NJ Civil Service Navigator

A.B., CSC Docket No. 2019-982

NJ Civil Service Commission decision of December 18, 2019, CSC Docket No. 2019-982: removal from an eligible list, denied. A.B., represented by Peter B. Paris, Esq., appeals his rejection as a Police Officer candidate by the Plainfield Police Department and its request to remove his name from the el

Commission decisions · Meeting of December 18, 2019

A.B., represented by Peter B. Paris, Esq., appeals his rejection as a Police Officer candidate by the Plainfield Police Department and its request to remove his name from the eligible list for Police Officer (S9999U) on the basis of psychological unfitness to perform effectively the duties of the position.

Matter
Removal from an eligible list
Decided
December 18, 2019, item B-1
Outcome
Denied
Stated ground
Psychological evaluation
Title
POLICE OFFICER
Examination
S9999U
Chair at the time
Deirdre L. Webster Cobb, Chairperson
Official decision
Published by CSC in its monthly archive bundle (B-001 12-18-19.pdf)

Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission directed that this appeal be denied.

The decision

BackgroundA.B., represented by Peter B. Paris, Esq., appeals his rejection as a Police Officer candidate by the Plainfield Police Department and its request to remove his name from the eligible list for Police Officer (S9999U) on the basis of psychological unfitness to perform effectively the duties of the position.

This appeal was brought before the Medical Review Panel on October 16, 2019, which rendered its report and recommendation on October 16, 2019. No exceptions were filed by the parties.

The report by the Medical Review Panel discusses all submitted evaluations. The Panel concluded that the test results and procedures and the behavioral record, when viewed in light of the Job Specification for Police Officer, indicate that the candidate is psychologically unfit to perform effectively the duties of the position sought, and therefore, the action of the hiring authority should be upheld. Accordingly, the Panel recommended that the applicant be removed from the eligible list.

CONCLUSION

The Job Specification for the title, Police Officer, is the official job description for such municipal positions within the civil service system. The specification lists examples of work and the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to perform the job. Examples include the ability to find practical ways of dealing with a problem, the ability to effectively use services and equipment, the ability to follow rules, the ability to put up with and handle abuse from a person or group, the ability to take the lead or take charge, knowledge of traffic laws and ordinances, and a willingness to take proper action in preventing potential accidents from occurring.

Police Officers are responsible for their lives, the lives of other officers and the public. In addition, they are entrusted with lethal weapons and are in daily contact with the public. They use and maintain expensive equipment and vehicle(s) and must be able to drive safely as they often transport suspects, witnesses and other officers. A Police Officer performs searches of suspects and crime scenes and is responsible for recording all details associated with such searches. A Police Officer must be capable of responding effectively to a suicidal or homicidal situation or an abusive crowd. The job also involves the performance of routine tasks such as logging calls, recording information, labeling evidence, maintaining surveillance, patrolling assigned areas, performing inventories, maintaining uniforms and cleaning weapons.

Having considered the record and the Medical Review Panel’s Report and Recommendation issued thereon, and having made an independent evaluation of same, the Civil Service Commission accepted and adopted the findings and conclusions as contained in the Medical Review Panel’s Report and Recommendation.

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.

About this page

Not an official copy. The decision of record is CSC's monthly archive. The text above was extracted from it and may differ in layout or, rarely, in a character.

Names appear as the Commission published them in its public minutes and decisions, initials where it used initials. This site does not offer a search by a person's name.

The labels are ours. The kind of matter and the outcome are our reading of the minutes; the ACTION text the Commission recorded is quoted verbatim above. A decision applies the rules to its own facts and is not a prediction for any other matter, and nothing here is legal advice.

To report an error on this page, use the contact form.