THIS IS WHAT MERIT PROMOTION RACISM LOOKS LIKE

We have reported on a number of cases where the EEOC found the agency’s promotion process to be irrational, nonsensical or worse.  Generally, that is based on scoring decisions that are outright ridiculous.  Sadly, it is too polite to declare that the scoring decisions were based on blatant racism, sexism, etc.  But few cases are as obvious as this one and provide as good a guide for employees or their representatives on how to dissect a merit system scoring process.

In this case the employee applied for promotion to a job that ultimately paid three grades higher than her own. That is a big deal.  When the scoring was done two other candidates had higher totals than she did and the agency selected them instead.  But when the EEOC looked closely at the scoring process it found the following:

To that end, Complainant argues that the Agency’s scoring process was flawed in that points were awarded to the White, and mostly younger Selectees, for unanswered questions, baselessly elevating their scores over that of Complainant. The record evidence reveals that Candidate 1 was awarded 14 points for asking no questions in response to the final second-round interview question…. Similarly, Candidate 2 was awarded 15 points…. In contrast, Complainant was awarded 14 points because she asked “great questions” about the Agency’s core values and its response to the pandemic….We find rewarding non-answers with scores equal to or greater than substantial answers provide sufficient circumstantial evidence to meet the substantial evidence standard of review. (See what we mean about EEOC being too polite. That is serious racism smoke by any standard.)

Indeed, we note that prior to her selection, Candidate 2 processed invoices and expense reports and performed human resources duties. Candidate 3, on the other hand, worked as a ski instructor, horse wrangler, and Amazon fulfillment worker. While the Agency argues that these experiences made Candidate 2 and Candidate 3 more qualified than Complainant, we note that Complainant had Agency specific work experience, which neither Candidates 2 nor 3 had. Furthermore, we note that in their interview notes, the State Committee members did not point to any specific agricultural work experience that either Candidate 2 or Candidate 3 had, but rather awarded them more points than Complainant based on vague “life experiences” and education. Ultimately, we share the AJ’s concerns regarding the Agency’s explanation. (Again, EEOC fails to call that nonsense what it really is.)

EEOC ordered the employee promoted retroactive to July 2021 and gave her an additional $52,000 in compensatory damages. It also ordered the agency to consider taking disciplinary actions against the managers involved.  For more details, check out Dominica V., v.  Brooke Rollins, Sec’y, Dep’t of Agriculture, EEOC Nos. 2024000872 and 2024000992 (2026).  For some of the previous FEDSMILL advice about how EEOC has ripped apart merit selection scoring systems, click here FEDSMILL.com