Fed job question- interview requirements
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Well I just beat out a Veteran for a job so nothing is a done deal. |
Anonymous
Of course it is possible to selected over a veteran. It happens all the time. I mentioned VEOA because agencies can hire highly qualified disabled vets without conducting any interviews, which was the question. |
Anonymous
Beating out a veteran is not comparable to beating out an internal candidate who the job was designed for. |
Anonymous
First, if this job falls within the categorythat requires competitive hiring, it is illegal to "wire" the position so that a specific candidate can be hired. See http://www.mspb.gov/ppp/aprppp.htm. Second, and this is a general rule, for most competitive hire positions there are three certificates (ie lists) of "qualified" candidates. The candidiates at this point have been given scores based on the answers in their applicationsand information in their resumes. The first list is for people who already work for the Fed Gov't, have "competitive status" and received ranking score above the cut off score (these are people seeking merit promotions), the second is for people who are not government employees -- but this list includes only three highest ranked candidates -- which due to Vet preference laws, are often Vets, the last list is people with "Schedule A" disabilities. The hiring official can choose to hire from any list. The hirin official is not required to interview anyone, but ifthe hiring official interviews one person on a list, he/she must interview all the candidates on the list. Third, if you think the job was wired so that a specific person would be chosen, and you apply, and you are not selected, and you work in the Executive Branch, contact the Office of Special Counsel. Apologies for typos - on IPad. |
Anonymous
| NP here. Can you tell me more about "schedule A" disabilities? What qualifies as a disability - does for example diabetes? or legal blindness in one eye? thanks. |
Anonymous
Here you go, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/initiatives/lead/abc_applicants_with_disabilities.cfm |
Anonymous
So to clarify it sounds like if they want to hire a status candidate that they already know, the office could select that person without interviewing him/her or anyone else. |
Anonymous
| is it illegal to wire a position? I don't see that in the list. |
Anonymous
This person did a much more comprehensive job of explaining the situation than I tried to do earlier. But I take issue with one point. I am unaware of any government-wide rule that requires an agency to interview everyone on a list if they interview anyone on a list. This is just not true.And also the "Rule of Three" that you reference is no longer required. Agencies can use category ranking to choose from more than three people. |
Anonymous
Do you agree that they aren't required to interview anyone? |
Anonymous
I think the PP was talking generally. She never said there was a government wide regulation that requires all people on a cert to be interviewed. I can tell you it is the policy at my current agency (Legislative branch) and my prior agency (Executive branch). The category rating system was an optional alternative to the numeric ranking system in the Executive branch until 2010, when POTUS ordered that all Executive branches adopt the category system. My agency still uses the numeric ranking system. Even with the category rating system, however, as long as a preference eligible candidate is within the highest category, the selecting official may not select a non-preference eligible unless the selecting official obtains approval to pass over the preference eligible in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 3318. I agree that the hiring official may hire someone from a certificate of eligible candidates without interviewing anyone. They cannot, however, rig the process to give one person an advantage over others. An example of rigging the process would be to draft the job posting in a way that would give a preselected person an advantage. This is a hard claim to prove. If the person the incumbent wants to hire is genuinely qualified for the position, it is extremely hard to prove because there should be no need to alter the job requirements to give the person an advantage. While it is difficult to prove, it is not impossible. |
Anonymous
From the MSPB Website: Prohibited Personnel Practices (5 USC § 2302(b)) Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority— [. . .] 6. grant any preference or advantage not authorized by law, rule, or regulation to any employee or applicant for employment (including defining the scope or manner of competition or the requirements for any position) for the purpose of improving or injuring the prospects of any particular person for employment; AND PROHIBITED PERSONNEL PRACTICE NUMBER 6 - Granting Any Preference or Advantage Not Authorized by LawWhere is this prohibition covered in the law? The sixth prohibited personnel practice (PPP) can be found at section 2302(b)(6) in title 5 of the United States Code. What is the purpose of the sixth prohibited personnel practice? This provision supports the first Merit System Principle which asserts that recruitment, selection and advancement should be merit-based. See 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(1). This PPP is designed to prevent an agency from giving an improper advantage in promoting an employee or in selecting an applicant for a position in federal employment. See 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(6). It complements and supports the same goal of fair competition as do PPPs 4 and 5, which prohibit obstructing the right to compete and influencing a person to withdraw from competition. It should be noted that some employment preferences are authorized by law, so they would not be prohibited. For example, there is a veterans’ preference statute that gives eligible veterans preference in appointment over many other applicants. See 5 U.S.C. § 2108. What exactly is prohibited? To establish a violation of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(6), Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) case law requires proof of an intentional or purposeful taking of a personnel action in such a way as to give a preference to a particular individual for the purpose of improving his or her prospects. See Special Counsel v. Byrd, 59 M.S.P.R. 561, 570 (1993), aff’d, 39 F.3d 1196 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Table). The preference must be given for the purpose of providing an improper advantage. In other words, an improper motive must be shown. See Special Counsel v. Lee, 114 M.S.P.R. 57, ¶ 21 (2010), rev’d in part, 413 F. App’x. 298 (Fed. Cir. 2011). However, it is not necessary that the action actually have resulted in an advantage, only that its purpose be to give an advantage. Special Counsel v. DeFord, 28 M.S.P.R. 98, 104 (1985). It is possible to violate section 2302(b)(6) using legally permissible hiring actions if the intent is to afford preferential treatment to an individual. See Lee, 114 M.S.P.R. 57, ¶ 21. Conversely, hiring actions that have the unintentional effect of favoring one applicant over another would not violate section 2302(b)(6). See id. The Board also has found, based on the wording of the statute, that it does not prohibit actions improperly advantaging a class of persons, only an individual. See Avery v. Office of Personnel Management, 94 M.S.P.R. 212, ¶ 5 (2003). |
Anonymous
| So an announcement can't be tailored, but it seems like if there were an inside known candidate, the agency could hire without interviewing. Is that right? |
Anonymous
There is no uniform government-wide requirement that the agency conduct any interviews at all. Period. As has been suggested, you will want to review the policies of your own agency, and the type of appointment authority being used, etc. But if anything wrong went down in your particular situation it was likely NOT because no interviews were conducted. |