Jeanette Marquez, CSC Docket No. 2020-1502

BackgroundJeanette Marquez appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that she does not meet the experience requirements, per the substitution clause for education, for the promotional examination for Administrative Assistant 3 (PS0060N), Department of Labor and Workforce Development.

The subject examination announcement was issued with a closing date of July 22, 2019, and was open to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the closing date in any competitive title and who met the announced requirements. The requirements included graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree, and one year of experience in a business or government agency providing administrative support services and/or coordinating work activities. Applicants who did not possess the required education could substitute additional experience on a year for year basis. The appellant was found to be below minimum requirements in experience per the substitution clause for education. As there are no admitted candidates, the examination was cancelled on December 13, 2019.

On her application, the appellant indicated that she possessed 6 college credits which prorate to two months of experience. As such, she was required to possess four years, ten months of applicable experience. On her application, the appellant listed experience in two untitled position, one from August 2013 to July 2019; and one from April 2005 to September 2011. Official records indicate that the appellant was a provisional Administrative Assistant 3 from December 2018 to the

July 2019 closing date, a Technical Assistant Board of Mediation from August 2013 to December 2018; and a Technical Assistant Management Information Systems from April 2005 to August 2013. None of this experience was accepted, and she was found to be lacking four years, ten months of applicable experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant states that she has 19 years of experience in State government, and she provides duties for positions as a Technical Assistant Board of Mediation, Technical Assistant Management Information Systems, and prior positions not initially submitted.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the promotional examination announcement by the closing date.

AnalysisThe appellant was denied admittance to the subject examination since she lacked the minimum requirements in experience, specifically, per her application, she lacked four years, ten months of qualifying experience per the substitution clause for education. The primary focus of both positions were clerical duties, not those required to establish eligibility for the title under test.

The appellant provides one set of duties, both on her application and on appeal, from August 2013 to July 2019, a period of time in which she was a provisional Administrative Assistant 3 and a Technical Assistant Board of Mediation. As such, her provisional position may be misclassified. The title under test is a professional title, while the appellant’s duties are clerical. For example, she verifies and inputs data, maintains electronic and paper files and records, provides advice on rules, schedules hearings and mediations, prepares correspondence and monthly reports, evaluates office needs, and answers phones and general inquiries. Given the variance between the appellant’s duties and the definition for Administrative Assistant 3, Agency Services should perform a classification review of her current position. If it is determined that she is properly classified, another examination can be announced. However, based on the current application, the appellant lacks four years, ten months of applicable experience per the substitution clause for education.

An independent review of all material presented indicates that the decision of the Agency Services, that the appellant did not meet the announced requirements for eligibility, is amply supported by the record. The appellant provides no basis to disturb this decision. Thus, the appellant has failed to support her burden of proof in this matter.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied, and the matter of the appellant’s position classification be referred to Agency Services for review.

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