THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE · PDF file · 2017-12-131 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRCIT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division JOSEPH H. ANDREANA, On behalf

1

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRCIT OF VIRGINIA

Norfolk Division

JOSEPH H. ANDREANA,

On behalf of himself and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No.: 2:17-cv-574

VIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

and

SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF

VIRGINIA BEACH,

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO

MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION

COME NOW Defendants VIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS and SCHOOL

BOARD OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, by counsel, and for their Opposition to the

Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Certification, state as follows:

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff asserts a collective action against both defendants under the Age Discrimination

in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq. (“ADEA”), for disparate treatment (Count I),

disparate impact (Count II), and pattern and practice discrimination (Count III), on behalf of

himself and all others similarly situated. Plaintiff moves for conditional certification of the ADEA

claims for the following opt-in class: All of the CRS employees who interviewed for the ITS

positions but were not selected, all of whom who were over 40 and in the protected class and had

greater CRS and technology experience than substantially younger, less qualified individuals

selected by Defendants. ECF 5 p. 1. Thus, his proposed class includes three factors: they are those

Case 2:17-cv-00574-RAJ-LRL Document 20 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 22 PageID# 124

2

who are (i) over 40, and with (ii) greater CRS experience and (iii) greater technology experience,

compared to those who were selected who were “substantially younger,” and “less qualified.”

As a preliminary matter, Defendants have two Motions to Dismiss pending in this matter.

Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (ECF 9, 10), on the basis that (i) Plaintiff’s charge only

asserted a disparate treatment claim and did not assert a disparate impact or pattern and practice

claim, such that those claims have not be administratively exhausted; and (ii) Plaintiff never filed

an EEOC charge against the School Board of the City of Virginia Beach, and therefore, failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies as against that Defendant, such that all claims against the

School Board must be dismissed. If this Motion is granted, all claims would be dismissed as

against both defendants, except the disparate treatment claim against Virginia Beach City Public

Schools.

Defendants have also filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (ECF 15, 16) on the basis that (i) Plaintiff fails to state a claim for disparate

impact, as he fails to identify a specific employment practice, fails to assert facts to support a

statistical disparity cognizable under the law, and fails to allege facts from which the Court could

infer the required causation; (ii) Plaintiff fails to state a claim for pattern and practice

discrimination as he fails to assert (other than in an impermissibly conclusory fashion) that the

alleged discrimination was Defendants’ standard operating procedure and fails to assert the

discrimination was intentional; and (iii) dismissal of all claims against Virginia Beach City Public

Schools (“VBCPS”) is proper as it is not an entity that can be sued. If this Motion is granted, all

claims would be dismissed, except the disparate treatment claim against the School Board.


3

Only five individuals (including Plaintiff) in the proposed class have filed charges of age

discrimination with the EEOC relating to the facts and claims asserted in this action. Three of the

five have not filed a complaint within the requisite 90 days after receipt of Dismissal and Notice

of Rights letters from the EEOC and thus have let the statute of limitations run on their claims.

Only Plaintiff and one other employee, Margaret Marcotte, have filed Complaints within the

requisite 90 days.1 See Marcotte v. Virginia Beach City Public Schools, et al, 2:17-cv-00606-

MSD-RJK (ED Va, November 20, 2017).2 Thus, if the Court denies the motion for certification

of a collective action, there are no additional claimants who may file timely claims arising from

the facts asserted in the instant action.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that, in the spring of 2015, Defendants decided to reduce 104 Computer

Resource Specialist (“CRS”) positions to 84 Information Technology Specialist (“ITS”) positions.

Compl., ¶ 10. Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants implemented a screening and evaluation process

and policy for the purpose of choosing among the candidates for the ITS positions.” Id., ¶ 11.

Plaintiff argues that “Defendants’ screening and evaluation process did not evaluate applicants

fairly but instead discriminated against candidates based on age” (emphasis added) and that “CRS

employees who were substantially older and with vastly more experience in the position and field

1 Although a “Notice of Consent to Join Suit” was recently filed in this suit by a Marie

Gerdes, ECF 18, on the proposed form filed by Plaintiff, ECF 4-2, such Notice is improper and

should be struck, as a consent to “opt-in” may only be filed after the class has been certified, and

Notice and Consent have been approved by the Court.

2 The causes of action asserted by Plaintiff and Ms. Marcotte are not the same. Plaintiff

asserted claims of disparate treatment, disparate impact and pattern and practice discrimination.

Ms. Marcotte asserted claims for disparate treatment and disparate impact, but did not assert a

claim for pattern and practice. She also asserted an additional claim for retaliation arising from

alleged actions of the Defendants in response to her having allegedly opposed the discrimination.


4

were systematically passed over for the ITS position in favor of younger, less-qualified

applicants.” Id., ¶ 12.

Notably, Plaintiff provides no specific factual support or evidence with respect to this

allegedly discriminatory “screening and evaluation process”, i.e., he does not provide any

information regarding the specific question, line of questioning, screening technique, irregularity

or anything else that was the allegedly discriminatory process and of which each of the supposed

class members were victims. The Court is left only with the conclusory allegation of a

“discriminatory process.” Similarly, Plaintiff provides no evidence regarding the alleged “greater

CRS and technology experience”.

The facts as relevant to Plaintiff’s motion are as follows:

As a result of the development of Superintendent, Dr. Aaron Spence’s “Charting the Course

For Every Student, For Every Day,” which was incorporated into the School Board’s strategic plan

entitled Compass to 2020: Charting the Course (Ex. 1 to ECF 20-1), VBCPS’s technology plan

was reviewed to assess whether expectations were being met for “daily, rigorous engagement [of

students] through innovation and supportive technologies” Id., and it was determined that there

were inconsistencies among schools with respect to the services provided by the 103 CRS

positions3 and concerns regarding the availability of digital technology in the classroom. See

Affidavit of William Johnsen, filed herewith as ECF 20-1, at ¶ 3-5.

The Department of Teaching and Learning (T&L) and Department of Technology (DOT)

were tasked with finding ways to provide necessary technical support and promote learning with

an increased a focus on technology. Id. at ¶ 4. After extensive analysis, two new positions were

3 There were 103 full time CRS positions, which were held by 104 persons, as 2 were part-

time employees.


5

created, Technology Support Technician (TST) and Instructional Technology Specialist (ITS), and

two positions were eliminated, Data Support Specialist (DSS) and Computer Resource Specialist

(CRS). Id. at ¶ 5. The TST position was to subsume all daily tech support work. See TST job

description, Ex. 3 to ECF 20-1.

A team comprised of individuals from different departments and areas of expertise

developed a job description for the new ITS position by using the Standards of Quality and job

descriptions for other positions within VBCPS. Id. at ¶ 6.

An application and interview process was developed to ensure that all current CRSs had

an equal opportunity to be considered for the new ITS position. Id. at ¶¶ 7-11. Evaluation criteria

were developed for the interview process and individuals were selected to serve on an interview

panel. Id. Each CRS who applied4 for an ITS position was interviewed by a four-person interview

panel. Id. at ¶ 12. Multiple interview panels conducted the first-round interviews. Id. The CRS

was asked to create a ten-minute lesson plan and present that lesson plan to the interview panel,

after which, the interview panel asked the applicant scripted questions directly related to the job

description contained on an Instructional Technology Specialist Interview Questions (“Interview

Questions”). Id. ¶¶ 13-14; see Interview Questions, attached as Ex. 5 to ECF 20-1. Indicators

were referenced at the bottom of each question in the Interview Questions, which would guide the

panel to recognizing key skills and requirements for identifying qualified candidates. Id. at ¶ 14.

The Interview Questions did not require age information, and there was no information provided

to the interview panel with respect to age of candidates. Id. The Interview Questions required

each applicant to provide the number of years he or she had been a CRS, and those with a greater

4 Of the 104 CRSs, a total of seven (7) did not seek consideration for the ITS posting on

February 17, 2015, which closed on February 24, 2015. Id. at ¶ 8.


6

number of years actually received a higher number of points in the rubric and were rewarded for

their longevity in the position. Id. at ¶ 17; Ex. 5 to ECF 20-1.

A short questionnaire was also sent to principals and Instructional Technology

Coordinators (ITC) who supervised or supported each candidate to request input on their

performance in the CRS position. Id. at ¶ 9. No age information was provided in this stage. Id.

Next, a Review Committee5 created an ITS eligibility list, considering each applicant’s score on

the rubric on the Interview Questions, the comments provided by each interviewer in the Interview

Questions, the principal and ITC input and the content of the lesson plan provided by each

applicant. Id. at ¶ 18. The Review Committee did not meet with any candidate and no data was

sought or received concerning the age of the applicants. Id. at ¶ 20.

Successful ITS candidates demonstrated strong instructional techniques using

technological tools – skills unrelated to a candidate’s age, seniority or tenure with the VPCPS. Id.

at ¶ 21. The result of the ITS selection process demonstrate consistency with the Superintendent’s

directives. Id. Plaintiff was not selected as part of this process based upon his performance before

the Interview Panel and lack of instructional expertise. Id. at ¶ 22. Ultimately, 75 candidates were

offered positions, and after one chose to resign, 74 candidates were placed in CRS positions. Id.

¶ 23. Based on the need to fill the remaining ten (10) ITS positions, the ITS position was then

posted in March of 2015 and was opened to the public and any CRS employees who wished to

reapply. Id. at ¶ 24. Plaintiff chose not to apply for an ITS position in this or any later posting.

Id. at ¶ 25. Seven candidates, who applied to the March 2015 posting, were selected (for six

5 The Review Committee was made up of three individuals, whose average age was 47.7

years. Id. ¶ 19.


7

positions, as two candidates were part-time), none of which were former CRS employees. Id. at ¶

27.

After this second posting, because VBCPS still had four ITS positions to fill, the

applications of the remaining former CRS applicants were reviewed to determine if four more

candidates could be selected from the pool. Id. at ¶ 28. It was determined that an additional four

candidates met the minimum qualifications. Id. Each were counseled about areas of improvement

and offered positions as ITS, which each accepted. Id. None of these candidates had protested

their prior non-selection, or protested any discrimination on the basis of age. Id.6

Former CRSs not selected for the ITS positions were offered a choice between a TST or

another classroom teaching position without an interview as a priority transfer. Id. at ¶ 7. Of the

18 CRSs not selected for an ITS position, 15 accepted a TST position or other teacher position and

three chose to retire. Id. at ¶ 29.

With respect to Plaintiff’s motion, the relevant age information is as follows (Affidavit of

Scott Zellner, ECF 20-2):

• The average age of the 104 CRSs as of March 30, 2015 was 48.52.

• The average age of the 97 CRSs who interviewed, as of March 30, 2015,

was 48.04.

• The average age of the 79 CRSs selected for the ITS position, as of March

30, 2015, was 46.20 years, 1.84 years less than the average of all CRS who

interviewed (48.04).

• The average age of the 75 CRSs selected for the ITS position by the Review

Committee in response to the first posting, as of March 30, 2015, was 45.56

years, 2.48 years less than the average of all CRS who interviewed (48.04),

and 2.96 years less than the average of the 104 CRS prior to the

restructuring.

6 Plaintiff does not submit any evidence in support of his contention that these four were

hired after they challenged discrimination nor state the basis for his supposed knowledge of the

same in his Declaration.


8

• The average age of the 85 ITS hired, as of March 30, 2015, was 45.2, 3.32

years less than the average age of the 104 CRS prior to the restructuring

(48.52).

Plaintiff has not presented any evidence other than a conclusory allegation that the

proposed class members had “greater technology experience” than those who were hired for the

ITS position. He does not define “technology experience.” Although he provides alleged years

of “technology experience” in his declaration for those CRS employees who were selected for the

ITS position, he appears to be basing this off the information contained in the chart attached to his

declaration under the column header “Tot_Tch_Exp.” However, this is a misreading, as

“Tot_Tch_Exp” refers to total teaching experience, not total technology experience. See ECF 20-

1 at ¶ 16. As the chart refers to total teaching experience, he has not provided any evidence of the

“technology experience” of those CRSs who were not selected for the ITS position for comparison.

The Interview Questions do not require information regarding “technology experience.” Ex. 5 to

ECF 20-1.

Plaintiff has likewise not provided a definition of “CRS experience,” and it is thus

impermissibly vague, as it could be inferred to mean different things, e.g., number of years as a

CRS or the quality of work performed.

APPLICABLE LAW

Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of the ADEA disparate treatment, disparate impact

and pattern and practice claims. The ADEA incorporates the collective action procedures and

scheme of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 29 U.S.C. §626(d) (The provisions of this chapter shall

be enforced in accordance with the powers, remedies, and procedures provided in sections … 216

(except for subsection (a) thereof … of this title…”). This scheme permits a plaintiff to bring suit

on his own behalf and on behalf of other employees “similarly situated.” Hoffman-Roche Inc. v.

Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 167 (1989); 29 U.S.C. §216(b).


9

The FLSA does not define “similarly situated” and the Fourth Circuit has not yet applied a

standard for determining when plaintiffs are “similarly situated” in the context of an FLSA or

ADEA class certification action. Gregory v. Belfor USA Group, Inc., 2012 WL 3062696, at *2–3

(E.D. Va. July 26, 2012), citing Enkhbayar Choimbol v. Fairfield Resorts, Inc., 475 F. Supp. 2d

557, 562 (E.D. Va. 2006). However, courts have determined if potential class members are

similarly situated by assessing the existence of “issues common to the proposed class that are

central to the disposition of the [ADEA] claims and that such common issues can be substantially

adjudicated without consideration of facts unique or particularized as to each class

member.” LaFleur v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 30 F. Supp. 3d 463, 467–76 (E.D. Va. 2014), citing

Houston v. URS Corp., 591 F. Supp. 2d 827, 831 (E.D. Va. 2008) (Plaintiffs must demonstrate

some factual nexus connecting them to other potential plaintiffs as victims of an unlawful policy)).

Although considered a “fairly lenient” standard, the “similarly situated” requirement is not

“invisible.” Id., citing Houston, 591 F.Supp.2d. at 831 (citing, inter alia, Bernard v. Household

Int'l, Inc., 231 F.Supp.2d 433, 435 (E.D.Va.2002)). To obtain conditional certification, a plaintiff

must show “substantial allegations that the putative class members were together the victims of a

single decision, policy, or plan infected by discrimination.” Gregory, 2012 WL 3062696 at *2–3,

citing Sperling v. Hoffmann–La Roche, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 392 (D.N.J.1988), aff'd in part, 862 F.2d

439, 444 (3d Cir.1988), aff'd, 493 U.S. 165 (1989). “There must be sufficient reason to believe

that there are issues common to the proposed class that are central to the disposition of

the FLSA claims.” Id.

It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of demonstrating that notice is appropriate. Gregory,

2012 WL 3062696, at *3. Conclusory allegations are not sufficient to support a motion for

conditional collective action certification. Benavides v. Serenity Spa NY Inc., 166 F. Supp. 3d 474,


10

481–82 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). Further, “[m]ere allegations will not suffice; some factual evidence is

necessary.” Bernard v. Household Int'l, Inc., 231 F.Supp.2d 433, 435 (E.D.Va.2002) (citation

omitted). Thus, the issue before the Court here is whether Plaintiff has met his burden under the

“similarly situated” analysis, i.e., whether he has alleged something more than conclusory

allegations and made a sufficient factual showing that he and the potential plaintiffs together were

victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law. See Choimbol, 475 F.Supp.2d at 564

(citations omitted). A defendant may offer contrary evidence at the conditional certification stage

in an attempt, for example, to demonstrate that the plaintiff has provided only conclusory

allegations or has omitted relevant information. See Reyes v. AT & T Corp., 801 F. Supp. 2d 1350,

1357–59 (S.D. Fla. 2011).

If there is sufficient evidence in the record at this stage to demonstrate that notice is not

appropriate, the court should deny certification outright. Purdham v. Fairfax County Public

Schools, 629 F. Supp. 3d 544, 547 (E.D. Va. 2009 (Cacheris, J.)). In addition, “[a] court may deny

plaintiffs’ right to proceed collectively if the action arises from circumstances purely personal to

the plaintiff, and not from any generally applicable rule, policy or practice.” Simmons v. T-Mobile

USA, Inc., 2007 WL 210008, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2007) (citations omitted).

ARGUMENT

I. Plaintiff’s motion is premature.

As an initial matter, Defendant has filed two motions to dismiss (ECF 9, 10, 15, 16) which,

if granted, would dispose of all causes of action in this matter as against both defendants. One of

the motions seeks dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. It is proper to

resolve the motions to dismiss, especially to determine if this court has subject matter jurisdiction

over the claims raised in the lawsuit, prior to turning to a motion to conditionally certify a class


11

pertaining to those very claims. Should the Court grant the motions to dismiss, the motion for

conditional certification would be rendered moot. Efficiency and economy would both be served

by not reaching the issue of certification until the Court has determined the issues of subject matter

jurisdiction and the validity of Plaintiff’s claims. Thus, the Court should properly resolve the

Motions to Dismiss prior to turning to a motion for conditional certification.

II. Conditional certification of class is not warranted.

Plaintiff seeks the certification of a class of “all of the CRS employees who interviewed

for the ITS positions but were not selected, all of whom who were over 40 and in the protected

class and had greater CRS and technology experience than substantially younger, less qualified

individuals selected by Defendants.” ECF 5 p. 1. The proposed class members thus are (i) over

40, with (ii) greater CRS experience and (iii) greater technology experience, compared to those

who were selected who were “substantially younger,” and “less qualified.”

A. Plaintiff’s proposed class is impermissibly vague

As alleged, Plaintiff’s proposed class requires a determination of three factors: they are

those CRSs who are (i) over 40, and with (ii) greater CRS experience and (iii) greater technology

experience, compared to those who were selected who were “substantially younger,” and “less

qualified.” The proposed class is impermissibly vague with respect to inclusion of CRSs with

“greater CRS and technology experience.” Plaintiff does not define either “greater CRS

experience” or “greater technology experience.” “CRS experience” could be inferred to mean any

number of things, for example, number of years as a CRS or the quality of work performed as a

CRS. Neither the Interview Questions nor any other information provided in the selection process

required information regarding “technology experience,” ECF 20-1 at ¶ 15; Ex. 5 to ECF 20-1,

and there is no evidence that the Defendants used “technology experience” as a factor for selection.


12

Such vague terms render it an impossibility to determine if the putative class members are similarly

situated with respect to these factors.

The proposed class is also impermissibly vague with respect to time, i.e., ITS positions

have been posted on numerous occasions in 2016 and 2017, and Plaintiff does not provide a

temporal boundary to the proposed class.

B. A claim of disparate treatment (rather than disparate impact or pattern and

practice discrimination) is not suited for a collective action

A claim of disparate treatment is not suited for a collective action due to the inherent

necessity for consideration of facts unique and particularized as to each class member with respect

to such a claim. Plaintiff’s own allegations regarding the disparate treatment claim make this clear.

ECF 5 p. 4 (“Plaintiff and those similarly situated were better qualified than all of the younger

individuals…. They met all the bona fide occupational qualifications of the ITS position. All had

experience in technology and the CRS position that exceeded that of those Defendants selected.”)

These factors, as relevant to any disparate treatment claim, would require the court to make

substantial individualized factual determinations for each of the putative class members, such that

conditional certification is inappropriate. See Houston v. URS Corp., 591 F.Supp.2d 827, 831–32

(E.D.Va.2008); Rhodes v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 619, 677 (N.D. Ga.

2003), citing Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 n. 10 (11th

Cir.1992) (“Disparate treatment claims, by their very nature, are individual”); Adams v. Florida

Power Corp., 255 F.3d 1322, 1324 (11th Cir. 2001) (ADEA disparate treatment claims found not

sufficiently similar to support proceeding as a class, such that class members would have to pursue

individual remedies separately). This is especially evident where, as here, Plaintiff has failed to

state a claim for pattern and practice disparate treatment, ECF 15, 16, such that any disparate

treatment claim must arise from individualized facts.


13

C. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts supporting conclusory allegation that he and

putative class members were the “victims of a single decision, policy or plan”

To obtain conditional certification, a plaintiff must show “substantial allegations that the

putative class members were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan infected by

discrimination.” Gregory, 2012 WL 3062696 at *2–3, citing Sperling v. Hoffmann–La Roche,

Inc., 118 F.R.D. 392 (D.N.J.1988), aff'd in part, 862 F.2d 439, 444 (3d Cir.1988), aff'd, 493 U.S.

165 (1989). Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that there was a “discriminatory screening and

interview process,” without any supporting facts, and made in only one (his own) declaration,

without evidence that at least suggests that other CRS employees suffered from that same practice,

does not satisfy even the “lenient” standard for a finding of “similarly situated.”

Conclusory allegations are not sufficient to support a motion for conditional certification.

Benavides v. Serenity Spa NY Inc., 166 F. Supp. 3d 474, 481–82 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). Plaintiffs must

offer something of evidentiary value to demonstrate that similarly situated employees exist and,

where plaintiffs fail to meet this minimal requirement, their motion for conditional certification

may be denied. See Silva v. Calle 8, LLC, No. 12–CV–677 (ERK) (MDG), 2013 WL 6330848, at

*3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2013) (“where plaintiffs fail to provide either evidentiary support, such as

affidavits or supporting documents, or specific factual allegations, courts routinely deny

conditional certification”) (collecting cases). Plaintiff consequently must provide factual detail or

evidence beyond simply alleging that a “discriminatory process” existed with respect to the CRS

applicants.

Plaintiff has not provided any factual detail, supported by evidence, by which the Court

could evaluate whether he and the proposed class members were indeed victims of a common

decision, policy or plan. Plaintiff provides no specific factual support or evidence with respect to

any manner in which the “screening and evaluation process” was allegedly discriminatory, e.g.,


14

the specific question, line of questioning, screening technique, irregularity or anything else that

was an allegedly discriminatory process and of which each of the supposed class members were

victims. Other than his “statistics,” which are not compelling, as will be addressed in the next

section, he has not presented any evidence that the putative class members were subjected to the

same allegedly discriminatory practice, whatever that practice may be.7

In effect, Plaintiff requests conditional certification based on nothing more than an

allegation that he and others applied for, but were not offered an ITS position. This is not sufficient,

as a plaintiff “must present ‘some evidence, beyond pure speculation, of a factual nexus between

the manner in which the employer's alleged policy affected [them] and the manner in which it

affected other employees.’” Freeman v. MedStar Health Inc., 187 F. Supp. 3d 19, 29–30 (D.D.C.

2016) (citations omitted) (alteration in original).

The cases cited by Plaintiff support that Plaintiff’s allegations are not sufficient; in each,

the Court held that conditional certification was appropriate based upon “detailed allegations,

supported by affidavits, that the putative class members were together the victims of a single

decision, policy or plan.” Williams v. Sprint/United Mgt. Co., 222 F.R.D. 483, 486–87 (D. Kan.

2004). For example, in Williams, the court concluded that provisional certification was

appropriate, as:

[c]learly, plaintiff's first amended complaint contains detailed

allegations, supported by affidavits, that the putative class members

were “together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan.” See

Thiessen, 267 F.3d at 1102. According to plaintiff's first amended

complaint, Sprint intentionally treated younger employees more

favorably than older employees in connection with its reduction in

force by transferring *487 younger employees into “safe” positions;

by transferring older employees to positions that were marked for

7 Ms. Marcotte’s complaint is almost identical with respect to reliance upon the same

conclusory allegations, and likewise provides no factual detail that would allow the court to

determine that she was subjected to the same allegedly discriminatory process.


15

elimination; by adopting an age-biased performance rating system

knowing that older employees would not fare as well as younger

employees under the system; and by providing decision makers with

age-related information about employees for use in making

termination decisions. These allegations are more than sufficient to

support provisional certification.

222 F.R.D. at 486-87. Plaintiff has alleged no such “detailed allegations” here.

See also Dallas v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., 09-14596, 2012 WL 424878, at *3 (E.D. Mich.

Feb. 9, 2012) (court finding conditional certification appropriate based upon allegations that

Defendant knew that obsolete skill groupings were populated with a high percentage of older

installers and used those obsolete skill groupings to target older installers for permanent transfers

in an attempt to force resignations or retirements); Jackson v. New York Tel. Co., 163 F.R.D. 429,

432 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (court finding conditional certification appropriate based upon “ample

allegations” that Force Management Plan discriminated by exempting recent hires and promotees

and favoring recent degree recipients).

Plaintiff likewise does not reach the level of factual detail found to be sufficient in

conditional certification (FLSA) cases in the Eastern District of Virginia. Where conditional

certification has been granted, the plaintiff has alleged facts demonstrating a plan or policy, not a

mere conclusory allegation of the same.8

8 See, e.g., LaFleur v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 2:12-CV-00363, 2012 WL 4739534, at *10–

11 (E.D. Va. Oct. 2, 2012) (declarations submitted with motion asserted that plaintiffs “were

required to work while off the clock on a consistent basis using substantially similar means and

methods, indicating Dollar Tree developed an unlawful common policy or plan to do so”);

Gregory v. Belfor USA Group, Inc., 2012 WL 3062696, at *6 (E.D. Va. July 26, 2012) (granting

conditional certification under FLSA where plaintiff alleged a common plan or policy of “denying

employees overtime wages by misclassifying them as “Exempt” under the FLSA”); Houston v.

URS Corp., 591 F. Supp. 2d 827, 831–32 (E.D. Va. 2008) (granting motion

for conditional certification where Plaintiffs had “sufficiently alleged a ‘common policy or plan’

in that all inspectors were classified as independent contractors rather than employees, that all

inspectors were compensated in a similar manner on a “per inspection” basis, and that all inspectors

were required to conduct inspections in accordance with FEMA guidelines”); Enkhbayar


16

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations can hardly be considered substantial. The only evidence

submitted by Plaintiff is by way of his own declaration, which merely repeats the conclusory

allegations in the complaint, unsupported by any factual assertions. See Heath v. Google Inc., 215

F. Supp. 3d 844, 854–55 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (Court denied conditional certification in part based

upon fact that Plaintiff did not provide a single declaration beyond his own); Hargrove v. Ryla

Teleservices, Inc., 2:11CV344, 2012 WL 489216, at *7–8 (E.D. Va. Jan. 3, 2012), report and

recommendation adopted, 2:11CV344, 2012 WL 463442 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2012) (The

submission of consistent employee declarations has consistently been held as sufficient and

admissible evidence of a policy to be considered for conditional class certification); Earl v.

Norfolk State U., 2:13CV148, 2014 WL 6608769, at *5–8 (E.D. Va. Nov. 18, 2014) (As evidence

of the existence of a class of plaintiffs similarly situated to the named plaintiff, courts consider

affidavits from other employees who assert that a defendant has violated their rights in the same

manner as those of the named plaintiff).9

Choimbol v. Fairfield Resorts, Inc., 475 F. Supp. 2d 557, 562–63 (E.D. Va. 2006) (Court found

that Plaintiffs met requisite showing for conditional certification based upon all of the Plaintiffs

alleging that they were victims of Defendant’s policy of withholding minimum wages and

overtime pay). See also Black v. Settlepou, P.C., No. 3:10–CV–1418–K, 2011 WL 609884

(N.D.Tex. Feb. 14, 2011) (granting conditional class certification where plaintiff alleged common

policy in violation of the FLSA was the misclassification of paralegals as “exempt”). 9 Further evidence of the fact that Plaintiff is not similarly situated is that the one other

potential class member who has filed a legal action, Margaret Marcotte, has asserted markedly

different causes of action. See Marcotte v. Virginia Beach City Public Schools, et al, 2:17-cv-

00606-MSD-RJK (ED Va, November 20, 2017). While Plaintiff asserted claims of disparate

treatment, disparate impact and pattern and practice discrimination, Ms. Marcotte only asserted

claims for disparate treatment and disparate impact, and not for pattern and practice. She also

asserted an additional and distinct claim for retaliation arising from the Defendants actions in

responding to her having allegedly opposed the discrimination. Likewise, the process by which

the two sought an ITS position was distinct. Whereas Plaintiff failed to submit his name after the

first job posting, Marcotte submitted her name on numerous occasions in response to postings in

2015, 2016 and 2017. See Complaint, ECF 1, in Marcotte, 2:17-cv-00606-MSD-RJK (ED Va,

Nov. 20, 2017).


17

In summary, with a conclusory allegation of a discriminatory scheme, no factual detail and

support only by his own declaration, Plaintiff has not “demonstrated some factual nexus

connecting [him] to other potential plaintiffs as victims of an unlawful policy.” LaFleur v. Dollar

Tree Stores, Inc., 2:12-CV-00363, 2012 WL 4739534, at *10–11 (E.D. Va. Oct. 2, 2012).

D. The statistics offered by Plaintiff are not sufficient

Without any factual detail, Plaintiff in effect relies upon his “statistical evidence.”

However, Plaintiff’s statistical evidence comparing the average age of those selected for the ITS

position to those who were not selected is not compelling for purposes of demonstrating that the

putative class members were victims of a single decision, policy or plan. At a minimum, any

statistical data must show a significant disparity and eliminate the most common

nondiscriminatory explanations for the disparity to create an inference of discrimination. See

Segar v. Smith, 738 F.2d 1249, 1274 (D.C.Cir.1984).

Here, the relevant statistical evidence does not show such a significant disparity. See

Affidavit of Scott Zellner, ECF 20-2. The average age10 of the 104 CRSs prior to the restructuring

was 48.52. The average age of the 97 CRS employees who interviewed for the ITS position was

48.04. The average age of the 79 CRSs who were selected for the ITS position was 46.20 years,

which is only 1.84 years younger than the average age of all CRS interviewees (48.04). Even if

one took the average age of only the 75 CRSs who were selected for the ITS positions by the

Review Committee, which was 45.56, this would only be 2.48 years younger than the average age

of all CRS interviewees (48.04), and only 2.96 years younger than the average age of the 104 CRSs

prior to restructuring (48.52). The average age of the 85 ITS hired was 45.2, which is only 3.32

years less than the average age of the 104 CRS prior to the restructuring (48.52).

10 All average ages were calculated using the ages of the individuals as of March 30, 2015.


18

These numbers demonstrate that there was only a slight difference (just 1.84 years) in the

average age of the CRS employees who interviewed versus the CRS employees who were selected,

and the composition of the workforce remained insignificantly changed after the restructuring.

The slight difference in relevant average ages is not significant and is not sufficient to create an

inference of discrimination. See Blizzard v. Marion Tech. College, 698 F.3d 275, 283 (6th Cir.

2012) (age difference of six years or less between an employee and a replacement is not significant

for purposes of creating an inference of discrimination). The disparity here is not so stark

(especially considering the lack of any other evidence to support a discriminatory process) as to

suggest discriminatory bias rather than pure chance or other non-discriminatory explanations. See

O'Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 313, 116 S.Ct. 1307, 134 L.Ed.2d 433

(1996) (“In the age discrimination context ... an inference [of discriminatory intent] cannot be

drawn from the replacement of one worker with another worker insignificantly younger.”).

Plaintiff would have the Court conditionally certify the class based upon a comparison of

the average ages of those selected (his alleged 45.6) versus those who were not (his alleged 56.1).

However, Plaintiff does not take into consideration that the number of individuals in the “those

selected” group far outweigh the number of individuals in the “those not selected” group (79 versus

18), thus rendering a comparison of the average age of the two too attenuated and inaccurate to

support an inference of discrimination on account of age. A higher average age of those who were

not selected is to be expected, considering that 74 of the 97 CRSs who interviewed for an ITS

position were 40 years and above. For these reasons, a comparison between average age of

interviewees versus average age of those selected is more appropriate. Additionally, a comparison

of the workforce of CRSs versus ITSs demonstrates there was an insignificant difference in

average age prior to and subsequent to the restructuring.


19

E. Plaintiff has not provided any evidence of “technology experience”, and

the only evidence before the Court is that applicants were actually

credited in the interview process for number of years of employment as

CRSs

As previously explained, Plaintiff’s proposed class is impermissibly vague with respect to

the request for inclusion of CRSs with “greater CRS and technology experience,” which is

undefined. Moreover, the only evidence before the Court regarding “CRS experience,” if that is

to refer to number of years as a CRS, is that CRSs with a greater number of years actually received

a higher number of points in the rubric. ECF 20-1 at ¶ 15. Thus, candidates were given credit for

their experience and longevity as a CRS with the VBCPS, not penalized. Id.

Additionally, Plaintiff has not presented any evidence other than a conclusory allegation

that the proposed class members had “greater technology experience” than those who were hired

for the ITS position. Although he provides alleged years of “technology experience” in his

declaration for those CRSs who were selected (ECF 5-1, ¶ 8), he appears to be basing this off the

information contained in the chart attached to his declaration under the column header

“Tot_Tch_Exp.” However, this is a misreading, as “Tot_Tch_Exp” refers to total teaching

experience, not total technology experience. See ECF 20-1 at ¶ 16. There was no information

before the Interview Panel or Review Committee regarding “technology experience.” The

Interview Questions do not require information regarding “technology experience,” Ex. 5 to ECF

20-1, as “technology experience” was not a factor considered for the new ITS position because

daily tech support work was being separated out in the restructuring and assigned to the TST

positions instead. See TST job description, Ex. 3 to ECF 20-1.

III. Parties should meet and confer over notice before submitting for approval

Defendants object to the proposed notice submitted. Should the Court grant the motion for

conditional certification, the Court should order the parties to meet and confer regarding the


20

proposed notice before it is submitted for approval. See, e.g., Choimbol, 475 F. Supp. 2d at 565

(ordering the parties to confer and submit a proposed notice within 30 days). The need to confer

is particularly important here where there are deficiencies in the proposed notice.

“The purpose of the notice is to provide potential plaintiffs with a neutral discussion of the

nature of the action.” Heaps v. Safelite Solutions, LLC, 2011 WL 1325207 at *8 (S.D. Ohio 2011).

Plaintiff has not provided a neutral and complete statement of the legal implications of joining the

lawsuit. Plaintiff has presented the court with a proposed notice which does not present Plaintiff’s

allegations in an unbiased manner, and omits any mention of the inherent risks of opting in or a

fair and balanced explanation of Defendants’ defenses. The notice does not provide claimants

with sufficient facts for them to determine if they are similarly situated to Plaintiff. It does not

make clear that putative class members are those over 40 years of age and who had “greater CRS

and technology experience” than substantially younger, less qualified individuals selected. The

notice does provide a temporal boundary to the proposed class. The notice does not clearly advise

potential claimants that the Court has not ruled on the merits of either party’s position. Further,

any notice should provide Defense counsel information in addition to Plaintiff counsel

information, and make clear that they are entitled to obtain counsel of their own choosing.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s Notice proposes an opt-in period of sixty days. However, most

courts find that an opt-in period of thirty days is appropriate. See, e.g., Gorey v. Manheim Services

Corp., 2010 WL 5866258 at *6 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (30 days); Cardwell v. Stryden, Inc., 2009 WL

1407760 at *3 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (30 days); Allen v. Marshall Field & Co., 93 F.R.D. 438, 449 (N.D.

Ill. 1982) (30 days); Johnson v. American Airlines, Inc., 531 F. Supp. 957, 962 (N.D. Tex. 1982)

(21 days). A thirty-day opt-in period here would be appropriate so that the case can proceed to


21

resolution quickly and especially in light of the fact that there are only allegedly 15 other potential

claimants (excluding Ms. Marcotte and Ms. Gerdes, who filed the “Consent” at ECF 18).

Resolution of these disputes should wait this Court’s decision on conditional certification,

and then only after the parties have met and conferred on the notice or briefed the issue before the

Court if agreement cannot be reached.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the Motion to Certify.

This 11th day of December, 2017.

VIRGINIA BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

and SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF

VIRGINIA BEACH,

By: /s/

Ann K. Sullivan, VSB No. 17762

Melissa Morris Picco, VSB No. 43046

Deborah Y. Collins, VSB No. 82835

SULLIVAN LAW GROUP, PLC

440 Monticello Avenue, Suite 1814

Norfolk, Virginia 23510

(757) 955-8545

(757) 955-8501 (fax)

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Counsel for Defendants


mailto:[email protected]


22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on December 11, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the Court for the Eastern District of Virginia using the CM/ECF system that will send

notification of such filing to the following:

James R. Theuer, VSB # 68712

James R. Theuer, PLLC

555 E. Main St., Ste. 1212

Norfolk, VA 23510

T: (757) 446-8047

F: (757) 446-8048

[email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiff and those similarly situated

By: /s/

Ann K. Sullivan, VSB # 17762

Melissa M. Picco, VSB # 43046

Deborah Y. Collins, VSB # 82835

SULLIVAN LAW GROUP, P.L.C.

440 Monticello Avenue, Suite 1814

Norfolk, Virginia 23510

(757) 955-8545

(757) 955-8501 (fax)

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Counsel for Defendants






Case 2:17-cv-00574-RAJ-LRL Document 20-1 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 106 PageID# 146


3

are attached as Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 respectively. All employees who held the CRS position

automatically met the requirements for the TST.

6. A team comprised of myself, Dr. Amy Cashwell, Chief Academic Officer of

Teaching and Learning (Cashwell), Dr. Nicole DeVries, Administrative Coordinator of Teaching

and Learning (DeVries), and Instructional Technology Coordinators (ITCs) developed a job

description for the new ITS position utilizing the Standards of Quality and job descriptions for

other coaching positions within VBCPS.

7. All 104 CRS employees1 were encouraged to apply for the ITS position, posted on

February 17, 2015. If an application was not received, contact was initiated to ensure that the

employee understood the process and intentionally elected not to submit an application. All CRS

employees not deemed qualified for an ITS position qualified for a TST position and were offered

a choice between this position and another classroom teaching position without an interview as a

priority transfer.

8. Five (5) individuals who held the position of CRS chose not to apply for the ITS

position. Two (2) individuals who applied to the ITS position opted out of the process prior to

their interviews. Accordingly, a total of seven (7) former CRS employees did not seek

consideration for the ITS posting on February 17, 2015, which closed on February 24, 2015.

1 The 104 persons filled 103 full time CRS positions, as 2 were part-time employees.







EXHIBIT 1













































EXHIBIT 2



EXHIBIT 3



EXHIBIT 4



EXHIBIT 5








































2015 Instructional Technology Specialists Interview Questions and Rubric 1

INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Applicant Date _____________________

Name of Interviewer ______________________________________________

2. Why do you wish to become an Instructional Technology Specialist?

Sample Indicators:

• The applicant demonstrates clear understanding of the ITS job description

• Sees oneself as an effective technology integrator

• Passion for working with students & staff

• Collaborating w/teachers to create engaging lessons

• Improving student learning

• Inspiring teachers to integrate technology

Notes:

_____Unsatisfactory (1) _____Developing (2) _____Proficient (3) _____Exemplary (4)

The applicant shares little

insight into their reasoning for

apply for this position.

The applicant provides some

positive reasons for applying

for this position.

The applicant demonstrates

enthusiasm for this new

position and excited about

collaboration and encouraging

teachers to be active

integrators of instructional

technology.

The applicant demonstrates a

high level of insight into this

position and is passionate

about making a difference in

student learning utilizing

instructional technology.

1. How many years have you been a K – 12 classroom teacher? What subject, content, or

grade level did you teach?

_____ 0 Years (0 Points) _____ 1 – 3 Years (1 Points) _____ 4 – 10 Years (2 Points) _____ 10 Years + (3 Points)

The applicant has 0 years of

experience in the position of a

classroom teacher.

The applicant has 1 - 3 years

of experience in the position

of a classroom teacher.

The applicant has 4 - 10 years

of experience in the position

of a classroom teacher.

The applicant has 10 or more

years of experience in the

position of a classroom

teacher.

EXHIBIT 6



3. How would you work with your staff to ensure that effective collaboration takes place?

Sample Indicators:

• People skills, establishing rapport

• Group norms, goals, expectations

• Listening to individual needs

• Tailoring collaboration to needs of students and staff

Notes:


The applicant shares examples

that are uncaring and/or

distant with regard to teacher

interactions.

The applicant focuses on

establishing an ITS-staff

rapport with clear boundaries.

The applicant promotes

enthusiasm for collaboration

and encourages teachers to be

active participants during

collaboration.

The applicant communicates a

high regard for teachers and

high expectations in offering

examples of how effective

collaboration can lead to

improved student learning.



4. As an Instructional Technology Specialist you will provide professional development to your

teachers. How would you decide what to offer to your staff in order to meet their needs, and

how would you schedule this training?

PROMPT: Be specific.

Sample Indicators:

• Establishes a variety of ways to assess staff needs

• Differentiates the levels of training

• Collaborates with administration

• Relates concepts to prior knowledge

• Communicates with staff regarding offerings

• Appropriateness of professional learning offerings

• Instructional technology best practices

• Innovative pedagogical techniques

• Technology Continuum

Notes:


The applicant has not

offered professional learning

activities.

The applicant has

demonstrated rudimentary

assessment of needs and has

only provided minimal

opportunities for professional

learning.

The applicant provides

concrete examples of needs

assessments given to staff and

strategically plans professional

leaning activities to meet their

needs.

The applicant meets

individually with teachers or

specific groups of teachers to

develop a personalized

learning plan for professional

growth. As the teacher

progresses, the plan is

adjusted. Consideration is

given to teacher needs and

learning styles.



5. Scenario: Your principal has observed that students in a particular grade level are not

creating and publishing digital learning tasks requiring higher level thinking skills. You are

asked to address this issue. What would you do?

Sample Indicators:

• Listen & clarify principal’s concern.

• Meet with teachers to determine how they are using instructional technology and where they are using it in the

curriculum.

• Schedule observations of teachers

• Develop and deploy strategies to include co-planning, co-teaching, modeling in order to assist with effective integration.

• Keep administrators abreast of these steps, as well as progress or lack thereof.

• Plan observation by principal as follow-up to insure issue has been resolved.

Notes:

____Unsatisfactory (0) _____Developing (3) _____Proficient (6) _____Exemplary (9)

The applicant assures that

the technical aspects of the

technology are functioning

and available.

The applicant may survey

overall staff needs and interests

in the area of instructional

technology. Provides generic

professional learning sessions

on how to use technology

tools.

The applicant addresses the

administrator’s concern and

strives to create a rapport with

staff members in order to

assess the needs of these

teachers. Initial support is

provided for teachers, such as,

modeling the technology, and

co-teaching a lesson with

teachers.

The applicant listens and

clarifies the administrator’s

concerns and develops a plan

to address the needs of each

individual staff member. This

plan should include elements

such as, observation, goal-

setting, collaboration,

providing strategies, modeling,

co-teaching, and

reflection/evaluation.



6. As an Instructional Technology Specialist you will meet regularly to collaborate with

teachers. How would you assist these teachers in selecting the most appropriate instructional

technology tools and resources to support their classroom instruction? How would you

ensure that the instructional technology tools and resources effectively improved student

learning?

Sample Indicators:

• TPACK model

• Instructional Strategies

• Choosing appropriate pedagogy

• Unpacking curriculum

• Aligning activity to curriculum

• Demonstrate effectiveness of tool or resource

• Incorporates roles and responsibilities

• Reflection of choice of tool and pedagogy

(Content, process, and/or product)

Notes:


The applicant is unable to

clearly articulate the

alignment between content,

pedagogy, and the chosen

technology tool.

The applicant is able to

articulate how pedagogy and

content drive the effective use

of instructional technology

tools, but is unable to provide

an appropriate example.

The applicant is able to clearly




tools. The applicant provides a

clear example of this,

referencing the use of

curriculum.

The applicant is able to clearly




tools. The applicant provides a

clear example of this,

referencing the use of

curriculum. The applicant

builds in reflection, using the

TPACK model.



7. As an Instructional Technology Specialist you will be viewed as an instructional leader in

your building. How are you staying abreast of emerging trends in instructional technology

that could impact the teaching and learning in your building? Please provide a specific

example of a professional publication, conference session or online resource that recently

inspired you.

Sample Indicators:

• Provide specific examples of publications, books

• Identify favorite social media, blogs, websites

• Indicate how resources shaped practice

• Willingness to share ideas and trends with staff.

Notes:


The applicant cannot name

current resources.

The applicant provides a few

examples of recent articles

that were assigned to them

during their monthly meetings.

The applicant provides

examples of current resources

and how they have impacted

his/her practice.

The applicant provides deep

insight into their own

professional growth by

passionately sharing an

example that has had an

impact on their school.



8. Lesson Plan (Student)

Sample Indicators:

• Clear and specific objectives as stated in the VB curriculum/state/national standards.

• Identify Audience

• Appropriate to grade level

• Instructional strategies are appropriate for achieving the objectives.

• Anticipatory set or link to prior knowledge

• Includes differentiation

• Includes a high level of student engagement

• Demonstrates higher-level thinking skills

• Lesson is aligned with stated objectives.

• Instructional technology tools and resources are appropriate for the lesson plan.

• Includes short-term formative assessment that measures the stated objectives.

• Provide remediation or re-teaching strategies as listed.

• Includes summative assessment strategies that measure the stated objectives. This needs

to include specific assessment tools, such as rubrics, tests, self-checks, etc. Includes mastery level.

Notes:

*Note, if a lesson plan is not provided by the applicant, they receive 0 points for this section*


The applicant provides a

lesson plan with minimum

sample indicators included

and/or does not align with the

stated objectives.


lesson plan that includes some

of the sample indicators above

and is minimally aligned with

the stated objectives.


comprehensive lesson plan

including most of the sample

indicators above and is aligned

with the stated objectives.

The lesson is well-written and

easily followed by another

instructor. An assessment

strategy to measure student

learning is included.


comprehensive lesson plan

that makes effective use of

most of the sample indicators

above and is aligned with the

stated objectives. The lesson

is well-written and easily

followed by another instructor

and meets the needs of

individuals and provides a

high level of rigor and student

engagement.



9. Lesson Demonstration (Student)

PROMPT: Provide a ten-minute snap-shot lesson.

Sample Indicators:

• Authentic delivery that correlates with lesson plan.

• Ability to effectively communicate the desired outcomes

• Professional presentation

• Answers questions appropriately

• Learner engagement (panelists)

• Models the lesson appropriately

• Provides authentic learning experiences that foster the transfer of skills and strategies to new or different

situations.

• Facilitates learners to independently make connections to content, to themselves, and to everyday life.

• Provides opportunities for all learners to participate in higher order thinking and questioning as appropriate.

Notes:

*An applicant will be awarded 0 points if they do not deliver instruction, but chooses to describe the lesson*


The applicant’s instruction

inadequately addresses

learners’ needs and does not

follow the provided lesson

plan.

The applicant inconsistently

uses instructional strategies

that meet individual learning

needs and attempts to

effectively deliver the lesson.

The applicant effectively

engages learners in learning

by using a variety of

instructional strategies in

order to meet individual

learning needs.

In addition to meeting the

standard, the applicant

optimizes learners’

opportunity to learn by

engaging them in higher order

thinking and/or enhanced

performance skills.

Total Score from Rubric

/ 60 Points



What impressed you the most about this applicant? What concerns you about this applicant? Interviewer_________________________________________________________




Documents

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE · PDF file · 2017-12-131 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRCIT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division JOSEPH H. ANDREANA, On behalf