Harris v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, Div. of Mental Retardation-Developmental Disabilities Services, RETARDATION-DEVELOPMENTAL

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and FAGG; McMILLIAN
Citation771 F.2d 414
Parties37 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,485 Willie A. HARRIS, Appellee, v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF MENTALDISABILITIES SERVICES; Dr. Ray Nelson, Commissioner of Developmental Disabilities Services, and Louis Brown, Superintendent, Booneville Unit, Developmental Disabilities Services, Appellants.
Decision Date29 August 1985
Docket NumberRETARDATION-DEVELOPMENTAL,No. 84-2113

Page 414

771 F.2d 414
37 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,485
Willie A. HARRIS, Appellee,
v.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF MENTAL
RETARDATION-DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES SERVICES; Dr. Ray
Nelson, Commissioner of Developmental Disabilities Services,
and Louis Brown, Superintendent, Booneville Unit,
Developmental Disabilities Services, Appellants.
No. 84-2113.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Submitted March 11, 1985.
Decided Aug. 29, 1985.

E. Jeffery Story, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., for appellants.

C. Richard Lippard, Booneville, Ark., for appellee.

Before McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and FAGG, Circuit Judge.

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

The Arkansas Department of Human Services, Division of Mental Retardation--Developmental Disabilities Services, Dr. Ray Nelson, Commission of Developmental Disabilities Services, and Louis Brown, Superintendent, Booneville Unit, Developmental Disabilities Services, appeal from an order entered in the District Court 1 for the Western District of Arkansas denying their motion for reconsideration of a summary

Page 415

judgment in favor of Willie A. Harris in a Title VII civil rights action. For reversal appellants argue that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration in light of the errors in the stipulation of facts, which errors were not known to appellants until after the court had entered judgment. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the district court's order denying reconsideration.

The facts as set forth below are taken substantially from the district court's unpublished memorandum opinion. Harris v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, No. 81-2262 (W.D.Ark. July 3, 1984). Appellee, a white male, was hired in 1978 by the Booneville Unit of the Arkansas Department of Human Services as an institutional instructor I. In 1981 a vacancy occurred in the staff development specialist II (SDS II) position at the Booneville Unit. Appellee, Cheryl Hawkins (a black woman who had been working as an SDS II in the Alexander Unit of the Department of Human Services) and a number of other individuals applied for this position. Appellants reviewed the applications and evaluated them on the basis of the "KSAP" method.

KSAP is an acronym for Knowledge, Skills, Ability and Personal Attributes and refers to a method of rating applicants in which certain attributes or abilities are assigned different weights in order to determine a composite score. All candidates are given a point total based on their rating from 0 to 10 on each particular knowledge, skill, ability or personal characteristic multiplied times the relative weight of the particular factor. The point totals reflect the relative qualification of the candidates and the candidate with the highest total is considered best qualified. If the point totals of two applicants are within 10 to 15 points, the applicants are considered equal. If two applicants are equal in total score, then the state's affirmative action plan requires that preference be given to a "protected status" applicant if the protected status group is "underutilized" in the position to be filled.

Appellee's KSAP score was 405 and Hawkins' KSAP score was originally computed at 382--a point differential of 23 points and therefore beyond the 10 to 15 equivalent point range. On the basis of the KSAP scores, appellants appointed appellee to the SDS II position. On the same day, Hawkins filed an internal grievance. Upon investigation it was determined that one of the evaluators had improperly weighted one of the factors on Hawkins' KSAP. The factor, "works cooperatively with others," was improperly weighted as a skill instead of a personal characteristic. Correctly computed, Hawkins' KSAP score was 396 or within 9 points of appellee's 405 and well within the 10 to 15...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • DeWit v. Firstar Corp., No. C 94-4052.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Northern District of West Virginia
    • August 29, 1995
    ...813 F.2d 173, 178 (8th Cir.1987); Harris v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., Div. of Mental Retardation-Developmental Disabilities Servs., 771 F.2d 414, 416-17 (8th Cir.1985). Therefore, a court's decision upon reconsideration pursuant 904 F. Supp. 1496 to Rule 59(e) will not be reversed unl......
  • DePugh v. Smith, No. C 94-4030.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Northern District of West Virginia
    • March 22, 1995
    ...813 F.2d 173, 178 (8th Cir.1987); Harris v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., Div. of Mental Retardation-Developmental Disabilities Servs., 771 F.2d 414, 416-17 (8th Cir.1985). "`A motion to alter or amend judgment cannot be used to raise arguments which could have been raised prior to t......
  • Smith v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., No. 01-2883.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • March 27, 2002
    ...See Wiener v. Roth, 791 F.2d 661, 662 (8th Cir.1986) (per curiam) (approval of settlement); Harris v. Ark. Dept. of Human Services, 771 F.2d 414, 417 (8th Cir.1985) (motion for reconsideration). A district court abuses its discretion if it applies the incorrect law. Emery v. Hunt, 272 F.3d ......
  • A.W. By and Through N.W. v. Northwest R-1 School Dist., R-1
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • April 8, 1987
    ...to grant or deny a Rule 59 motion is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Harris v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 771 F.2d 414, 416-17 (8th Cir.1985); Pitts v. Electro-Static Finishing, Inc., 607 F.2d 799, 803 (8th Cir.1979). In order for us to reverse the trial court's d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • DeWit v. Firstar Corp., No. C 94-4052.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Northern District of West Virginia
    • August 29, 1995
    ...813 F.2d 173, 178 (8th Cir.1987); Harris v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., Div. of Mental Retardation-Developmental Disabilities Servs., 771 F.2d 414, 416-17 (8th Cir.1985). Therefore, a court's decision upon reconsideration pursuant 904 F. Supp. 1496 to Rule 59(e) will not be reversed unl......
  • DePugh v. Smith, No. C 94-4030.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Northern District of West Virginia
    • March 22, 1995
    ...813 F.2d 173, 178 (8th Cir.1987); Harris v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., Div. of Mental Retardation-Developmental Disabilities Servs., 771 F.2d 414, 416-17 (8th Cir.1985). "`A motion to alter or amend judgment cannot be used to raise arguments which could have been raised prior to t......
  • Smith v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., No. 01-2883.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • March 27, 2002
    ...See Wiener v. Roth, 791 F.2d 661, 662 (8th Cir.1986) (per curiam) (approval of settlement); Harris v. Ark. Dept. of Human Services, 771 F.2d 414, 417 (8th Cir.1985) (motion for reconsideration). A district court abuses its discretion if it applies the incorrect law. Emery v. Hunt, 272 F.3d ......
  • A.W. By and Through N.W. v. Northwest R-1 School Dist., R-1
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • April 8, 1987
    ...to grant or deny a Rule 59 motion is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Harris v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 771 F.2d 414, 416-17 (8th Cir.1985); Pitts v. Electro-Static Finishing, Inc., 607 F.2d 799, 803 (8th Cir.1979). In order for us to reverse the trial court's d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT