Julian Ayala, CSC Docket No. 2019-3477

BackgroundJulian Ayala appeals the removal of his name from the Correctional Police Officer (S9988V), Department of Corrections, eligible list on the basis of his failure to complete preemployment processing .

By way of background, the appellant took the open competitive examination for Correctional Police Officer (S9988V), achieved a passing score and was ranked as a non-veteran on the subsequent eligible list. It is noted that the eligible list promulgated on September 28, 2017 and expired on September 27, 2019. In disposing of a certification from the subject eligible list, the appointing authority removed the appellant based on his failure to complete preemployment processing. Specifically, it stated that it made multiple attempts to contact the appellant via email and telephone to schedule a home interview. It added that it used the email address and telephone number provided by the appellant.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant argues that he never received any telephone calls or emails from the appointing authority to schedule a home interview. The appellant states that he checked his email frequently. Further, the appellant submits a certified sworn statement that, to the best of his knowledge, he never received either an email or telephone call concerning the home interview.

Appointing authority's argumentIn response, the appointing authority relies on its previous contention that, using the email address and telephone number provided by the appellant, it made multiple attempts to contact him via email and telephone to schedule the home interview.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(a)11 allows the Civil Service Commission to remove an eligible’s name from an eligible list for other valid reasons. Additionally, 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 the appellant’s name from an eligible list was in error. Further, it is noted that the appointing authority has the authority and ability to require a potential new hire to undergo preemployment processing to ensure that the candidate is qualified for appointment. Such preemployment processing may include any and all conditions necessary for an appointing authority to assess a candidate’s qualifications. Moreover, this information is vital as it serves the important function of informing the appointing authority as to any significant differences between candidates which may assist it in the selection process. See In the Matter of Bruce C. Cooke (MSB, decided May 8, 2001); In the Matter of James Smith (MSB, decided April 24, 2001).

AnalysisIn the instant matter, the appellant’s name was removed from the subject eligible list by the appointing authority for not appearing or responding to the scheduling of his home interview. The appointing authority indicated that it made multiple attempts to contact the appellant via email and telephone to schedule the home interview. On appeal, the appellant argues that he never received an email or telephone call regarding the home interview and provides a certified sworn statement indicating the same. See In the Matter of Manuel Gonzalez, Jr., (CSC, decided December 3, 2014) (Appellant who submitted a sworn notarized statement under oath stating that he did not receive the email from the appointing authority notifying him that he was to appear for preemployment processing was restored to the list). Accordingly, under these particular circumstances, the appellant has met his burden of proof in this matter and the appointing authority has not shown sufficient justification for removing his name from the Correctional Police Officer (S9988V), Department of Corrections, eligible list.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that the appellant’s appeal be granted and the eligible list for Correctional Police Officer (S9988V), Department of Corrections, be revived, and the appellant’s name restored and certified at the time of the next certification, for prospective employment opportunities only.

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