Case No. 98CV5863 Plaintiffs' Opening Breif November 1998

Home Browse Search

instance, it appears that DOP did not rely on Arizona's professional human resource classifier. [Record Vol. XV, p. 6930 -35] The State of California did not utilize the survey form, but instead provided DOP with a data printout of 16 pages. It is unclear how DOP was able to use this data in its subsequent calculations. Since no capsule descriptions were given and no other records showing the relational and logic behind DOP's use of data, it clearly shows an arbitrary use of California's information. [Record Vol. XV, p. 6936 -51] The State of Connecticut [Record Vol. XV, pp. 6952- 53]did not fill out DOP's survey form but sent back a print out for the DOP to match job descriptions. The data provided did not contain capsule job descriptions as is required by DOP, and according to DOP procedures should not have been used, which caused DOP to arbitrarily and capriciously change data provided by Connecticut to meet its biased conclusions, such as changing the Level D positions provided by Connecticut to Level C positions. [Record Vol. XV, pp. 6952 -53, and Record Vol. XV, pp. 7255 & 7260] The State of Georgia did fill out part of DOP's survey form but had to make modifications to the form and still could not complete the form in its entirety. The data provided by Georgia did not include capsule descriptions for the different levels of the same work, as is required by DOP procedures, and according to DOP procedures, these data should not have been used. [Record Vol. XV, pp. 6955 -60] The State of Illinois did not fill out DOP's survey form, but rather sent back a computer printout and the DOP had to match job descriptions. The data provided by Illinois did not include capsule descriptions, as is required by DOP, and it is impossible to determine how DOP matched Illinois data to Colorado job classes without additional information or some type of capsule descriptions. There is no record showing that DOP communicated with Illinois to clearly understand how the survey was completed. [Record Vol. XV, pp. 6968 -72] The State of Iowa did fill out part of DOP's survey form but not in its entirety. The data provided by Iowa did not include capsule descriptions for the different levels of the same work, as is required by DOP procedures. Since there is no record of contact made by DOP with the respondent from Iowa, it appears that DOP arbitrarily chose to use the Iowa data on trainees and journeyman levels in both the "A" and `B" levels of its calculations, although there were no capsule descriptions to justify this placement. [Record Vol. XV, pp. 6979 -84] The State of New Jersey [Record Vol. XV, pp. 7061 -66], as well as other states, used data with obvious pay differentials (not clear whether shift differential or locality pay) despite DOP's position that differentials invalidated federal data sources and were part of stated reason for excluding the same. Data from three identically paid engineer occupations in the Texas survey were included as three separate data points, skewing the differential calculated with this data. [Record Vol. XV, pp. 7125 -30] DOP in its position statement states "...the job matching process is not a scientific process; it requires the use of judgment to measure the important part of jobs when making comparisons on what is a reasonable match and what is clearly a different class of work." Page 5