staffing Specialist reviewed each 
application to determine that the filing requirements were met and 
that in the opinion of the staffing specialist, the employee was 
eligible for the position. The Staffing Specialist reviewed the

V-27 27



application against the qualification requirements for the position 
as published in the OPM Handbook X-118. Qualification Standards for 
Positions Under the General Schedule (x-118) for white collar 
positions, or the OPM Handbook X-118C. Job Qualification System for 
Trades and Labor Occupations (X-118C) for blue collar jobs to 
determine basic eligibility. An additional document, Internal 
Qualification Guides for Trades and Labor Jobs, was also used for 
blue collar jobs.TIS THIS AN OPM, NAVY OR NARF DOCUMENT?1

Applications for GS positions that staffing specialist decided 
met the published qualification requirements were then sent to the 
Rating Panel to be evaluated. Applications for FWS jobs that the 
staffing specialist decided met the acceptable level on the 
published Screen-Out Element were then sent to the Rating Panel for 
final rating evaluation.

The basic eligibility determination procedures were different 
for GS and FWS pay systems. While applicants for both kinds of 
positions were required to meet qualification requirements 
published by OPM (as will be described later), GS positions also 
had time-in-grade requirements imposed by OPM. FWS jobs did not 
have time-in-grade requirements. However, eligibility of 
candidates for FWS jobs was determined at two points: by the 
Staffing Specialist in CPO and by the Rating Panel. The 
eligibility of candidates for GS positions was determined solely 
by the Staffing Specialist.

V-28 28



(4) The Rating Panel
The rating panel was made up of two or 

more management representatives who were knowledgeable about the 
position or job to be filled and were at the same or higher grade 
level as the vacancy. Because of their knowledge of the position, 
they were called Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). Sometimes the 
supervisor of the vacant position was one of the SMEs, and they are 
chosen by the selecting official for the job.

The SMEs reviewed the applications, any supplemental data, 
and any supervisory appraisals against the predetermined crediting 
plan.rSHOULD INDICATE WHO DEVELOPED THIS PLAN! The crediting plan 
listed job elements developed in accordance with OPM guidance. 
Each panel member evaluated the applications independently. For 
each candidate, panel members individually recorded their 
evaluation of each crediting plan element and added up the scores 
on the elements to obtain a total raw score for the candidate. The 
independent evaluations were reviewed by the chairman of the rating 
panel and the Staffing Specialist.

Generally, where there was a difference in ratings or more 
than two points on the total raw score given by two panel members 
for a particular candidate, the reasons for the differences were 
discussed and resolved. FWS job applicants who did not achieve an 
average score of two points per element were rated ineligible. 
For example, a FWS job crediting plan may have had six elements. 
To be basically eligible, the applicant must have achieved at least

V-29 29



two points on the Screen-Out Element, as determined by the Staffing 
Specialist's initial evaluation, and a total score of 12 points as 
determined by the Rating Panel. An applicant with a total score 
of 11 would have been ineligible in this instance. At the 
conclusion of the rating panel's deliberations, the applications 
were returned to the Staffing Specialist.

TAPP FROM PLAINTIFFS PARAGRAPHS 20-311
For each candidate, ranking panel members assign a point score 

(from 0 to 4 points) on each job element including the screen out 
element, (e.g. ability to do the job without more than normal 
supervision; ability to supervise), for each applicant.

In order to be eligible for promotion, an applicant must 
receive at least 2 points on each screen out element and must 
receive at least an average of 2 points on all other elements.

Applicants who do not achieve an average score of "2" points 
per element are rated ineligible. For example, a FWS job crediting 
plan may have had six elements. To be basically eligible, the 
applicant must have achieved at least two points on the screen-out 
element. as determined by the staffing specialist's initial 
evaluation, and a total score of 12 points as determined by the 
rating panel. An applicant with a total score of 11 would have 
been ineligible in this instance

In order to be considered "highly Qualified" an applicant must 
achieve a transmuted numerical score of 85.0 or above as a result 
of the rating. This score is determined through use of a

V-30 30



Conversion Table in X-118C. Chapter III. Plan for Rating Applicant 
(current 1980). In this table a total raw score of 18 when the 
total number of elements is 6 yields a transmuted score of 85. 
(For each job family, six sets of elements are provided.) Thus an 
applicant may be rated "2" on some elements and "411 on others and 
still achieve a raw score of 18. Similarly, an applicant need not 
score 113" on each screen out element but does need an average score 
of 3 on all elements to be considered "highly qualified".

Passing scores range from 70 to a maximum of 100 points. 
Eligible candidates with scores from 70.0 to 84.9 are considered 
"Qualified11. In the event of ties in the numerical scores, such 
ties are broken based on the length of Qualifying experience or, 
if ties still remain, on the length of service of the applicants.

After the Rating Panel's evaluation of the candidates is 
completed, a staffing specialist reviews the completed ratings and 
establishes a register listing Qualified candidates in rank order. 
This register is the source from which the certificate of eligible 
candidates is drawn. The certificate contains the names of the 
candidates from which the selecting official chooses.

Typically, a certificate is issued with two parts. The first 
part contains the promotion eligible category (applicants who would 
receive a promotion if placed in the position). The second part 
could contain "Other" candidates: repromotion eligibles (candidates 
who had previously served, on a permanent basis, at a grade level 
egual to or higher than that of the position being filled) ;

V—31 31



reinstatement eligibles (candidates not currently employed by the 
Federal government who had previously served, on a permanent basis, 
at a grade level equal to or higher than that of the position being 
filled) ; 30% Disabled Veterans (candidates eligible for appointment 
based on a service-connected disability); reassignment eligibles 
(employees at the same grade as the vacant position); and change 
to a lower grade candidates (employees who are willing to accept 
a lower grade than that currently held). Candidates in the "Other" 
category who were basically eligible were certified without rating 
and ranking beginning in July 1981.

Beginning in 1979, repromotables were first identified as a 
separate category on the certificate, and thirty percent disabled 
veterans who were basically eligible were placed on the certificate 
for the first time. These two types of other candidates were each 
listed separately from the promotion eligibles. For example, a 
selecting official could receive a certificate with five promotion 
eligibles and attached to it a list with three repromotable 
eligibles and a another list with two 30% disabled veteran 
eligibles. thus, having 10 candidates who could be considered for 
one vacant position.

During the period from 1973-1982, there have been several 
procedures for referring candidates to the selecting official. 
Generally a list of at least five "highly Qualified" candidates 
were certified for each vacancy. Prior to October 1977, when less 
than five were available, a sufficient number of the highest 
ranking of the remaining eligibles was added, but grouped

V-32 32



separately from the group ranked as "highly qualified". It was
within the power of the selecting official to make a selection from
below the "highly gualified" group. For a period after October
1977 only those applicants rated "highly gualified" were placed on
the certificate, regardless of their number. However the selecting
official retained the discretion to reguest additional candidates
who were rated as "gualified" if none of the referred candidates
were viewed as suitable by the selecting official.

At various times the level of consideration of candidates on 
the "other" section of the certificate has also varied. Generally 
these so-called "other" candidates were placed on the certificate 
if their rating was within the same range or equal to or higher 
than that of the lowest referred promotional candidate and their 
scores were placed on the certificate.

Beginning in 1981, when there were five or fewer promotion 
eligible candidates, all eligible candidates were certified without 
any formal rating or ranking.

The facility regularly uses open continuous announcements to 
establish registers for positions in which there is heavy turnover 
or a large number of positions. These registers continue until the 
announcement is cancelled, which may be for one or more years. New 
candidates are allowed to file for these registers at any time.

(5) Staffing Specialist's Second Review and 
Establishment of a Certificate

The Staffing Specialist made a second

V-3 3 33



review after the rating panel completed its task. This second 
review ensured that raw scores were consistent with the rating plan 
and within the range of agreement. The raw scores were converted 
to numerical eguivalents by use of an OPM published conversion 
table. CPO then prepared a certificate listing the names of the 
candidates from which the Selecting Official could choose. The 
procedures as to which names were listed on the certificate changed 
several times during the period, but the highest rated candidates 
were always included. During the relevant time period, about one- 
third to one-half of all applicants were certified by CPO for 
consideration by Selecting Officials.

In the later part of the time period covered in this law suit, 
a staff member of NARF's Egual Employment Opportunity Office (EEOO) 
reviewed the certificate to determine if the NARF Affirmative 
Action Plan (AAP) indicated that this job or position (as defined 
by pay plan, series, and grade) was in need of increased minority 
representation and if any of the candidates were members of the 
minority groups identified in the AAP. If applicable, the EEOO 
would place a note to the Selecting Official on the certificate 
that there were candidates in underrepresented groups within reach 
for selection.

(6) Selections
Selecting Officials reviewed the 

applications received. They had certain options in the selection

V-34 34



process. Selecting Officials could use a recommending panel, 
conduct personal interviews, or make the selection based on the 
applications alone. If one candidate was to be interviewed, all 
were to be interviewed.

Once the selection officials concluded their deliberations, 
the vacant position was offered to the selected candidate. 
Candidates either accepted or declined. When they accepted, 
release dates were arranged with their current supervisors.

Once the selection was made, the certificate was routed to 
the CPO via NARF EEOO. In CPO, it was reviewed one final time for 
procedural compliance and appropriate administrative actions (e.g., 
determining rate of pay, arranging release dates, etc.). The 
position was then considered filled under competitive Merit 
Staffing procedures.

c. Exceptions to Competition Under the NAS 
Jacksonville Merit Staffing Plan 
There were a number of exceptions to 

competition under the local Merit Staffing Program. The primary 
exception was noncompetitive promotions received as part of a 
formal training program. Typically, the training program had an 
entry grade and a higher target grade. Employees in the training 
program could receive noncompetitive promotions through the target 
grade. Usually, individuals competed for the entry level positions

V-35 35



under the local Merit Staffing Program. However, other individuals 
may have entered the training program noncompetitively, e.g. under 
a Veterans Readjustment Appointment.

There were also a number of other types of noncompetitive 
promotions under the local Merit Staffing Program. These included: 
promotions resulting from reclassification and upgrade of a 
position; promotions resulting from enhancement of duties, known 
as accretions; repromotions to previously held grades; temporary 
promotions (i.e. 120 days or less); details to a higher grade 
(which technically defined are not promotions); moves to other pay 
plans as a result of a RIF where the employee received and increase 
in pay; and promotions to remedy a procedural or substantive error 
which caused the individual not to be promoted in the original 
action.

(1) Career Ladder Program
In the career ladder program vacancies are filled below the

full performance level. The employees then receive training and
experience and are noncompetitively promoted up to the full
performance level after abilitv to perform at each hicrher level
has been demonstrated, and other regulatory reauirements, such as
time-in-crrade, have been met. For example. in a series with
positions in GS-7, GS-9 and a GS-11 full performance level.
candidates would compete for selection at the GS-7 level and
receive noncompetitive promotions to the GS-9 and GS-11 levels.
Candidates can be selected competitively under the local Merit

V-36 36



Twenty-one GS series were identified as 
having career ladders and 608 employees were in career ladders 
during the ten year analysis period. The employees received 
training and experience and were noncompetitively promoted up to 
the full performance level after ability to perform at each higher 
level had been demonstrated and other regulatory requirements, such 
as time-in-grade, had been met.
The length and number of noncompetitive promotions varied from 
series to series. Generally though, employees competed for entry 
at grade GS-5 and received noncompetitive promotions to the target 
grade of GS-9 or GS-11. The largest concentration of employees in 
career ladders was in the engineering family of series, the 
Production Controller (GS-1152) series, and the Quality Assurance 
(GS-1910) series.

Staffing Program, from an PPM register, or under a delegate
appointing authority from 0PM.

(2) Noncompetitive Promotions in UMP
The Upward Mobility Program (UMP) was 

program designed to develop career opportunities for individuals 
in low level positions with limited potential for advancement. 
The UMP program operated in both the GS and FWS pay systems. 
Selection into the program was based on the employee's potential 
to perform at the target grade level. As with other training 
programs, selection into UMP was generally competitive, with UMP 
providing for subsequent noncompetitive promotions.

V-37 37



Employees selected for participation in this program received 
job-related training (either classroom, on-the-job, or both) for 
at least six months but for no more than two years. When 
successful completion of the training program was accomplished, 
employees were noncompetitively placed in a pre-specified target 
grade level. In most cases these placements constituted a 
promotion. However, those individuals who entered UMP from a grade 
level equal to the target level simply returned to their previously 
held grade upon program completion. Individuals who did not 
successfully complete the program returned to their previous or 
similar position if available.

Employees must compete for entry into the Upward Mobility 
program, however if the target level of the position is above WG- 
5 or GS-5 on only one noncompetitive promotion is allowed. If the 
target position is at the WG-5 or GS-5 level or below, more than 
one promotion between entry and target levels is allowed.

While promotions under the Upward Mobility Program are 
restricted. Upward Mobility Program positions can lead directly to 
career ladders where additional noncompetitive promotions can be 
received. For example, consider a series with a normal progression 
of GS-5, GS-7, GS-9, and a GS-11 target level. Under the Upward 
Mobility Program, an employee would compete for the GS-5 position 
and receive a noncompetitive promotion to GS-7. If the GS-7 level 
was in a career ladder, the employee could then be noncompetitively 
promoted to GS-9 and GS-11. However, there would have to have been 
notice to applicants competing for the GS-5 level that there was

V-38 38



potential for noncompetitive promotions.

(3) Advancement in the Apprentice Training 
Program
The Apprentice Program was the largest 

training program and was limited to the FWS pay system. 
Apprenticeships were structured programs in a trade requiring a 
combination of on-the-job (shop) training and course work 
(related training). Completion of these programs typically 
required four years of full-time employment. Apprentice trainees 
were noncompetitively promoted through various training grades. 
Upon satisfactory completion of the program the apprentice was 
promoted to the Journeyman level of the trade. Poor performance 
that resulted in repeating a quarter also increased the time in 
the program.

The Apprentice Training Program involved eight job series. 
Most of the Apprenticeships were in two Electronics trades series 
(2604 and 2602).

Job Series Series Number

Electronic Measurement Equipment
Mechanic (EMEM) 2602

Electronic Mechanic/Aircraft
Instrument Mechanic (E Mech) 2604

Aircraft Electrician (A/C Elec) 2892
Machinist 3414

V-39 39



Electroplater 3711 
Sheetmetal Mechanic (Sheetmetal) 3806 
Aircraft Engine Mechanic (A/C Engine Mech) 8602 
Aircraft Mechanic (A/C Mech) 8852

(4) Trainee Positions
These training positions were 

implemented with the approval of the Department of the Navy and 
0PM but were developed locally and could be unique to NARF or NAS. 
Trainees competed for placement into the trainee position where 
successful performance and achievement were conditions to 
subsequent noncompetitive promotions up to a target level. Typical 
examples of these trainee positions where in the Quality Assurance 
Specialist GS-1910 series, and Production Controllers GS-1152 
series.

(5) Understudy Positions
An understudy was an employee competitively selected for 

the purpose of being trained to assume the duties of a position 
scheduled to be vacated by a specific date, normally within one 
year. When the position for which the employee was being trained 
was vacated (e.g., by retirement of the incumbent), the understudy 
could be noncompetitively promoted to that position.

(6) Student Employment Programs

V-40 40



There were three student employment 
programs at NARF, the Cooperative Education Student Trainees (Co­
op) , Federal Junior Fellowship Program (FJFP) Trainees, and the 
Program for Advancement through Vocational Education (PAVE). The 
Co-op program was for students already in college. Co-ops 
alternated between spending a quarter or semester in college and 
a quarter or semester working at NARF. FJFP trainees were selected 
in their senior year of high school. FJFP trainees attended 
college full time and worked at NARF during summers and holidays. 
PAVE was a local program for high school students. PAVE trainees 
attended high school in the morning and worked at NARF in the 
afternoon.

d. Return to a Previously Held Grade
Employees could be noncompetitively returned 

to a previously held higher grade under two different regulatory 
provisions. Employees demoted through no fault of their own, and 
not at their own request, could be repromoted to a level no higher 
than that from which demoted as an exception to competitive 
procedure. This would typically apply to employees who had been 
demoted as a result of a reduction in force. Employees could also 
be noncompetitively promoted back to any position or grade level 
previously held on a permanent basis. This type of action differed 
from repromotions in that there was no requirement on management 
to return the employee to the previously held grade.

V-41 41



e . Position Upgrades and Accretion of Duties
An employee in a position might (but not 

necessarily) be noncompetitively promoted when the position the 
employee occupied was reclassified. A position could be subject 
to reclassification for a number of reasons. First, OPM issued 
new classification standards from time to time which caused 
positions to be reclassified. Second, when organizations were 
changed, positions were reclassified to fit the new mission. 
Third, positions could be reclassified as a result of the annual 
maintenance review. Each year supervisors were to review the 
position descriptions of their employees and submit a statement to 
CPO as to whether the duties were changed or not. CPO then 
performed "desk audits" of positions identified by supervisors and 
a random number of positions selected by CPO, to determine the 
accuracy of the position description. As a result of a desk audit, 
a position could be reclassified. A fourth reason for 
reclassification of positions was as the result of an initial 
classification error.

Occasionally, employees would experience an unanticipated 
growth in higher level duties or responsibilities. Under such 
circumstances the employee could be noncompetitively promoted if 
the new duties or responsibilities directly related to the 
employee's major and grade controlling duties. During the period 
of 1973-1982 there were a total of 45 promotions due to accretion 
of duties.

V-42 42



f. Temporary Promotions
Temporary promotions could be made either 

competitively or noncompetitively. An employee could be 
temporarily promoted without competition if the temporary promotion 
did not exceed 120 days. Regulations provided that competitive 
temporary promotions have a definite not-to-exceed date of one year 
or less but could be extended for one additional year. A temporary 
promotion could be made permanent without further competition only 
if the temporary promotion had originally been made under 
competitive procedures and the fact that it might lead to a 
permanent promotion had been announced.

g. Details
A detail was "the temporary assignment of an 

employee to a different position for a specified period, with the 
employee returning to his [or her] regular duties at the end of 
the detail. Technically, a position is not 'filled' by a detail, 
as the employee continues to be the incumbent of the position from 
which detailed." Employees did not have to meet OPM qualifications 
for the position to which they were detailed.

Details could be made to a position of a higher, lower, or at 
the same grade. Details to the same or lower grade were generally 
limited to 120 days, with provisions for extensions during the time 
period covered in this report. Noncompetitive details to a higher 
grade were generally limited to 60 days until 1978, and to 120 days 
thereafter, with provisions for extensions throughout the relevant

V—4 3 43



time period.

3. Actions Taken In Lieu of the NAS Jacksonville 
Merit Staffing Plan

a . Selections From PPM Registers
Selection of qualified candidates from Office 

of Personnel Management (OPM) Registers of Eligibles was the 
primary procedure used in filling positions with persons outside 
civil service. Although this type of selection involved 
competition, these selections were not made under the competitive 
procedures of the NAS JAX Merit Staffing Program. Rather, they 
were made under OPM's procedures for bringing individuals into 
civil service.

b . Placement Under OPM's Delegated Appointing 
Authority

OPM also delegated appointing authority for 
permanent positions. When OPM determined that there was a critical 
shortage in a particular skill category, a Delegated Recruiting and 
Appointing Authority was issued to agencies for recruitment by 
personnel offices such as the Jacksonville CPO to fill those 
positions. Typical examples of a direct hire authority used by 
NARF were engineering positions for which OPM delegated appointing 
authority for grades GS-5 to GS-11.

V-44 44



c . Veterans Readjustment Appointments
A qualified candidate who met the basic 

requirements for a position could be given a Veterans Readjustment 
Appointment (VRA) to the position. A VRA candidate must have been 
a veteran of the Vietnam era, August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975, and
have had no more than 14 years of education (unless disabled) . The 
veteran also had to meet the basic eligibility requirements for the 
position as outlined in X-118 or X-118C. These noncompetitive 
appointments were "excepted" appointments which led to "Competitive 
Service" positions upon satisfactory completion of the required 
length of service and education or training.

d . Placement of Handicapped Individuals
Statutes and regulations allowed for the 

noncompetitive placement of handicapped individuals and disabled 
veterans into civil service.

e . Worker Trainees
Worker Trainees were originally selected from 

OPM certificates. Later 0PM regulations allowed for the selection 
of candidates in the Worker Trainee Opportunity Program (WTOP) to 
be made noncompetitively. Worker Trainee positions were usually 
established as GS-1 or GS-2, with GS-3 as the target level in 
clerical areas having routine repetitive tasks to perform (e.g., 
sorting documents, filing, simple calculations, and answering 
telephones), as were found in the Production Department Division

V-45 45



Offices, and the Production Control Department Division Offices and 
Centers in NARF. Wage Grade positions WG-1 through target grade 
WG-5 were established in the various trade areas where simple 
routine repetitive tasks existed (e.g., Aircraft Engine Mechanic 
Helpers in the Production Department at NARF).

f. Priority Listings and Reinstatement of Former 
Civil Servants
A number of programs were developed by OPM or 

DOD to utilize the skills of individuals who had been, or already 
were, civil service employees. The FPM permits the noncompetitive 
reinstatement of qualified former civil servants up to the grade 
level they previously held on a permanent basis. Area offices of 
OPM also maintain a Displaced Career Employee (DCE) List of 
employees who have been displaced or by base closures or RIFs. 
DCEs who qualify for a vacant position can be noncompetitively 
selected. Agency personnel offices were also provided a 
Reemployment Priority List of employees separated because of RIF 
or because of a compensable injury or disability where recovery 
would take more than a year and are within the local commuting area 
(i.e., a 50 mile radius).

The DOD also maintains a similar list under DODs Priority 
Placement Program (PPP). Typical employees in the PPP were 
employees who were or were about to be separated or demoted by RIF, 
involuntarily furloughed, and for some employees returning from 
overseas. The PPP differed from OPM programs in that DOD required

V—4 6 46



its agencies (e.g. the Navy) to consult and use the PPP before 
candidates could be selected under a local merit staffing program. 
Use of the OPM lists were optional.

g. Other Noncompetitive Moves to the Same or 
Lower Grade
Other noncompetitive actions involved moving 

employees to the same or lower grades. The movement of an employee 
between agencies at the same or lower grade, was a "transfer." If 
an employee transferred to a lower grade the move was termed a 
"Transfer-CLG," i.e., Transfer Change to a Lower Grade. Within 
agencies, a move from one position to another at the same grade was 
a "Reassignment," while a move to a lower grade was simply termed 
a "CLG". Moves within an agency from one activity to another were 
annotated "CAO" for change of appointing office, i.e., 
"Reassignment-CAO" or "CLG-CAO".

A. Admissions
1. Plaintiffs have admitted in whole or in part Admissions 

Nos. 3 through 39 of Defendant's First Request for Admissions 
(Attached as Appendix VII).

B. Interrogatories
The following interrogatory responses by plaintiffs 

contain relevant admissions: 1

1. Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First
Interrogatories to Individual Plaintiffs (Willie Ward Moran)

V-47 47



undated, Answer 29.

2. Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First 
Interrogatories to Individual Plaintiffs (Marcus G. Ellison) 
undated, Answers 10 and 29.

3. Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First 
Interrogatories to Individual Plaintiffs (Andrew Norris) dated June 
7, 1979, Answer 29.

4. Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First 
Interrogatories to Individual Plaintiffs (Gradson A. Johnson) 
undated, Answer 29.

5. Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First 
Interrogatories to Individual Plaintiffs (Willie James Robinson) 
dated June 6, 1979, Answer 28.

6. Plaintiffs' Answers to the Defendant's First 
Interrogatories to Individual Plaintiffs (S.K. Sanders) dated 
January 4 1980, Answer 21 (h).

7. Plaintiffs' 
Answers to Defendant's First Set of Continuing Interrogatories 
dated March 26, 1984, Answers 16 and 24 to Interrogatory 11.

V-48 48



8 . P l a i n t i f f
Marcus Ellison's Supplementary Answers to Defendant's Second Set 
of Continuing Interrogatories dated May 18, 1984, page 10.

9. Plaintiffs'
Supplemental Answers to Defendant's First Set of Continuing 
Interrogatories dated August 10, 1984, Answers 8, 18, 24, 49 and
50 to Interrogatory 11.

V-49 49



VI. Statement of Issues of Law
on Which There Is Agreement

A. Summary of Key Legal Proceedings to Date
During the course of this lawsuit, the following pleadings 

and court orders were filed:
1. The complaint filed in the Court on September 13. 1973. 

NARF employees Willie Moran, Gradson A. Johnson, S. K. Sanders, 
Marcus G. Ellison, Willie Robinson and Andrew Norris filed a class 
action lawsuit in the Court on behalf of themselves and other 
similarly situated claiming discrimination on the basis of race 
across a wide range of defendant's employment practices at the 
Naval Air Rework Facility, Jacksonville, Florida with emphasis on 
promotion acts and practices.

2. The Secretary of the Navy As Proper Defendant. By Order 
dated November 27, 1978 the Court identified the Secretary of the 
Navy, in his official capacity, as the proper defendant in this 
action. All other defendants were dismissed from this action.

3. Removal of Willie Moran as a Named Plaintiff. By Order 
dated April 20, 1983, the Court substituted Emma Moran for Willie 
Moran in the lawsuit in the limited capacity of class member and 
not as a named plaintiff representing the class. This action was 
taken on plaintiffs' motion because of the death of Willie Moran.

VIfc-1



4. Class Certification Class Definition. By Order dated
April 25, 1987, the Court certified this action as a class action
and defined the class to be:

The class shall include black employees at NARF who are 
employed, or who were employed on or after March 24,
1972, at NARF.

Order at p. 9.

5. Sanctions Limiting the Scope of Plaintiffs1 Evidence. By
Order of the Court dated, November 14, 1984, January 14, 1985, May 
6, 1985, and October 11, 1985, this Court imposed sanctions on
plaintiffs for discovery abuse which prohibited the introduction 
of evidence by plaintiffs on a number of issues and which required 
plaintiffs to identify the statistical exhibits that they would 
introduce at trial and to make their expert available for 
deposition.

6. Definition and Scope of Bifurcated Proceeding. By Order 
dated February 27, 1985, the Court bifurcated the proceedings in 
this matter as follows:

That the trial of this matter shall be 
bifurcated into Stage One to determine the
question of liability and, if liability is 
found, Stage Two to determine individual 
entitlement to relief for members of the 
class.

Order at p. 2.
In the same Order, this Court established the following scope 

for the two stages:

VE-2



That the scope of Stage One and Stage Two of 
these bifurcated proceedings shall be 
governed by the following:

a .
At Stage One of the proceedings, 
the Court shall determine (1) the individual 
claims of the named plaintiffs which are covered 
by the individual administrative complaints on 
which this action is based and (2) the pattern 
or practice claims of the class.

Two,
b. At Stage

the Court shall
determine (1) the individual claims of the named 
plaintiffs which arose subsequent to the filing 
of their individual administrative complaints 
and (2) the individual entitlement to relief of 
the other members of the class.

Order at p. 2.

7. Class Redefinition. By Order dated February 23, 1987,
this Court refined the class as follows:

[T]he class in this case is redefined to include all 
black employees of NARF who are now employed or who 
were employed on or after April 1, 1973 and who are or 
were permanent employees eligible for promotion.

Order at pp. 1-2.

8. Close of Discovery. By Order dated February 9, 1988, this 
Court ordered that discovery in the action be closed as of April 
7, 1988.
B. Agreed Issues of Law. 1

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims 
made against the Federal Government on the basis of Title VII of

VB-3



the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
2. When the Department of the Navy is sued in a Title VII 

action, the Secretary of the Navy, in his official capacity, is 
the proper defendant.

3. The Department of the Navy is a military department 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §102.

4. The provisions of 42 U.S.C §2000e-16 apply to the 
Department of the Navy as a military department.

5. The Naval Air Rework Facility located on the Naval Air 
Station, Jacksonville, Florida is an activity of the Department of 
the Navy.

VI4-4



VII. Statement of Those Issues of Fact 
Which Remain to Be Litigated

A. Plaintiffs' Disputed Issues of Fact.

1. Whether the defendant's promotion system as a whole 
results in the disproportionate selection of white applicants and 
a disproportionate number of whites found qualified when compared 
with the number of blacks found qualified and selected.

2. Whether the defendant uses as a condition of promotion, 
subjective evaluations of performance by supervisors, rating 
panels, and others, which evaluations and reviews disqualify or 
fail to select black employees in substantially greater proportions 
than they disqualify or fail to select white employees.

3. Whether the use of discretion by supervisory employees 
results in the failure of black employees to obtain equal access 
to temporary promotions and details which provide training 
opportunities and enhance the likelihood of promotion.

B. Defendant's Disputed Issues of Fact.

1. Jurisdictional Facts

a. Individual Administrative Complaint of Andrew Norris
i. Plaintiff

VII-1



Andrew Norris initially contacted an EEO counselor on May 1, 1973.
i i

Plaintiff Norris filed an administrative EEO complaint on June 5, 
1973. In his complaint Mr. Norris indicates that his final 
interview with the EEO counselor occurred on June 21, 1973.

iii. In his
report of June 11, 1973, the EEO Counselor, Mr. R. V. Geiger,
indicates that the final interview with Mr. Norris occurred on June 
31, 1973.

iv. On June
7, 1973, Captain Andrew Yates, the NARF Commanding Officer, met 
with Mr. Norris to discuss his complaint. At that meeting Captain 
Yates requested that Mr. Norris delay the filing of his complaint 
until the NARF had completed a review of the job grading actions 
that had been effected for electronics mechanics under the new job 
grading standard issued by OPM (then CSC). By letter dated June
8, 1973, Mr. Norris notified Captain Yates that he desired the 
complaint to be processed without delay. By letter dated June 8, 
1973, Captain Yates notified Mr. Norris that his individual 
administrative complaint of discrimination had been received and 
described Mr. Norris's rights and the procedures that would be 
followed.

v . By letter
dated June 13, 1973, the NARF requested that the Navy Department's 
Regional Office of Civilian Manpower Management assign an 
investigator for Mr. Norris's individual administrative complaint.

VII-2



By letter dated June 19, 1973, the Regional Office of Civilian
Manpower Management appointed Mr. Vance A. Goode, Jr. to 
investigate the complaint. Mr. Goode submitted a report of his 
investigation on July 17, 1973.

vi. By
letter dated August 7, 1973, Captain C. E. Boeing, USN, the new
commanding officer of the NARF requested further investigation by 
Mr. Goode. By letter of the same date,
Captain Boeing notified Mr. Norris of his request for further 
investigation.

vii. By
letter dated November 2, 1973, Mr. Goode forwarded his Supplemental 
Report of Investigation to the NARF commanding officer. Captain 
Boeing meet with Mr. Norris and his representative on November 19, 
1973, to discuss the investigative report. Captain Boeing
acknowledged this meeting in a letter dated November 28, 1973. By 
letter to Mr. Norris dated December 20, 1973, Captain Boeing 
offered to meet with Mr. Norris and his representative on January 
9, 1974, to attempt informal resolution of the complaint. By
letter dated January 8, 1974, Mr. Norris's representative declined 
Captain Boeing's offer to meet.

viii. On
January 11, 1974, Mr. Norris was given a letter from Captain Boeing 
that provided notice of the proposed disposition of his 
administrative complaint including his right to an agency hearing 
on the matter is requested within 15 days of the receipt of the

VII-3



notice. The proposed disposition was a finding of no
discrimination in the implementation of the job grading standard 
for electronics mechanics.

ix. On
January 31, 1974, Mr. Norris was given a copy of a letter signed
by the acting commanding officer that provided notice of the 
agency's final disposition of Mr. Norris's discrimination 
complaint. The letter noted that it represented the Department of 
the Navy's final decision in the matter since 
no reguest for an agency hearing had been received.

b. Plaintiff Norris's Third Party Complaint
i. When Mr.

Norris filed his discrimination complaint on June 5, 1973, he
attached a third party complaint of discrimination which he signed 
as president of the Minority Group of NARF. By letter to Mr. 
Norris dated June 20, 1973, Captain Yates: acknowledged receipt of 
the third party complaint; requested additional information 
relative to the allegations in the complaint; and stated that an 
investigator would be assigned to determine the facts of the third 
party complaint.

ii. By
letter dated June 28, 1973, Captain Yates appointed Mr. Jack J.
Shapiro, a supervisory production controller in the Production 
Engineering Department of the NARF, as the investigator for the 
third party complaint.

VII-4



letter dated July 10, 1973, Mr. Shapiro submitted his investigative 
report to the NARF commanding officer.

iv. By
letter to Mr. Norris dated August 3, 1973, Captain Boeing, the new 
commanding officer of NARF, provided his decision on the third 
party complaint finding no evidence of racial discrimination in the 
cases investigated. The letter also noted that Mr. Norris had 30 
days after receipt to request review of this decision by the Civil 
Service Commission.

i i i. By

c . Individual Administrative Complaint of Willie J.
Robinson

i. An
individual administrative complaint of discrimination signed by 
Mr. Willie J. Robinson was filed with the NARF on June 19, 1973.
The complaint was dated June 4, 1973.

ii. By
letter to Mr. Robinson dated June 26, 1973, Captain Yates provided 
notice that the complaint was being rejected because, among other 
reasons, Mr. Robinson had not consulted with an EEO Counselor and 
that the 30 days within which to do this had expired. The letter 
provided notice to Mr. Robinson of his right to appeal the decision 
to the U.S. Civil Service Commission within 15 days of receipt of 
this decision or to file a civil action within 30 days of receipt 
of this decision.

VI5-5



iii. Mr.
Robinson did not contact an EEO counselor relative to the matters 
addressed in his administrative complaint that was filed on June 
19, 1973.

d. Individual Administrative Complaint of Gradson A.
Johnson

i. An
individual administrative complaint of discrimination signed by 
Mr. Gradson A. Johnson was filed with the NARF on June 19, 1973. 
The complaint was dated June 4, 1973.

ii. By
letter to Mr. Johnson dated June 26, 1973, Captain Yates provided 
notice that the complaint was being rejected because, among other 
reasons: Mr. Johnson had not consulted with an EEO Counselor
relative to his complaint; and no date of occurrence of the alleged 
discrimination had been provided. The letter provided notice to 
Mr. Johnson of his right to appeal the decision to the U.S. Civil 
Service Commission within 15 days of receipt of this decision or 
to file a civil action within 30 days of receipt of this decision.

iii. Mr.
Johnson did not contact an EEO counselor relative to the matters 
addressed in his administrative complaint that was filed on June 
19, 1973.

VIS-6



e . Individual Administrative Complaint of S. K. Sanders
i. An

individual administrative complaint of discrimination signed by 
Mr. S. K. Sanders was filed with the NARF on June 19, 1973. The
complaint was dated June 4, 1973.

ii. By
letter to Mr. Sanders dated June 26, 1973, Captain Yates provided 
notice that the complaint was being rejected because, among other 
reasons: Mr. Sanders had not consulted with an EEO Counselor
relative to his complaint; and no date of occurrence of the alleged 
discrimination had been provided. The letter provided notice to 
Mr. Sanders of his right to appeal the decision to the U.S. Civil 
Service Commission within 15 days of receipt of this decision or 
to file a civil action within 30 days of receipt of this decision.

iii. Mr.
Sanders did not contact an EEO counselor relative to the matters 
addressed in his administrative complaint that was filed on June 
19, 1973.

f. Individual Administrative Complaint of Marcus G.
Ellison

i. An
individual administrative complaint of discrimination signed by 
Mr. Marcus G. Ellison was filed with the NARF on June 19, 1973.
The complaint was dated June 4, 1973.

VII-7



ii. By
letter to Mr. Ellison dated June 26, 1973, Captain Yates provided 
notice that the complaint was being rejected because, among other 
reasons: Mr. Ellison had not consulted with an EEO Counselor
relative to his complaint; and no date of occurrence of the alleged 
discrimination had been provided. The letter provided notice to 
Mr. Ellison of his right to appeal the decision to the U.S. Civil 
Service Commission within 15 days of receipt of this decision or 
to file a civil action within 30 days of receipt of this decision.

iii. Mr.
Ellison did not contact an EEO counselor relative to the matters 
addressed in his administrative complaint that was filed on June 
19, 1973.

g. Individual Administrative Complaint of Willie Moran
i. An

individual administrative complaint of discrimination signed by 
Mr. Willie Moran was filed with the NARF on June 19, 1973. The
complaint was dated June 4, 1973.

ii. By
letter to Mr. Moran dated June 26, 1973, Captain Yates provided
notice that the complaint was being rejected because, among other 
reasons: Mr. Moran had not consulted with an EEO Counselor relative 
to his complaint; and no date of occurrence of the alleged 
discrimination had been provided. The letter provided notice to 
Mr. Moran of his right to appeal the decision to the U.S. Civil

VIS-8



Service Commission within 15 days of receipt of this decision or 
to file a civil action within 30 days of receipt of this decision.

iii. Mr.
Moran did not contact an EEO counselor relative to the matters 
addressed in his administrative complaint that was filed on June 
19, 1973.

h . Filing of Suit in District Court
i. This

lawsuit was filed in this Court by plaintiffs on September 13,
1973 .

ii. The
filing of this lawsuit on September 13, 1973, occurred 41 days
after the issuance of the August 3, 1973 notice issued by Captain 
Boeing finding no discrimination relative to Mr. Norris's third 
party complaint.

iii. The
filing of this lawsuit on September 13, 1973, occurred 79 days
after the issuance of the June 26, 1973 notices issued by Captain 
Yates to plaintiffs Robinson, Johnson, Sanders, Ellison, and Moran 
which notices dismissed each of the plaintiffs individual 
complaints as improperly filed.

2. Statistical Facts 
a .

History Database
E m p l o y e e

VI2-9



Sincei.
the Navy's existing Personnel Automated Data System (PADS) database 
had an excessive number of missing and incorrect data elements and 
was unacceptable for analysis purposes, it was necessary to develop 
a new database based upon the official hard copy personnel records.

ii. The
Employee History Database, developed from personnel records, 
includes 5,654 individuals who were permanent employees of the 
Jacksonville Naval Air Rework Facility (NARF) at any time between 
April 1, 1973 and December 31, 1982.

iii. The
Employee History Database includes over 47,000 transactions for 
these employees covering the time period of January 1, 1970 through 
December 31, 1982, for an average of 8.5 transactions per person. 
Each transaction includes 27 variables.

iv. T h e
accuracy of the Employee History Database variables reviewed is 
substantial. The Employee History Database is appropriate to be 
used for analysis.

v. The
accuracy of the race designation in the Directory is high. The 
Directory is appropriate as a source of data for analysis.

v n e io



b . App 1 icant
Flow Databases

i. There
are four applicant flow databases containing information on 
applications for competitive personnel selections at NARF: one for 
merit staffing GS positions, one for merit staffing FWS jobs, one 
for UMP GS positions, and one for UMP FWS jobs. Each database 
consists of five files, each with information regarding a different 
part of the selection process. The databases total over 43,000 
records.

ii. The
applicant flow databases are of sufficiently high accuracy to 
justify use in analyses, with the exception of the values of one 
variable, which is not presently being used in any analysis.

c. Static Descriptive Statistics for the Workforce
i. O v e r a l l

Workforce
(a). The

total number of NARF permanent employees changed from 2,702 on 
April 1, 1973 to 3,104 on December 31, 1982.

( b ) .
Positions at NARF are in two separate and distinct pay

Vllill



systems: (1) the Federal Wage System (FWS) pay system
("blue collar" jobs); and (2) the General Schedule (GS) pay system 
("white collar" positions).

(c) . The
proportion of NARF permanent employees covered by the FWS pay 
system changed from 75% on April 1, 1973 to 67% on December 31,
1982. At each point in time, the remainder of the employees were 
covered by the General Schedule pay system.

(d) . Within
each of the two pay systems, employees can be categorized by their 
Federal Civil Service tenure group while positions can be 
categorized by pay plan, grade, and occupational series.

li. FWS Pay
System

(a). The
number of permanent FWS employees changed from 2,019 on April 1, 
1973 to 2,067 on December 31, 1982.

(b). There
are seven pay plans within the FWS pay system: WD, WG, WL, WN,
WP, WS, and WT. More than 80% of the FWS workforce was assigned 
to the WG pay plan in each year.

(c). The
number of unique FWS jobs as defined by pay plan and series changed 
from 106 during 1973 to 125 during 1982. Across all years there 
were 154 unique FWS pay plan and series combinations.

VII212



The(d) .
number of distinctly different types of FWS jobs as defined by pay 
plan, series, and grade changed from 179 during 1973 to 230 during 
1982. Across all years there were 363 distinctly different types 
of FWS jobs.

(e) . The
percentage black in the FWS workforce remained relatively stable, 
ranging from about 12% in April 1973 to about 13% in December 1982.

iii . GS Pay System
(a) . The

number of permanent employees in the GS pay system rose from 683 
on April 1, 1973 to 1,037 on December 31, 1982.

(b) . Until
1981, all employees in the GS pay system were in the GS pay plan. 
In 1981 and 1982, over 95% of the GS employees were in the GS pay 
plan. The remainder of the employees in 1981 and 1982 were under 
the GM pay plan.

(c) . The
number of unique GS positions as defined by pay plan and series
changed from 56 during 1973 to 85 during 1982. Across all years 
there were 97 unique GS pay plan and series combinations.

(d) . The
number of distinctly different types of GS positions as defined by 
pay plan, series, and grade changed from 169 during 197 3 to 212 
during 1982. Across all years there were 336 distinctly different

VII313



types of GS positions.
(e). The

percentage black in GS positions rose from less than 2% in April 
1973 to over 8% in December 1982.

d. Dynamics of Movement In the Workforce
i. There are 5,654 permanent employees whose tenure at 

NARF is represented in the Employee History Database (EHDB). There 
was relatively little movement between the GS and FWS pay systems, 
as evidence by the fact that less than 10% of these employees had 
permanent positions in both pay systems between April 1973 and 
December 1982.

ii. There were 2,670 upward moves from jobs in the FWS
pay system during the relevant time period from April 1973 to 
December 1982. There were 348 downward moves, and 432 lateral 
moves where an employees' pay plan or occupational series changed. 
Black employees accounted for 320 (12%) of the upward moves, 41
(11.8%) of the downward moves and 36 (8%) of the lateral moves in 
the FWS system.

iii. There were 1,932 upward moves from positions in the 
GS pay system during the relevant time period. There were 40 
downward moves, and 331 lateral moves from the GS pay system where 
an employees' pay plan or occupational series changed. Black 
employees accounted for 187 of the upward moves and seven of the 
downward moves. Almost 8% of the lateral moves involved black 
employees.

VII414



iv. There were 1,883 accessions into the permanent FWS 
workforce and 1,686 departures from the permanent FWS Workforce. 
Over 14% (269) of the accessions to this system were black 
employees. Almost 13% (218) of the departures were black 
employees.

v. There were 1,242 accessions into the permanent GS 
workforce and 1,037 departures from the GS workforce. 
Approximately 8% (97) of the total GS accessions were black 
employees and over 5% (54) of the departures were by black 
employees.

vi. There are a total of 37,549 records in the entire 
EHBD which reflect transactions during the relevant time period. 
Of these records, 5,035 are associated with a change in an 
employee's permanent pay plan or grade while a part of the 
permanent NARF workforce. There are 763 records that represent 
lateral moves between pay plan or occupational series. An 
additional 3,125 records represent accessions, and 2,723 represent 
departures from the permanent NARF workforce.

vii. There are 26,666 records in the EHDB that are not 
associated with a change in an employee's permanent pay plan or 
grade. These include status transactions, temporary assignments, 
tenure group changes, and lateral moves between organizations with 
no change in occupational series.

e. Merit Staffing. In competitive merit staffing decisions 
at NARF Jacksonville during the period from April 1, 1973 to

VII515



December 31, 1982:
i. There was no

significant overall disparity between the actual number of
placements of black applicants and the number which would be
expected from the proportions of black applicants in the various 
competitions for GS positions.

ii. There was no
significant overall disparity between the actual number of
selections of black applicants and the number which would be
expected from the proportions of blacks among those certified for 
GS positions.

iii. There was no
significant overall disparity between the actual number of
placements of black applicants and the number which would be
expected from the proportions of black applicants in the various 
competitions for FWS jobs.

iv. The actual
number of 
b l a c k s  

selected for 
FWS jobs

was significantly greater than the number of selections which
should be expected from the proportion of blacks among those 
certified for FWS jobs.

v. Placements 
into permanent as contrasted with

VII616



temporary positions were made in accordance with the conditions 
specified on the announcements and with personnel rules, with the 
possible exception of four placements.

vi. There was no 
significant overall disparity between the actual number of 
placements of black applicants and the number which would be 
expected from the proportions of black applicants in the various 
competitions either for placements into permanent positions or for 
placements into temporary positions which were later convertible 
to permanent, for either GS positions or FWS jobs.

vii. There is no 
statistical evidence of any racial disparity in the determination 
of which temporary positions were later converted to permanent.

viii. In analyses considering only candidates internal
to NARF:

i. There was no significant overall disparity between the 
actual number of placements of black applicants and the number

which would be expected from the proportions of black applicants 
in the various competitions, either for GS positions or for FWS 
j obs.

j . There was no significant overall disparity between the 
actual number of selections of black applicants and the number

which would be expected from the proportions of blacks among those 
certified, either for GS positions or for FWS jobs.

k. There is no evidence of a pattern and practice of 
discrimination against blacks in merit staffing at NARF.

VII717



f. Entry Into the Upward Mobility Program. In staffing 
decisions concerning entry into the Upward Mobility Program (UMP) 
at NARF Jacksonville during the period from April 1, 1973 to 
December 31, 1982:

i. There was no 
significant overall disparity between the number of black 
applicants actually placed and the number which would be expected 
from the proportions of black applicants in the various 
competitions for UMP GS positions.

ii. There was no 
significant overall disparity between the number of black 
applicants actually selected and the number which would 
be expected from the proportions of blacks among those certified 
for UMP GS positions.

iii. There was no 
significant overall disparity between the number of black 
applicants actually placed and the number which would 
be expected from the proportions of black applicants in the various 
competitions for UMP FWS jobs.

iv. There was no 
significant overall disparity between the number of black 
applicants actually selected and the number which would be expected 
from the proportions of blacks among those certified for UMP FWS 
j obs.

v. There is no

VII818



evidence of a pattern and practice of discrimination against blacks 
in the Upward Mobility Program at NARF.

vi. The Upward 
Mobility Program at NARF was generally helpful in meeting 
affirmative action goals, with the exception of positions in the 
occupational series GS-895 (Industrial Engineering Technician).

g. Noncompetetitive Promotions; the Apprentice Program. 
Analyses of the apprentices active at NARF Jacksonville during the 
period from April 1, 1973 through December 31, 1982 indicates:

i. There was no significant disparity between the overall 
completion rate of black and nonblack employees in apprenticeships.

ii. There was no significant disparity between the 
completion rate of black and nonblack employees in apprenticeships 
in each job series in which apprenticeships existed during this 
period.

iii. The length of time which was necessary to complete 
the apprentice program was not significantly different for black 
and nonblack apprentices.

iv. When leave time and advanced credit for prior 
education or experience were included in calculating the completion 
time, there was no significant difference between the time to 
completion of apprenticeships for black and nonblack employees.

v. The length of time, unadjusted and adjusted for leave 
and advanced credit, was not significantly different for 
apprenticeships of black and nonblack employees when compared

VII919



vi. There is no evidence of a pattern and practice of 
discrimination against black employees active in the Apprentice 
Training Program at NARF.

h. Noncompetitive Promotions: Career Ladder Promotions. 
Analyses of twenty-one Career Ladder series in which employees had 
promotion potential at NARF Jacksonville during the period from 
April 1, 1973 through December 31, 1982 indicate:

i. There was no significant disparity between the 
promotion rate of black and nonblack employees for all of the 
twenty-one Career Ladders series analyzed together.

ii. There was no significant disparity between the 
promotion rate of black and nonblack employees in each series in 
which Career Ladders existed during the period.

iii. The completion rates derived from survival analysis 
for each of the CAreer Ladder occupational series were not 
significantly different between black and nonblack employees.

iv. When the survival distribution functions for black 
and nonblack employees were compared for each of the series or 
series combination only one (Management Analyst) showed a 
statistically significant difference adverse to black employees.

v. The length of time which was necessary to reach the 
target grade to any Career Ladder series was not substantially 
different for black and nonblack employees.

vi. In the Engineer Career Ladders the minimum time in 
the entry step was reduced and there was still no pattern of

VIZI21



adverse differences in time to promotion for black and nonblack 
employees.

vii. There is no evidence of a pattern and practice of 
discrimination against black employees in a Career Ladder at NARF 
during this period.

viii. The same conclusions are reached when the 
various analyses are applied to black and white as compared to 
black and nonblack employees in these twenty-one Career Ladder 
series.

i. Noncompetitive Promotion Overall. Analyses of the permanent 
noncompetitive promotions at NARF Jacksonville during the period 
from April 1, 1973 to December 31, 1982 indicate that:

i. Programs at NARF which generated internal 
noncompetitive promotions included developmental programs such as 
Apprentice, Career Ladder Series, Other Pro-Op Potential Series, 
Upward Mobility, Worker Trainee Opportunity, Cooperative Education 
and Other Training Programs.

ii. Other employment actions which resulted in internal 
noncompetitive promotions included Upgraded positions, Accretion 
of duties, and RIF repromotions.

iii. Within the FWS pay system there was no significant 
disparity between the number of black employees actually receiving 
permanent noncompetitive promotions and the number which would be 
predicted from their presence in each of the programs analyzed 
inferentially in this report.

VIZ222



iv. Within the GS pay system there was no significant 
disparity between the number of black employees actually receiving 
permanent noncompetitive promotions and the number which would be 
predicted from their presence in each of the programs analyzed 
inferentially in this report.

v. Within the FWS pay system there was no significant 
disparity between the overall completion rate of black and nonblack 
employees in each of the training or developmental programs 
analyzed.

vi. Within the GS pay system there was no significant 
disparity between the overall completion rate of black and nonblack 
employees in each of the training or developmental programs 
analyzed.

vii. Within the FWS pay system there was no significant 
disparity between the completion rate of black and nonblack 
employees in training programs in each job series in which these 
programs existed during this period.

viii. Within the GS pay system there was no significant 
disparity between the completion rate of black and nonblack 
employees in training programs in each job series in which these 
programs existed during this period.

ix. The completion patterns of black and nonblack 
employees in programs within the FWS and the GS pay systems were 
compared using survival functions. In the Upward Mobility Program 
only one series and grade (Aircraft Instrument Mechanic, WG-3359 
Grade 8) had a comparison significantly adverse to blacks. This

VII323



result was based on two black and none nonblack employees. One 
black and seven nonblack employees successfully completed the 
program. In the same program, black employees in the Industrial 
Engineering Technician series (GS-895) had shorter survival times 
than nonblack employees which resulted in a significant difference 
in the survival functions favoring black employees.

x. The same conclusions are reached when the various 
analyses are applied to black and white as compared to black and 
nonblack permanent noncompetitive promotions.

E. CONTENTIONS

1. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Sylvester Bailey with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 73-004 for a WS-7009-06 position.

2. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Sylvester Bailey with respect to merit 
promotion announcement UMP 73-007 for a WG-4107-07 position.

3. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Sylvester Bailey with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 75-033 for a WS-5417-06 position.

4. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Sylvester Bailey, and defendant asserts that all

VIZ424



5. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Herbert Bowman with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 83-588 for a WS-7009-06 position.

6. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Herbert Bowman with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 84-323 for a WS-7009-06 position.

7. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Herbert Bowman, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

8. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Johnny Bowman with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 84-064 for a WS-4102-06 position.

9. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Johnny Bowman, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

10. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons

employment actions with respect to this individual were based on
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

VI1525



11. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Dwayne Clark, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

12. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Irene Clarke with respect to merit promotion 
announcement UMP 79-012 for a WG-4631-07 position.

13. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Irene Clarke with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 82-334 for a GS-0260-7/9 position.

14. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Irene Clarke with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 82-574 for a GS-1910-11 position.

15. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Irene Clarke with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 83-247 for a GS-1910-11 position.

16. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Irene Clarke with respect to merit promotion

for its treatment of Dwayne Clark with respect to merit promotion
announcement 69-085 for a WG-2892-10 position.

VI2626



announcement 83-340 for a GS-1910-11 position.

17. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Irene Clarke with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 83-423 for a GS-1910-11 position.

18. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Irene Clarke with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 83-466 for a GS-1910-11 position.

19. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Irene Clarke with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 83-486 for a GS-1071-09 position.

20. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Irene Clarke with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 84-467 for a GS-1910-11 position.

21. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Irene Clarke with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 85-448 for a GS-1910-11 position.

22. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Irene Clarke with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 85-450 for a GS-1910-11 position.

VIZ727



23. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Irene Clarke with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 85-661 for a GS-1910-11 position.

24. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Irene Clarke, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

25. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Avie Davis with respect to merit promotion 
announcement UMP 80-002 for a WG-3714-08 position.

26. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Avie Davis with respect to merit promotion 
announcement UMP 80-005 for a GS-1910-05 position.

27. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Avie Davis with respect to merit promotion 
announcement UMP 80-007 for a GS-895-05 position.

28. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Avie Davis with respect to merit promotion 
announcement UMP 81-007 for a WG-8255-09 position.

29. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons

VII828



30. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Avie Davis with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 82-191 for a WG-7006-07 position.

31. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Avie Davis with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 82-537 for a WS-7006-07 position.

32. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Avie Davis with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 83-073 for a WS-7004-06 position.

33. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Avie Davis with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 83-196 for a WG-6910-07 position.

34. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Avie Davis with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 83-589 for a WG-8852-05 position.

35. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Avie Davis with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 84-069 for a WT-3414-00 position.

for its treatment of Avie Davis with respect to merit promotion
announcement 81-420 for a WS-7004-06 position.

VIZ929



36. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Avie Davis with respect to merit promotion 
announcement UMP 84-295 for a WG-3806-08 position.

37. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Avie Davis with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 84-317 for a WS-7004-06 position.

38. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Avie Davis with respect to merit promotion 
announcement UMP 84-478 for a WG-4361-07 position.

39. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Avie Davis with respect to merit promotion 
announcement UMP 84-479 for a WG-3707-08 position.

40. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Avie Davis with respect to merit promotion 
announcement UMP 84-480 for a WG-8852-08 position.

41. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Avie Davis with respect to merit promotion 
announcement UMP 84-481 for a WG-3711-07 position.

42. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons

VII03O



for its treatment of Avie Davis with respect to merit promotion
announcement UMP 84-482 for a WG-8201-07 position.

43. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Avie Davis, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

44. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Richard Edwards with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 73-075 for a WS-4102-13 position.

45. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Richard Edwards with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 79-032 for a WS-4102-09 position.

46. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Richard Edwards with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 81-576 for a WS-4102-09 position.

47. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Richard Edwards, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

48. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons

VIIi31



49. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Marcus Ellison with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 71-046 for a GS-1152-05 position.

50. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Marcus Ellison with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 75-087 for a GS-1152-07 position.

51. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Marcus Ellison with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 78-128 for a GS-1152-08 position.

52. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Marcus Ellison with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 78-233 for a GS-1152-08 position.

53. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Marcus Ellison with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 79-253 for a WG-8602-08 position.

54. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Marcus Ellison with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 81-190 for a GS-1152-08 position.

for its treatment of Marcus Ellison with respect to merit promotion
announcement 68-110 for a GS-1152-06 position.

VII232



55. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Marcus Ellison with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 81-484 for a GS-1152-09 position.

56. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this plaintiff, Marcus Ellison, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

57. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Beverly George with respect to merit promotion 
announcement UMP 77-002 for a WG-8455-8 position.

58. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Beverly George with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 78-039 for a WS-7009-6 position.

59. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Beverly George with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 78-364 for a WG-3711-7 position.

60. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Beverly George with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 81-164 for a GS-1152-7 position.

VII933



61. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Beverly George with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 81-575 for a WS-7009-6 position.

62. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Beverly George with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 83-071 for a WS-7009-6 position.

63. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Beverly George with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 83-588 for a WS-7009-6 position.

64. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Beverly George with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 84-323 for a WS-7009-6 position.

65. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Beverly George with respect to merit promotion 
announcement UMP 84-479 for a WG-3707-8 position.

66. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Beverly George with respect to merit promotion 
announcement UMP 84-480 for a WG-8852-8 position.

67. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Beverly George, and defendant asserts that all

VI2434



employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

68. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of John Grier with respect to merit promotion 
announcement UMP 78-003 for a WG-8852-8 position.

69. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of John Grier with respect to merit promotion 
announcement UMP 78-007 for a WG-3707-8 position.

70. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, John Grier, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

71. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Edvie Jean Guy with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 79-122 for a GS-560-12 position.

72. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Edvie Jean Guy with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 79-221 for a GS-560-11 position.

73. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Edvie Jean Guy with respect to merit promotion

VII535



announcement 80-054 for a GS-343-12 position.

74. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Edvie Jean Guy, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

75. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Clarence Hester with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 81-168 for a GS-1152-5 position.

76. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Clarence Hester with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 83-196 for a WG-6910-7 position.

77. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Clarence Hester with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 83-331 for a GS-1152-7 position.

78. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Clarence Hester, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

79. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of John Jenkins with respect to merit promotion

VII636



announcement 76-099 for a WG-5210-10 position.

80. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of John Jenkins with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 76-242 for a WG-5210-10 position.

81. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of John Jenkins with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 83-234 for a WS-5705-5 position.

82. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, John Jenkins, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

83. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Gradson Johnson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 68-110 for a GS-1152-06 position.

84. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Gradson Johnson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 69-110 for a GS-1152-07 position.

85. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Gradson Johnson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 71-046 for a GS-1152-05 position.

VI1737



86. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Gradson Johnson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 71-047 for a GS-1152-06 position.

87. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Gradson Johnson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 75-132 for a GS-1152-08 position.

88. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Gradson Johnson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 79-228 for a GS-1152-09 position.

89. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Gradson Johnson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 81-170 for a GS-1152-09 position.

90. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Gradson Johnson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 83-014 for a GS-1152-11 position.

91. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Gradson Johnson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 83-077 for a GS-1152-11 position.

92. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons

VII838



93. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Gradson Johnson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 84-021 for a GS-1152-11 position.

94. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Gradson Johnson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 84-165 for a GS-1152-11 position.

95. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this plaintiff, Gradson Johnson, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

96. Defendant denies all allegations of discrimination made by 
witness Leroy Littles and defendant asserts that all employment 
actions with respect to this individual were based on legitimate, 
nondiscrminatory reasons.

97. Defendant denies all allegations of discrimination made by 
William McKinney and defendant asserts that all employment actions 
with respect to this individual were based on legitimate, 
nondiscrminatory reasons.

for its treatment of Gradson Johnson with respect to merit
promotion announcement 83-488 for a GS-1152-11 position.

VI1939



98. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Lawrence Mack with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 79-377 for a WG-3414-11 position.

99. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Lawrence Mack with respect to merit promotion 
announcement 80-310 for a WG-2854-9 position.

100. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Lawrence Mack, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

101. Defendant denies all allegations of discrimination made by 
Willie Moran, and defendant asserts that all employment actions 
with respect to this individual were based on legitimate, 
nondiscrminatory reasons.

102. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Juanita Moore with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 80-189 for a GS-1910-11 position.

103. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Juanita Moore with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 82-005 for a GS-343-9 position.

VII94 0



104. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Juanita Moore with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 82-474 for a GS-1910-11 position.

105. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Juanita Moore, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

106. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Andre Neal with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 71-046 for a GS-1152-5 position.

107. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Andre Neal with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 75-087 for a GS-1152-7 position.

108. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Andre Neal with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 80-129 for a GS-1152-9 position.

109. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Andre Neal with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 82-451 for a GS-1152-9 position.

110. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory

VII141



reasons for its treatment of Andre Neal with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 83-034 for a GS-2010-11 position.

111. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Andre Neal with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 83-036 for a GS-2005-11 position.

112. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Andre Neal with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 83-065 for a GS-1152-9 position.

113. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Andre Neal with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 83-332 for a GS-1152-9 position.

114. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Andre Neal, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

115. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Andrew Norris with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 69-037 for a WB-26061-08 position.

116. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Andrew Norris with respect to merit

VII242



117. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Andrew Norris with respect to merit 
promotion anouncement 73-019 for a WG-2614-11 position.

118. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this plaintiff, Andrew Norris, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

119. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of George Peterson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 80-488 for a WG-8602-8 position.

120. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of George Peterson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 82-157 for a WG-8602-9 position.

121. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of George Peterson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 83-108 for a WG-8602-9 position.

122. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of George Peterson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 83-530 for a WG-8602-9 position.

promotion announcement 69-079 for a WG-2614-11 position.

VII943



123. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, George Peterson, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

124. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Willie Robinson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 70-039 for a GS-335-04 position.

125. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Willie Robinson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 71-071 for a GS-1710-11 position.

126. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Willie Robinson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 72-095 for a GS-160-7/9 position.

127. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Willie Robinson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 73-019 for a WG-2614-11 position.

128. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Willie Robinson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement UMP 74-018 for a GS-895-07 position.

VII444



129. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Willie Robinson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 74-196 for a WG-2614-12 position.

130. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Willie Robinson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement UMP 75-001 for a GS-895-7 position.

131. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Willie Robinson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 75-118 for a WS-2614-12 position.

132. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Willie Robinson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 76-019 for a GS-1101-12 position.

133. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Willie Robinson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 76-227 for a WS-2650-12 position.

134. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Willie Robinson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 80-247 for a WS-2614-12 position.

135. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Willie Robinson with respect to merit

VII545



136. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Willie Robinson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 81-035 for a GS-895-10 position.

137. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Willie Robinson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 81-317 for a WG-2614-12 position.

138. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Willie Robinson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 81-574 for a WG-2602-12 position.

139. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Willie Robinson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 82-534 for a WG-2602-12 position.

140. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Willie Robinson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 82-581 for a WS-2604-11 position.

141. Defendant contends has legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons 
for its treatment of Willie Robinson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 83-014 for a GS-1152-11 position.

promotion announcement 80-524 for a WG-2602-11 position.

VII64 6



142. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Willie Robinson with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 83-503 for a WG-2604-11 position.

143. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this plaintiff, Willie Robinson, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

144. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of S. K. Sanders with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 68-110 for a GS-1152-06 position.

145. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of S. K. Sanders with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 68-123 for a GS-1152-07 position.

146. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of S. K. Sanders with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 68-402 for a GS-1152-07 position.

147. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of S. K. Sanders with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 69-110 for a GS-1152-07 position.

148. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory

VII747



149. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of S. K. Sanders with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 71-046 for a GS-1152-05 position.

150. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of S. K. Sanders with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 71-047 for a GS-1152-06 position.

151. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of S. K. Sanders with respect to merit 
promotion announcement UMP 74-018 for a GS-895-07 position.

152. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of S. K. Sanders with respect to merit 
promotion announcement UMP 75-001 for a GS-895-07 position.

153. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of S. K. Sanders with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 75-087 for a GS-1152-07 position.

154. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of S. K. Sanders with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 75-132 for a GS-1152-08 position.

reasons for its treatment of S. K. Sanders with respect to merit
promotion announcement 71-002 for a GS-1152-07 position.

VII848



155. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of S. K. Sanders with respect to merit 
promotion announcement UMP 79-008 for a WG-3711-07 position.

156. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of S. K. Sanders with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 84-012 for a GS-895-09 position.

157. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this plaintiff, S. K. Sanders, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

158. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Eugene Sawyer with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 71-046 for a GS-1152-5 position.

159. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Eugene Sawyer with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 72-051 for a WS-7001-6 position.

160. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Eugene Sawyer, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

VII949



161. Defendant denies all allegations of discrimination made by 
Abraham Scott, Jr. and defendant asserts that all employment 
actions with respect to this individual were based on legitimate, 
nondiscrminatory reasons.

162. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory
reasons for its treatment of Ulysees Shuman with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 78-044 for a WS-4102-9 position.

163. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory
reasons for its treatment of Ulysees Shuman with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 79-032 for a WS-4102-9 position.

164. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory
reasons for its treatment of Ulysees Shuman with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 81-576 for a WS-4102-9 position.

165. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory
reasons for its treatment of Ulysees Shuman with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 84-185 for a WS-4102-9 position.

166. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Ulysees Shuman, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

VI5950



167. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Wayne Sifford with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 79-192 for a WG-6904-6 position.

168. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Wayne Sifford with respect to merit 
promotion announcement UMP 81-007 for a WG-8255-9 position.

169. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Wayne Sifford with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 81-197 for a WG-6910-7 position.

170. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Wayne Sifford, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

171. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Henry Singleton with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 69-110 for a GS-1152-7 position.

172. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Henry Singleton with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 71-046 for a GS-1152-5 position.

VI5i51



173. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Henry Singleton with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 71-047 for a GS-1152-6 position.

174. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Henry Singleton with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 75-087 for a GS-1152-7 position.

175. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Henry Singleton, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

176. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of James Siplin with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 71-046 for a GS-1152-5 position.

177. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of James Siplin with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 72-070 for a GS-1152-4 position.

178. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of James Siplin with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 75-087 for a GS-1152-7 position.

179. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory

VI5252



180. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, James Siplin, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

181. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Charles Sneed with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 73-076 for a WS-4102-9 position.

182. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Charles Sneed, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

183. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Walter Ware with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 77-120 for a GS-160-12 position.

184. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Walter Ware with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 77-139 for a GS-160-11 position.

185. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory

reasons for its treatment of James Siplin with respect to merit
promotion announcement 78-004 for a GS-1152-7 position.

VIS353



186. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Walter Ware with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 84-030 for a GS-235-12 position.

187. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Walter Ware, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

188. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Harry Williams with respect to merit 
promotion announcement UMP 80-005 for a GS-1910-5 position.

189. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Harry Williams with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 81-536 for a WG-4102-9 position.

190. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Harry Williams with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 82-488 for a WG-4102-9 position.

191. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Harry Williams with respect to merit

reasons for its treatment of Walter Ware with respect to merit
promotion announcement 80-438 for a GS-160-12 position.

VI5454



promotion announcement 83-464 for a GS-1910-5 position.

192. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Harry Williams with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 83-465 for a GS-1910-7 position.

193. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Harry Williams with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 83-501 for a WG-4102-9 position.

194. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness, Harry Williams, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

195. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 77-215 for a GS-301-5 position.

196. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 77-221 for a GS-301-4 position.

197. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 77-222 for a GS-301-4 position.

VI5555



198. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 77-235 for a GS-1087-5 position.

199. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 78-148 for a GS-301-4 position.

200. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 80-228 for a GS-332-6 position.

201. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 81-207 for a GS-332-4 position.

202. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 81-209 for a GS-332-5 position.

203. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 81-628 for a GS-1101-5 position.

204. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory

VI5656



205. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 81-630 for a GS-1101-9 position.

206. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 82-002 for a GS-818-5 position.

207. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 82-003 for a GS-343-5 position.

208. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 82-517 for a GS-1910-5 position.

209. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 83-019 for a GS-332-5 position.

210. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 83-279 for a GS-334-5 position.

reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to
merit promotion announcement 81-629 for a GS-1101-7 position.

VI5757



211. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 83-464 for a GS-1910-5 position.

212. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 84-062 for a GS-332-5 position.

213. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 84-183 for a GS-018-7 position.

214. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 84-190 for a GS-018-5 position.

215. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 84-215 for a GS-343-7 position.

216. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Patricia Williams with respect to 
merit promotion announcement 84-216 for a GS-343-5 position.

217. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made

VI5858



by this witness, Patricia Williams, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

218. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Rufus Wright with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 82-517 for a GS-1910-5 position.

219. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Rufus Wright with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 82-518 for a GS-1910-7 position.

220. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Rufus Wright with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 83-111 for a GS-1152-9 position.

221. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Rufus Wright with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 83-266 for a GS-1152-9 position.

222. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Rufus Wright with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 83-332 for a GS-1152-9 position.

223. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Rufus Wright with respect to merit

VI5959



promotion announcement 83-464 for a GS-1910-5 position.

224. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Rufus Wright with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 83-465 for a GS-1910-7 position.

225. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Rufus Wright with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 84-089 for a GS-1152-9 position.

226. Defendant contends it has legitimate nondiscriminatory 
reasons for its treatment of Rufus Wright with respect to merit 
promotion announcement 84-247 for a GS-1152-9 position.

227. Defendant denies all other allegations of discrimination made 
by this witness Rufus Wright, and defendant asserts that all 
employment actions with respect to this individual were based on 
legitimate, nondiscrminatory reasons.

VI8E960



VIII. Issues of Law Which Remain
For Determination by The Court

A. Plaintiffs' Statement of Disputed Issues of Law.
The following issues of law remain to be decided:

1. Whether plaintiffs have proved by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant follows employment practices, policies 
and usages that discriminate against black employees with respoect 
to promotions and other terms and conditions of employment.

2. Whether the defendant's actions toward black employees 
were based on race and other non-job related factors not 
constituting a business necessity.

3. Whether the defendant's policies and practice with 
respect to employees were the result of an intention to 
discriminate on the basis of race.

4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief prayed for 
in their complaint and for all other just and proper relief deemed 
appropriate, including promotions and back pay.

Futhermore, consistent with plaintiffs' general 
statement of the case, plaintiffs' contend that the issues raised 
by the defendant, (see cuboeo below), regarding the status
of the named plaintiffs, and the scope of the class and class 
claims have been fully considered and resolved by this court. It 
follows that these issues need not be additionally addressed prior 
to the commencement of trial.
B. Defendant's Statement of Issues of Law.

Defendant objects to plaintiffs' statement of legal issues on

vim -i



the grounds that the plaintiffs are framing factual issues as legal 
issues; and that the sanctions imposed by the Court bar plaintiffs 
from introducing evidence on certain of the issues.

The issues of law remaining for determination by the Court fall
in two categories: (1) those issues that properly should be
determined by the Court prior to the commencement of trial so that
the complex matters before the Court can be tried in an efficient
manner as possible and (2) those issues of the law that are the
focus of claims and defenses in this case and that need not be
resolved prior to the trial of this matter.
A. Issues of Law that Should Be Resolved 

Prior to the Commencement of Trial

1. Proper Named Plaintiff(s).
a . Andrew Norris. 

Defendant contends that the only proper named plaintiff in this
matter is Andrew Norris. The fact that Mr. Norris is deceased does
not bar him from serving as the named plaintiff and class
representative.

b. Willie Robinson. 
Willie Robinson is not a proper named plaintiff pursuant to the 
applicable law in this Circuit because he did not exhaust his 
administrative remedies and because he did not timely file suit 
after the agency notified him of its final decision relative to 
his individual administrative complaint. If any claims of Willie 
Robinson are presented at trial, they must be presented solely in 
his proper status as a classmember witness.

VIEr-2



Gradson Johnson.c .
Gradson Johnson is not a proper named plaintiff pursuant to the 
applicable law in this Circuit because he did not exhaust his 
administrative remedies and because he did not timely file suit 
after the agency notified him of its final decision relative to 
his individual administrative complaint. If any claims of Gradson 
Johnson are presented at trial, they must be presented solely in 
his proper status as a classmember witness.

d. Marcus Ellison. Marcus 
Ellison is not a proper named plaintiff pursuant to the applicable 
law in this Circuit because he did not exhaust his administrative 
remedies and because he did not timely file suit after the agency 
notified him of its final decision relative to his individual 
administrative complaint. If any claims of Marcus Ellison are 
presented at trial, they must be presented solely in his proper 
status as a classmember witness.

e. S. K. Sanders. S. K. 
Sanders is not a proper named plaintiff pursuant to the applicable 
law in this Circuit because he did not exhaust his administrative 
remedies and because he did not timely file suit after the agency 
notified him of its final decision relative to his individual 
administrative complaint. If any claims of S. K. Sanders are 
presented at trial, they must be presented solely in his proper 
status as a classmember witness.

VIBE-3



Willie Moran. Thisf.
Court has already ordered that his status is not that of a named 
plaintiff. In any event, Mr. Moran would not be a proper named 
plaintiff pursuant to the applicable law in this Circuit because 
he did not exhaust his administrative remedies and because he did 
not timely file suit after the agency notified him of its final 
decision relative to his individual administrative complaint. If 
any claims of Willie Moran are presented at trial, they must be 
presented solely in his proper status as a classmember witness.

2. Scope of the Class and Class Claims
Now that the extensive discovery conducted in this class has 

been closed, it is appropriate for the Court to define the scope 
of the class claims so that trial in this complex matter can 
proceed as efficiently as possible.

a. The defendant contends that the class claim properly before 
the Court is whether the defendant has intentionally discriminated 
against the class on the basis of r ace in noncompetitive 
promotions which result from reclassification actions. This 
definition of the class claims in the lawsuit is the only legally 
permissible one because: (1) it is the only claim properly raised
in plaintiff Norris' timely-filed administrative complaint; (2) it 
is the only claim plaintiff Norris, and therefore, the class, has 
standing to raise; and (3) the claim is not upon the disparate 
impact theory of discrimination, a type of claim precluded by the

VI HE-4



sanctions imposed upon the plaintiffs for abusing discovery.
b. Inasmuch as the only legally permissible class claim is a 

narrow one, the Court's pretrial order should limit proof at trial 
to that claim. The Court may, however, hear evidence on a broader 
range of claims and reserve a determination on whether the class 
claimer should be narrowly defined until after trial. While the 
defendant contends that the only class claim properly before the 
court is the claim defined in para 2(a) above, the defendant is 
prepared to present evidence on the issue of whether there was a 
pattern or practice of discrimination against the class on the 
basis of race in connection with FWS and GS promotions.

B. Legal Issues That Do Not Require Resolution
Prior to The Commencement of Trial___________
1. Job Categories for FWS Jobs

Defendant contends that, pursuant to applicable law in this 
circuit and given the wide range of diverse jobs in the NARF's FWS 
work force, meaningful statistical comparison relative to 
FWS positions must control for job category.

2. Occupation Categories for GS Occupation 
Defendant contends that, pursuant to applicable law in this

circuit and given the wide range of diverse occupations in the 
NARF's GS work force, meaningful statistical comparison relative 
to GS positions must control for occupation category.

3. Qualifications for FWS Jobs

VIEE-5



Defendants contend that it is manifest that special
qualifications are required for many of the FWS jobs at NARF and
that, pursuant to applicable law in this circuit, meaninqful
statistical comparisons relative to FWS positions must account for 
special qualifications.

4. Qualifications for GS Positions 
Defendants contend that it is manifest that special

qualifications are required for many of the GS occupations at NARF 
and that, pursuant to applicable law in this circuit, meaningful 
statistical comparisons relative to GS positions must account for 
special qualifications.

5. Continuing Violations
Defendant contends that pursuant to the applicable law in 

this Circuit, acts occurring
prior to the relevant time period do not become actionable unless 
plaintiff can prove that the three following conditions are met: 
(1) a pattern and practice of discrimination relative to a specific 
employment practice is found to have occurred during the relevant 
time period; (2) a pattern and practice of discrimination relative 
to the employment practice is found to have occurred prior to the 
relevant charging period; (3) that a substantial nexus exists 
between the employment practice prior to the relevant time period 
and that practice during the relevant time period. Defendant 
further contends that in terms of statistical evidence the required 
showing involves: (1) proper evidence of statistically significant

VIH-6



adverse disparities results based only on acts occurring during the 
relevant time period; (2) proper evidence of statistically 
significant adverse disparities based only on acts occurring prior 
to the relevant time period, and (3) proof of the substantial nexus 
between the practice in the two different time periods.

VIIZE-7



IX. STATEMENT OF ANY DISAGREEMENT AS TO
APPLICATION OF FEDERAL RULES OF 
EVIDENCE OR CIVIL PROCEDURE

A. Defendant's Position Regarding the Effect of Sanctions
On November 14, 1984 and January 14, 1985, Magistrate Snider 

entered orders granting defendant's motions for sanctions in part. 
These orders were affirmed by the court on May 6, 1985.

Both plaintiffs and defendant has relied on these sanctions in 
preparing this case for trial. Plaintiffs never supplied defendant 
with the missing information and defendant has not prepared any 
rebuttal to claims barred by the sanctions. Defendant notes 
however that certain statistical evidence identified by plaintiffs 
as the analyses they intend to rely on at trial is barred by the 
sanctions. In addition, plaintiffs and class member witnesses have 
alleged certain incidents of discrimination which, if they 
testified to them, would violate the Court's order. Because 
plaintiffs have not specified which incidents they intend to offer 
testimony at trial, defendant is unable to state for certain that 
such evidence will be offered.
In any event, defendant will be severely prejudiced at trial if 
plaintiffs are permitted to offer any evidence which has been 
banned by sanctions since 1985. Not only has defendant not 
prepared a defense to this excluded evidence, defendant is still

IX-1 1



in the dark regarding the specifics of plaintiffs' allegations 
which were the subject of the sanctions.

In the November 14, 1984 Order, the following sanctions were
imposed:

(a) The initial interrogatories are numbers 6 and 7, and relate 
to job eligibility reguirements. Defendant asked Plaintiffs to 
list all eligibility standards they alleged were inconsistently 
applied and the factual underpinning of the claim. Despite two 
orders from this court, Plaintiffs have failed adequately to 
respond. Defendant's records have been available to Plaintiffs 
since 1979. Defendant contends that a list of challenged 
requirements is a stage 1 issue in this case and is crucial for 
Defendant as considerable time would be necessary to test the 
requirement's validity once Defendant knew which to test. 
Plaintiffs indicated that the specific eligibility standards 
probably will not be challenged. Plaintiffs do desire to preserve 
their option to argue the point.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to properly respond 
to the Court's discovery orders on these interrogatories, and that 
permitting them to raise specific eligibility standards at trial 
would be unfairly prejudicial to Defendant. Accordingly, the 
Motion is GRANTED as to interrogatories 6 and 7. Plaintiffs are 
forbidden from introducing at trial any evidence challenging any 
of Defendant's specific eligibility standards as being 
inconsistently applied. including any evidence of specific 
instances of inconsistent application. [Emphasis added.]

•k k  ★

(d) Interrogatory 19(c) asks what alternative traits or 
performance areas should be used by supervisors in making promotion 
evaluations. Plaintiffs state that the evaluations are unduly 
subjective, and list no specific alternatives. The Court finds 
Plaintiffs have not adequately answered interrogatory 19(c) despite 
previous orders of the court, and the Motion as to it is GRANTED. 
At trial, plaintiffs shall present no evidence to show that 
alternative traits or performance areas should be used by 
Defendant. [Emphasis added.]

(e) Interrogatory 24 asks Plaintiffs to list all departments 
and high level positions from which blacks have been systematically 
excluded, how they have been excluded, and where they have not been 
so excluded. Plaintiffs have provided general documentary evidence 
but have not specifically answered the interrogatory after being 
ordered to do so. The information they have provided to Defendant 
does not identify what specific departments and high level 
positions blacks have been excluded from. Defendant was entitled
IX-2 2



to this information. Plaintiffs have been ordered by the Court to 
provide it. The Motion as to interrogatory 24 is GRANTED. 
Plaintiffs may offer no evidence at trial to show systematic 
exclusion of blacks from any specific departments or high level 
positions.rEmphasis added.]

*  *  *

(h) Interrogatories 48 and 49 ask for a list of facially neutral 
laws, rules, regulations, policies, standards, practices or 
procedures (hereinafter laws) that have a disparate impact on class 
members and for a list of the laws that are discriminatory per se. 
Plaintiffs have failed to provide a satisfactory list under either 
interrogatory, instead blaming alleged problems upon subjectivity 
of treatment and application of the laws. Plaintiffs have been 
ordered to answer by the Court. Because Plaintiffs have not stated 
specific laws to which they object per se or as applied, the Motion 
as to interrogatories 48 and 49 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are 
forbidden from introducing any evidence at trial that particular 
facially neutral laws have a disparate impact upon class members, 
or that any laws are discriminatory per se. [Emphasis added.]

The January 14, 1985 Order granted three other sanctions
regarding interrogatories propounded by defendant:

With regard to interrogatory 21, it asked Plaintiffs to list 
each promotional board on which blacks have been inadequately 
represented. Plaintiffs have failed to do so despite numerous 
opportunities and orders of the Court. The Renewed Motion as to 
interrogatory 21 is GRANTED. At trial. Plaintiffs may offer no 
evidence that blacks were inadequately represented on any 
promotional board. [Emphasis added.]

As to interrogatory 27(b), it asked what led to disproportionate 
concentration of blacks into one area of Defendant's workforce. 
Again, no complete answer despite several orders of the Court. The 
Renewed Motion as to interrogatory 27(b) is GRANTED. At trial. 
Plaintiffs may offer no evidence of a concentration of blacks 
caused by an employment classification system in the Production 
Controller's Division.[Emphasis added.]

Finally, interrogatory 40(c) asked the levels for which blacks 
were qualified to enter employment versus those in which they were 
placed and how those in which they were placed were inferior to 
those for which they were qualified. Despite various court orders, 
the interrogatory has not been satisfactorily answered. The 
Renewed Motion as to it is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall present no 
evidence at trial that there were placement levels for which blacks 
were otherwise qualified by where they were not placed and how 
those levels were superior to the levels deemed inferior. [Emphasis 
added.]
IX-3 3



The effect of these sanctions is to bar certain portions of 
plaintiffs' case altogether. For example, this last sanction 
regarding interrogatory 40(c) would preclude any evidence from 
plaintiffs regarding initial placement of blacks in the workforce. 
That ban would include statistical evidence and testimony of 
plaintiffs and other class witnesses regarding their position when 
initially hired. Defendant has prepared neither statistical nor 
anecdotal evidence to respond to allegations of discrimination in 
initial placement. Defendant notes that plaintiffs' statistical 
exhibits Nos. 9(2), (3), and (6) relate almost exclusively to 
initial placement. Accordingly, defendant objected to these 
exhibits in section II.

In a similar vein, defendant has not attempted to validate any 
eligibility standards since plaintiffs never identified any that 
needed to be validated and are now barred from doing so by the 
sanction imposed under interrogatories 6 and 7.

Defendant notes that plaintiffs are precluded by the sanction 
imposed under interrogatories 48 and 49 from introducing any 
evidence that any facially neutral laws, rules, regulations, 
policies, standards, practices or procedures have a disparate 
impact on class members or are discriminatory per se. It is 
defendant's position that this sanction eliminates disparate impact 
as an issue in this case. Accordingly, defendant has not sought 
to defend any laws, rules, regulations, policies, standards, 
practices or procedures from a disparate impact or discriminatory

IX-4 4



per se claim.
Defendant is concerned because plaintiffs' statistical exhibits 

as identified during Dr. Shapiro's deposition included large 
amounts of material that would be subject to the prohibition of the 
sanctions. Whgen plaintiffs identify the statistical exhibits on 
which they intend to rely, defendant will be able to more 
particularly demonstrate the basis for objection.

Similarly, plaintiffs and their class witnesses have identified 
during their depositions and in interrogatories certain allegations 
which would be subject to the ban of the sanctions. When 
plaintiffs identify the incidents on which they intend to offer 
evidence at trial, defendant can particularize his objections.
B. Plaintiffs' Position Regarding Sanction

On October 15, 1986 in response to an invitation by this Court, 
the defendant filed a memorandum supporting its interpretation of 
the effecrts of sanctions imposed upon plaintiffs, as a result of 
the difficulties encountered by plaintiffs in completing the 
discovery process necessary to preparing their statistical case 
against the defendant. At that time the defendant sought 
essentially the same interpretation it now asserts for those 
sanctions.

At that time plaintiffs responded first, that the underlying 
sanctions were themselves improper, representing as they do an 
unfair punishiment of plaintiffs, confronted with unavoidable 
delays associated with developing a complicated computerized data 
base from hard copy files. Second, that much of the information

IX-5 5



plaintiffs were to be precluded from offering at trial was in the 
possession and control of the defendant, e.g., the racial makeup 
of promotion boards or rating panels, or had been provided to the 
defendant at an earlier proceeding, e.g. statistical data from the 
class certification hearing which identified the racial 
stratification of the defendant's workforce.

Additionally, plaintiffs argued that the defendant's assertion 
that plaintiffs' were precluded from advancing a disparate impact 
theory in proving racial discrimination against this defendant was 
without support in this Circuit. In ruling from the bench on 
January 8, 1987, this Court rejected the defendant's argument that 
plaintiff's were precluded from advancing a disparate impact claim, 
a position recently adopted by the United States Supreme Court in 
Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust. No. 86-6139, June 29, 1988), and 
likewise held that the sanctions entered against the plaintiffs 
were unambiguous and that an order of interpretation was 
unnecessary.

IX-6 6



X. LIST OF ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS & OTHER MATTERS

Xil



XI SIGNATURE OF COUNSEL

Respectfully submitted,

JULIUS L. CHAMBERS 
CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON 
RONALD L. ELLIS 
CLYDE E. MURPHY

99 Hudson Street 
Suite 1600
New York, New York 10013 
(212) 219-1900

ROBERT W. MERKLE
United States Attorney 

JOHN E. LAWLOR, III
Assistant United States 

Attorney
JAMES H. PHILLIPS

Senior Trial Attorney 
DANIEL E. O'CONNELL, JR.

EDWARD DAWKINS
1248 West Edgewood Avenue 
Jacksonville, Florida 32208

Associate Chief Trial 
Attorney 

RICK HIPPLE
Trial Attorney 
Litigation Office 
Office Of The General 
Counsel
Department Of The Navy 
Washington, D.C.

20360-5110 
(202) 746-1020

JAMES R. DIKEMAN 
Assistant Counsel 
Naval Aviation Depot 
Naval Air Station 
Jacksonville, Florida 

32212
(904) 772-5507

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

1.Plaintiffs Willie Moran and Andrew Norris are deceased.

xn-i