Cynthia B. Ruiz, CSC Docket No. 2019-291

BackgroundCynthia B. Ruiz appeals her removal from the eligible list for Correctional Police Officer (S9999U), Juvenile Justice Commission for failing to complete pre- employment processing.

The appellant took the open competitive examination for Correctional Police Officer (S9999U), achieved a passing score, and was ranked on the subsequent eligible list. In seeking her removal, the appointing authority indicated that the appellant failed to complete pre-employment processing. Specifically, the appointing authority indicated that the appellant failed to attend a scheduled pre-employment screening on September 25, 2017.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant argues that she did attend a pre-employment appointment. However, in support of her assertion, she supplied information concerning a pre-employment appointment in March 2018 for another appointing authority concerning a different examination.

In response, the Division of Appeals and Regulatory Affairs (DARA) sent the appellant a letter indicating that the information she supplied on appeal concerned a different appointing authority and examination. Additionally, the appointing authority presented the notice it sent for the September 25, 2017 pre-employment screening that the appellant did not attend.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(a)11 allows the Civil Service Commission (Commission) to remove an eligible’s name from an eligible list for other valid reasons. N.J.A.C. 4A:4- 6.3(b), in conjunction with N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(d), provides that the appellant has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that an appointing authority’s decision to remove his name from an eligible list was in error.

AnalysisA review of the record indicates that the appointing authority’s request to remove the appellant’s name from the subject eligible list on the basis of her failure to complete preemployment processing was justified. In this regard, the appointing authority submitted its notice that it sent to the appellant indicating that she was scheduled for a September 25, 2017 pre-employment screening. Further, DARA advised the appellant that the information she submitted on appeal concerned a different appointing authority and examination. However, the appellant did not supply any information or make any argument to rebut the appointing authority’s claim that she did not attend the scheduled September 25, 2017 pre-employment screening. Accordingly, the appellant has not met her burden of proof, and the appointing authority has shown sufficient justification for removing her name from the subject eligible list.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.