Janet Johnson, CSC Docket No. 2020-369
NJ Civil Service Commission decision of September 10, 2019, CSC Docket No. 2020-369: examination eligibility, granted. Janet Johnson appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services that she did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Paralegal Technician
Commission decisions · Meeting of September 10, 2019
Janet Johnson appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services that she did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Paralegal Technician 2 (PS5108K), Office of the Public Guardian.
- Matter
- Examination eligibility
- Decided
- September 10, 2019, item B-36
- Outcome
- Granted
- Title
- PARALEGAL TECHNICIAN 2
- Examination
- PS5108K
- Chair at the time
- Deirdre L. Webster Cobb, Chairperson
- Official decision
- Published by CSC in its monthly archive bundle (B-036 09-10-19.pdf)
Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission directed that this appeal be granted.
Rules this decision applies
The decision
BackgroundJanet Johnson appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that she did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Paralegal Technician 2 (PS5108K), Office of the Public Guardian.
The education requirements for the subject examination were an Associate’s degree as a Legal Assistant or in Paralegal Studies, or an Associate or Bachelor’s degree and a Certificate of Proficiency in Paralegal Studies. The experience requirements were two years of experience as a paralegal in a law firm, legal tribunal, or legal department in a public or private entity whose primary function was the research, enactment, enforcement, or litigation of legal matters. The requirements needed to be met by the January 22, 2019 closing date. See N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a). The appellant was the only employee who applied for the subject examination and the examination was cancelled due to a lack of qualified candidates.
The appellant’s application indicated that she possessed an Associate’s degree in Paralegal Studies. Additionally, she indicated that she was a Principal Clerk Typist from March 2003 to April 2018 and served in other titles with the State starting in November 1988. Personnel records also indicate that the appellant was provisionally serving in the subject title1 from April 2018 to the January 22, 2019 closing date. Agency Services credited the appellant with having met the education requirements, but determined that she lacked two years of the required experience.
The record demonstrates that the appellant performed applicable out-of-title work as a Principal Clerk Typist, as the appellant’s superior describes in detail how the appellant has been performing the required duties since 2007 due to business necessity. Moreover, the appellant continues to serve provisionally in the subject title. Accordingly, in this matter, the Civil Service Commission finds good cause under N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(c) to accept the appellant’s out-of-title work experience for eligibility purposes only, and admit her to the examination.
This determination is limited to the instant matter and does not provide precedent in any other matter.
ORDER
Therefore, it is ordered that the appeal be granted, and the cancellation of the examination be rescinded and Janet Johnson’s application be processed for prospective employment opportunities only.
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.