Appendix — Watson v. University Medical Center

Al

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FILED Dec. 17, 1997

Cathy A Catterson, Clerk

U.S. Court of Appeals

Ray Watson,

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 96-17029

v. D.C. No. CV-95-00795-HDM

University Medical Center, MEMORANDUM*

Mike Parker,Bill Andrews,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the District of Nevada

Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 15, 1997 **

Before: SNEED, LEAVY, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

Ray Watson appeals pro se the district courts’ summary

judgment in favor of defendants in his action alleging race

discrimination in employment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1291. After a de novo review of the record, see Forsyth

v. Humana, Inc., 114 F 3d 1467, 1497 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

1997 WL 592548 (U.S. Dec. 1, 1997) (No. 97-504), we affirm for

the reasons stated in the district courts’ order on September 6,

1996.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not

be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th

cir. R. 36-3.

** The pane] unanimously finds this case suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a);(9th Cir.)

18

A2

ENTERED AND SERVED

Filed Sep - 6 1996

Clerk U.S. District Court

District of Nevada

By s/ Deputy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Ray Watson, CV-S-95-795-HDM (RLH)

Plaintiff,

VS. ORDER

University Medical Center,

Mike Parker, Bill Andrews,

Defendants.

This action is before the court on defendants’ motion for

summary judgment (# 27). Plaintiff Ray Watson, proceeding in

pro se, alleges that his former employer, University Medical

Center (or "UMC") discriminated against him based on race when

it failed to promote him to a full time security officer position, and

when it subsequently terminated him.

Watson, and African American, was employed as a per

diem security guard at University Medical Center from January

1992 until August 1993. In his periodic employee evaluations,

Watson achieved at least satisfactory rankings in all areas of his

work., and his supervisors made several complimentary comments

about him. However, the record also identifies approximately ten

occasions upon which he was reprimanded for disciplinary

violations. In August 1993, two regular full-time security positions

became available at UMC. Plaintiff applied for the positions.

Despite his apparent seniority as a per diem guard, plaintiff was

neither interviewed nor hired for the positions. UMC contends that

19

A3

its decision was based upon a written survey of security

supervisors, who were asked to evaluate the candidates for the

full-time positions. According to UMC, Watson scored the lowest

of the twelve applicants. UMC also contends that it attempted to

contact Watson for an interview, but that he failed to return the

calls. Watson disputes these facts. Subsequently, UMC determined

that it did not wish to employ plaintiff any longer, and his name

was removed from the call list for per diem guards.

Watson initiated grievance proceedings pursuant to a

union agreement. After an initial hearing affirmed the actions of

management, a second hearing officer concluded that there was no

evidence of discrimination, and that UMC was justified in

terminating Watson. However, he recommended reinstatement

because the failure of UMC to interview its only African-American

applicant may have had the appearance of discrimination. UMC

did not follow the hearing officers’ recommendation. Thereafter,

Watson filed this action, alleging a federal claim for racial

discrimination, and a pendant stage claim for breach of the union

contract.

To maintain an action for racial discrimination under Title

V11, a plaintiff must prove, either directly or indirectly, that the

employer intentionally discriminated against him or her on the

basis of race. The familiar test from McDonnell Douglas Corp. V.

Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), was recently restated by the Ninth

circuit in Warren v. city of Carlsbad, 58 F 3d 439, 441 (1995):

A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of

discrimination under Title V11 by establishing that (1) he

or she belongs to a racial minority, (2) he or she has

applied and was qualified for a job which the employer

was seeking applicants; (3) he or she was rejected for the

position despite his or her qualifications, and (4) the

position remained open after his or her rejection and the

employer continued to seek applications from other people

with similar qualifications to the plaintiff.

Ad

Because the McDonnell Douglas test was meant to be flexible m

its application, the fourth element may also be met when the

position is given to an individual who is not of the same race as the

plaintiff. Cf. Lynn v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 656 F 2d

1327,1343 (9th Cir.1981), Hagans y. Clark, 752 F 2d 477, 482

(9th cir. 1985).

Plaintiff appears to have satisfied the Medonnel Douglas

test. First, it is not disputed that he is an African-American.

Second, he establishes that he was qualified for the full-time

security officer position by providing copies of his periodic

employee evaluations, both of which rated him as a satisfactory per

diem guard. Third, it is not disputed that plaintiff was rejected for

the position, and ultimately had his name removed from the call

list of per diem guards. Finally, plaintiff alleges by affidavit that

neither of the two applicants who were hire into full-time positions

were African-Americans.

one eee ae Ce eee

discrimination, the employer May dispel the inference of

discrimination by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reason for the employment action that was adverse to plaintiff.

Warren 58 F 3d at 442. If the employer is able to meet its burden,

then "the plaintiff has the opportunity to present evidence showing

that the employers’ stated reason was merely pretextual". Jd at 442.

(quoting Lindahl vy. Air France, 939 F 2d 1434, 1437 (9th Cir.

1991).

As a legitimate, nondiscriminatory motive for not hiring

Watson as a full-time security guard, UMC argues that it

conducted a written survey of Lead security officers and

Lieutenants, and that Watson received the lowest rating of the

twelve applicants in the areas that were evaluated. UMC also

points to Watsons’ prior disciplinary record involving

approximately ten infractions. As an explanation for removing

Watsons’ name from the per diem call list, UMC contends that it

would have been required by union contract to offer plaintiff the

next available full-time position, regardless of his merit, if he

exceeded 2080 per diem hours. Watson worked approximately

2040 yours.

21

ssh ns Aas ae SiN SAORI KR RO a a ete x

, ee eee m as

AS

UMC argues that it did not want its next full-time officer

determined by operation of the union contract, especially in light

of Watsons’ ratings.

In an effort to demonstrate that these reasons were merely

pretextual excuses for the adverse actions, Watson argues that the

written evaluations were part of a conspiracy to deprive him of the

position. In support of this contention, Watson offers the affidavit

of one of his former supervisors, who stated that he was not asked

to fill-out an evaluation. He also notes that the surveys were

unsigned and undated, and accordingly unreliable assessments of

his work.

The fact that the evaluations were unsigned and undated,

by itself, is insufficient to establish a conspiracy. Watson has had

the opportunity to seek complete information concerning the

evaluations and their authors through the course of discovery, but

has failed to present any evidence of a conspiracy to discriminate

against him. Rather, the informal survey demonstrates the efforts

that security supervisor Michael Parker took to make sure that the

applicants were objectively scored and evaluated by several

supervisors on an array of factors. Further, Parker states in his

affidavit that, of the supervisors who evaluated the applicants, two

were Caucasian, two were African-American, one was Asian, and

one was Hispanic.

Watson also contends he was the only African-American

who applied for this position, and that he was not even asked to

interview. UMC offers proof through the sworn affidavits of John

Seeno and Francene Quick that it attempted to contact him, and

that a message was left at his residence. In response, Watson offers

the affidavit of his wife Londa Francis, who stated that no one

called regarding an interview. However, in her deposition, Francis

said she often took messages from UMC during this time period

without being told exactly why they were callir.z.

On these facts, even when all inferences are reasonably

drawn in Watsons’ favor, Watsons’ opposition lacks the kind of

substantive evidence that the Ninth Circuit found to support the

inference of pretextual dismissal in Warren. See 58 F3d at 443.

Fro example, there are no statistics suggesting a pattern of

discriminatory practice at UMC. To the contrary, the affidavit of

22

AS

UMC argues that it did not want its next full-time officer

determined by operation of the union contract, especially in light

of Watsons’ ratings.

In an effort to demonstrate that these reasons were merely

pretextual excuses for the adverse actions, Watson argues that the

written evaluations were part of a conspiracy to deprive him of the

position. In support of this contention, Watson offers the affidavit

of one of his former supervisors, who stated that he was not asked

to fill-out an evaluation. He also notes that the surveys were

unsigned and undated, and accordingly unreliable assessments of

his work.

The fact that the evaluations were unsigned and undated,

by itself, is insufficient to establish a conspiracy. Watson has had

the opportunity to seek complete information concerning the

evaluations and their authors through the course of discovery, but

has failed to present any evidence of a conspiracy to discriminate

against him. Rather, the informal survey demonstrates the efforts

that security supervisor Michael Parker took to make sure that the

applicants were objectively scored and evaluated by several

supervisors on an array of factors. Further, Parker states in his

affidavit that, of the supervisors who evaluated the applicants, two

were Caucasian, two were African-American, one was Asian, and

one was Hispanic.

Watson also contends he was the only African-American

who applied for this position, and that he was not even asked to

interview. UMC offers proof through the sworm affidavits of John

Seeno and Francene Quick that it attempted to contact him, and

that a message was left at his residence. In response, Watson offers

the affidavit of his wife Lenda Francis, who stated that no one

called regarding an interview. However, in her deposition, Francis

said she often took messages from UMC during this time period

without being told exactly why they were calling.

On these facts, even when all inferences are reasonably

drawn in Watsons’ favor, Watsons’ opposition lacks the kind of

substantive evidence that the Ninth Circuit found to support the

inference of pretextual dismissal in Warren. See 58 F3d at 443.

Fro example, there are no statistics suggesting a pattem of

discriminatory practice at UMC. To the contrary, the affidavit of

23

A6

Michael Parker demonstrates that at least two African-American,

on Asian-American, and one Hispanic held supervisory positions

within the security department of UMC at the time of Watsons’

termination. Further, Parkers’ affidavit shows that there were

twenty-five full-time security guards employed at that time,

"comprising fourteen whites, six blacks, three Hispanics, and two

Pacific Islanders." Ex. D to motion (#27).

Also, as discussed above, Watson has not reasonably

challenged the objectivity of the evaluations, and there is no other

evidence of discrimination in the workplace (such as derogatory

racial comments). See Warren. 58 F3d at 443.

Plaintiff also alleges breach of employment contract.

Plaintiff conceded several times in his deposition that he was an at-

will employee, and the union agreement under which he was

employed expressly states the same. While Article 11 of the

contract states that per diem employees are covered by certain

contract provisions, none of those provisions give rise to a contract

for continued employment for the per diem employee. In relation

to this lawsuit, Watson was protected by the contract only Insofar

as racial discrimination was prohibited in employment practices.

Thus, because there has not been a sufficient showing of

discrimination to survive summary judgment, there is also no basis

for Watsons’ contract claim.

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment

(#27) is granted, and defendant Bill Andrews’ separate motion for

summary judgment on the issue of absolute and qualified

immunity (#37) is denied as moot.

It is so ORDERED,

Dated this 30th day of August, 1996,

/s

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ii

A7

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FILED Mar 27, 1998

Cathy A. Catterson, Clerk

U.S. Court of Appeals

Ray Watson,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

University Medical Center,

Mike Parker, Bill Andrews,

Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SNEED, LEAVY, and TROTT, Circuit Judges

Appellants’ motion for publication is denied. The panel has

so voted to deny appellants! petition for rehearing. Judge Trott has

voted to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and Judges

Sneed and Leavy have so recommended.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for

rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on

whether to her hear the matter en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for

rehearing en banc is rejected.

A8

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CiRCUIT

Filed 12/1797)

Ray Watson No. 9617029

Appellant,

Vs CV-S-95-795 HDM(RHL)

University Medical Center,

Mike Parker, Bill Andrews,

Appellees.

APPEAL FROM the United States District Court for the

District of Nevada (Las Vegas). THIS CAUSE came to be heard

on the TRANSCRIPT OF Record from the United States District

Court for the District of Nevada (Las Vegas) and duly submitted.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now ordered

and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of said district court

in this cause be and hereby AFFIRMED.

Filed and entered 12/17/97

A9

MEMORANDUM

SECURITY SERVICES

To: Blain Claypool, Associate Administrator

From: Michael Parker, Director of Security Services

Subj: Employee Selection Process

Date: August 24, 1993

In reviewing the applicants for the full time employee position, I

decided that it would be best to get mput from the Lieutenants and

Lead Security officers. I like to include them in the decision

making process whenever I can so that we build a team

relationship. I explain to them that I take their input with high

regard but the final question is my responsibility.

Those present for this process were:

Lt Ken Allgood Lt. John Seeno _Lt. Cliff Ortego

S/O Larry Mathis S/O Ed Yesko S/O Newton Yuen

I provided a form to each of these persons, which I made using the

UMC evaluation form as a format. They were seated and told not

to discuss their feelings or judgment with each other. I instructed

them to fill out the forms using a scale of 1 to 10 (using 10 as best)

in each of the categories listed. They were also instructed that if

they felt they could not honestly grade on an individual for any

reason that they should leave the form blank.

When I collected the forms, I simply added the scores and then

averaged those figures. I averaged so that if one officer was graded

by six persons and another officer was graded by three, it would be

fairly analyzed.

The twelve per diem officers were graded in the following order:

1) LesterRowe (63) 2) BrianDias (60)

2) David Vernon (55.4) 4) Warren Brenn (55.4)

5) Mark Ballard (55.5) 6) Wayne Smith (51.6)

7) John Villano (50.6) 8) ChrisBubel (49.1)

9) Lee Cain (47) 10) Don Hale (44.75)

11) Calvin Wallace (42.2 12) Ray Watson (36.5)

27

Al10

The officers graded as number two (2) Mr. Brian Dias( a Pacific

Islander), and number four (4) Mr. Warren Brenn (a Caucasian),

were selected for the full time positions.

28

All

Affidavit of Michael Parker

State of Nevada)

)SS:

County of Clark)

Michael Parker, being duly sworn deposes and states as

follows:

1. That your affiant is over the age of eighteen (18)

years and is a resident of Clark County, Nevada.

2. That your affiant makes this affidavit in support of

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

3. That the one of the two officers selected for the

full tume position was Pacific Islander, and the

other officer selected was Caucasian.

4. That the job description for the position held by

the plaintiff required a valid Nevada Drivers

License. (Exhibit "A"

5. That at the time which all eligible candidates were

evaluated for the Full time position, Mr. Larry

Mathis was present and participated in the

Evaluation process.

Further Affiant Sayeth Naught

/s /s Claudette Harrington

Michael Parker Notary Public

A J S

State of Nevada )

SS:

County of Clark )

John Seeno, being first duly sworn disposes and states as

Follows:

x That your Affiant is over the age of eighteen (18)

years and is a resident of Clark, Nevada.

2. That your Affiant makes this Affidavit is support

of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

3. That your affiant is a Security Lieutenant at

University Medical Center.

4. That in order to schedule Ray Watson for an inter-

view regarding a full-time security position to be

is August of 1993, your Affiant attempted to call

Mr. Watson during affiant’ regular scheduled shifts

on Wednesday Thursday evening. Affiant spoke

to a woman and asked her to have Mr. Watson

either call Affiant or the directors’ office at his

Earliest convenience.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT

Is

John Seeno

Subscribed and Sworn to before me

This 29th day of February, 1996.

/s Jeannette Bertoch

NOTARY PUBLIC im and for Said

County and State

NOTARY PUBLIC

STATE OF NEVADA

County of Clark

Jeannett E. Bertoch

My Appointment Expires July 22, 1998

Al3

AFFIDAVIT OF KATHY SILVER

State of Nevada )

) SS:

County of Clark )

Kathy Silver, being first duly swom deposes and states

As follows:

1. That your Affiant is over the age of eighteen (18)

years and is a resident of Clark County, Nevada.

2. That your Affiant makes this Affidavit in support

of Defendants’ motion for Summary Judgment.

3. That your Affiant was Senior Associate

Administrator, Marketing and Human Resources

at University Medical Center.

4. That your Affiant attended a meeting with Mike

Parker, Director of Security Services at UMC;

Blain Claypool, Assistant Administrator at UMC;

Ray Watson and Carlos Henderson, CCPEA

Representative. Affiant states that during this

Meeting, and offer of employment, , as a per diem

Security officer at zero hours, was made to Ray

Watson.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT

/s

Kathy Silver

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me

This lst day of March , 1996.

/s Linda Lewis

NOTARY PUBLIC and for said

County and State

31

Al4

DECLARATION OF FRANCINE QUICK

I Francene Quick declare as follows:

1: Declarant is over eighteen (18) years.

2. Declarant currently resides at 3725 W. Harbor, Bettendorf

Iowa, 52722.

3: Declarant makes this Declaration in support of defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment.

4: Declarant was a Security Secretary at University Medical

Center.

5. In order to schedule Ray Watson for an interview regarding

a full-time security position to be filled on August of 1993,

Declarant attempted to call Ray Watson on Wednesday

Afternoon, all day Thursday and Friday morning.

6. Declarant left several messages to call the directors’

office at his earliest convenience. Declarant did not

talk to Mr. Watson personally until Friday around noon

when he retumed Declarants’ calls.

7. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

state of Nevada that the foregoing is true and correct and

that this Declaration was executed on the 3rd_day of

March, 1996, Battendorf, Iowa.

/s

Francene Quick

32

Al$

Brian C. Whitaker, Esq.

Rawling, Olson, Cannon.

Gromley & Desruisseaux

301 Clark Avenue, Suite 1000

Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

(702)384-4012

Attorneys for Defendants

University Medical Center,

Mike Parker, Bill Andrews

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OD NEVADA

v. Case No. CV-5-95-795 (RLH)

University Medical Center,

Mike Parker, Bill Andrews.

Defendants.

ANSWER TO SECONDED AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Jury Trial Requested)

COME NOW Defendants, University Medical Center, Mike

Parkerand Bill Andrews, and answer Plaintiffs’ Seconded

Amended Complaint as Follows:

FOURTH DEFENSE

Answering paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action,

Defendants admit that a decision was rendered by University

Medical Center Hearing Officer Bill Andrews in which he

indicated that he felt Plaintiff should be reinstated on a per

diem basis with ” the opportunity to improve on weaknesses

as stated in the management review, and if full improvement

33

Al6

is made, he should be given an interview on the next full-time

opening in the department”. Plaintiff was offered a new per

| diem employee position, but such position was rejected.

Defendant denies each and every remaining allegation set

forth in paragraph 9 of plaintiffs’ complaint.

i Defendants respectfully request a trial by trial in this action.

DATED this 7th day of February, 1996

Rawlings, Olson, Cannon

) Gromley & Desruisseaux

) /s

Brain C. Whitaker, Esq.

Al7

University Medical Center

Grievance

File: Grieve \Watson

To: Diana Streuber, Chief Steward CCPEA

From: Bill Andrews, Internal Auditor \Hearing Officer

Subject: Ray Watson's Grievance (2d Step)

Date: November 9, 1993

On November 4, 1993, at 10:30 AM, a hearing was held

for Ray Watsons’ grievance. Mr. Watson was a per diem security

officer for the hospital. Mr. Watson is claiming discrimination for

not being interviewed for a full-time position as a security officer.

He wants reinstatement as a full-time employee with back pay.

Evidence and testimony were reviewed in connection with the

discrimination claim by Ray Watson. Present at the hearing were

the grievant; Carlos Henderson, CCPEA rep; and Mike Parker,

Director of Security.

In reviewing the written evidence and testimony, I have found

the following:

(1) There is no written policy at UMC stating that an

applicant for a job is assured and interview.

(2) Mr. Parker submitted sufficient documentation

stating why Mr. Watson was not interviewed for

the full-time position. (such as: divulging

privileged information, improper processing of

patients’ personal property, and per diem

employees evaluation done by

supervisors ranking him 12 out of 12)

(3) There were 7 or 8 applicants, including Mr.

Watson, sent to Mr. Parker for an interview. All

were interview for the position except Mr.

Watson. Mr. Watson vvas the only African-

ee Hie tat aire.

35

Al8

Based on the testimony and evidence presented, I feel that

Mike Parker did not discriminate on the basis of race. Although as

stated before, it may give the appearance of discrimination since

Ray Watson was the only African-American who was

recommended for an interview and did not get one. I feel UMC

Administration should write a policy for the criteria to receive an

interview. Also, reinstate Ray Watson on per diem with the

opportunity to improve on weaknesses as stated in the

Management Review, and if improvement is made, he should be

given an interview for the next full-time opening in the

department. Mr. Watsons’ request to be reinstated as a full-time

employee with back pay is demied.

Cc: Bemard Turk, Director of Labor Relations

Jean Harper, Coordinator of Labor Relations

Mike Parker, Director of Security

Blain Claypool, Assistant Administrator

Al9

Affidavit of Londa Francis

State of Nevada )

SS:

County of Clark )

Londa Francis, being first duly sworn deposes and states as

follows:

l. That your affiant is over the age of eighteen (18) years

and is a resident of Clark County, Nevada.

2. That your affiant makes this affidavit in support of

Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment.

oe? I am the only female residing at Ray Watson’s

residence and no one ever called me regarding any job

interviews at the University Medical Center.

Further Affiant Sayeth Naught.

/s

Londa Francis

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to and before me

this Sth day of May, 1996.

/s

Notary Public In and For Said

County and State

37

SRW A LL LD Pk Debit!

A20

Affidavit of Carlos Henderson

State of Nevada ,

) SS:

County of Clark )

Carlos Henderson, being first duly sworn deposes

and states as follows:

1. That your affiant is over the age of eighteen (18)

years and is a resident of Clark County, Nevada.

2. That your affiant makes this affidavit in support of

Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment.

3. That I am a CCPEA Representative and

represented Ray Watson in grievance meetings

occurring on September 7, 1993 and November

4, 1993.

4. That Mike Parker and UMC submitted information

to Hearing Officer William Andrews, who

rendered and decision that Watson be re-instated.

5. That I met with Mike Parker, Kathy Silver and

Ray Watson in an informal meeting. At no time

was Watson offered any “per diem security

position at zero hours”.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to and before me

this 30 th day of May, 1996.

/s Bemard Turk

Notary Public In and For Said

County and State

38

Alli

Affidavit of Ray Watson

State of Nevada )

) SS:

County of Clark )

Ray Watson, being first duly sworn deposes and

states as follows:

1. That your affiant is over the age of eighteen (18)

years and is a resident of Clark County, Nevada.

2. That your affiant makes this affidavit in support of

Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment.

3. That Defendants never called my residence to

inform or schedule me for a job interview

regarding any full-time security positions to be

filled at University Medical Center.

4. That based on Article 11, par. 3 of CCPEA union

contract, and for the articles of the contract that

were actionable, I am not an at will employee.

Further Affiant Sayeth Naught.

/s

Ray Watson

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to and before me

Notary Public In and For Said

County and State

39

etek isis Nal nance Dron

A22

Affidavit of Larry Mathis

State of Nevada )

) SS:

County of Clark )

Larry Mathis, being first duly sworn deposes and

states as follows:

1. That your affiant is over the age of eighteen

(18) years and is a resident of Clark County,

Nevada.

2. That your affiant makes this affidavit in support

of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant’s Motion

for Summary Judgment.

3. That I was a Lead Security Officer at University

Medical Center and supervised Ray Watson.

4. That I was not asked, nor did I participate in

Mike Parker’s evaluation process of the eight per

diem security officer who applied for the full-time

security position.

Further Affiant Sayeth Naught.

/s

Larry Mathis

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to and before me

this 4th day of May , 1996.

‘s Louise Sanders

Notary Public In and For Said

County and State