ELISE SCHLOSSER, CSC Docket No. 2021-1561

BackgroundElise Schlosser appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that she did not meet the education and experience requirements for the open competitive examination for Environmental Health Specialist (C0612B), Sussex County.

The subject examination announcement was issued with a closing date of September 21, 2020 and was open to residents of Sussex County who met the announced requirements. These requirements included graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree in Physical, Chemical, Biological, Environmental Sciences, Environmental Engineering, or Public Health with a concentration in environmental health, and one year of experience in environmental control work involving field surveys, investigations, inspections, and preparation of reports on the environment, the preparation/review of environmental impact statements, and/or the prevention or elimination of one or more environmental health hazards. Graduation from an accredited college or university with a Master’s degree in Physical, Chemical, Biological, or Environmental Sciences or Environmental Engineering may be substituted for one year of experience. The appellant was found to be below the minimum requirements in education and experience. As no candidates were admitted, the examination was cancelled on May 7, 2021.

Appellant's argumentThe appellant indicated that she possessed a Bachelor’s degree in Liberal Studies, and a Master’s degree in Education. Neither of these degrees were in a listed area. On her application and resume, the appellant listed experience in the following positions: Environmental Health Specialist (part-time, 26 hours per week) from April 2020 to the September 2020 closing date; Bookkeeper/Administrative with Geopro Co; Admin/QC/Claims Management Assistant with A. Molly Company; Office Administrator with Power Tech, LLC (part-time, 20 hours per week); Paraprofessional/Teacher’s Assistant with Valley Road School (part-time, 18 hours per week); Administrative Environmental Assistant with Progressive Management (part-time, 12 hours per week); Administrative Environmental Assistant with Resource Conservation Corp (part-time, 25 hours per week); Administrative Environmental Assistant with Marksmen Enterprises, LLC; Administrative Environmental Assistant with CE Environmental Services, LLC; and Vet Tech/Kennel Supervisor/Reception with South Orange Animal Hospital. None of this exerience was accepted. The appellant did not meet the requirements for the subject examination as she did not possess the required degree or experience.

On appeal, the appellant explains that she was responsible for handling the wildlife/human exposure aspects of the rabies program in June 2020, and for the entire program in October 2020, after the closing date. She indicates that her Master’s degree in Education had a focus on Animal Geography, which she believes is a directly related degree. She also supplies a brief description of her experience and her certifications. She highlights Examples of Work from the job specification for the title under test, and states that her work in the veterinary and wildlife rehabilitation fields match those examples. She changes her Bachelor’s degree from Liberal Studies to Biology and Geography, and indicates an Associate’s degree in Science and the focus of her Master’s degree in Animal Geography. Elsewhere in her submissions she indicates that her Bachelor’s degree was in Liberal Studies with minors in Biology and Geography.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.3(b) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the open competitive examination announcement by the closing date.

AnalysisThe appellant was denied admittance to the subject examination since she lacked the required education and experience. It is noted that the required Bachelor’s degrees were in specific fields without a clause “or related field,” and there was no mention of acceptance of a minor field of study in lieu of a major field of study. Specifically, degrees in Physical, Chemical, Biological, Environmental Sciences, Environmental Engineering, or Public Health with a concentration in environmental health, were accepted. Also, a Master’s degree could be substituted for one year of experience, but not for the Bachelor’s degree. The appellant’s Bachelor’s degree was in Liberal Studies, and as such, she lacks the required education.

In her current position, the appellant indicated that her duties include gathering public statistical data for reports, making rabies exposure calls, following up on wildlife, strays and feral animals, preparing post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), and communicating with patients to ensure PEP completion. The major role of environmental health science is to understand and identify the critical environmental exposures which may adversely impact human health. For example, it balances the needs of business and commercial development with a safe environment, involved environmental law, monitors water, air and soil quality, addresses urban sprawl and deals with other adverse events. Public health involves the health of the public, including hygiene, epidemiology and disease prevention. The appellant’s duties were found to be administrative in nature. They did not include environmental control work involving field surveys, investigations, inspections, and preparation of reports on the environment, the preparation/review of environmental impact statements. If the duties were to be considered the prevention or elimination of one or more environmental health hazards, the focus should be on environmental health, not public health, such as eliminating infected animals in a region or preventing their appearance. The appellant’s duties focus on the people who have been affected by a rabid animal, not the eradication of the environmental health hazard. As such, the position is more closely associated with directing a work program in public health. As such, it appears as though the position is misclassified.

The appellant’s remaining positions are also inapplicable. Her positions as Bookkeeper/Administrative, Admin/QC/Claims Management Assistant, Office Administrator, Paraprofessional/Teacher’s Assistant, and Vet Tech/Kennel Supervisor/Reception are simply not related to the required experience. The appellant is cautioned to list each title separately and provide separate duties, even when employed by the same employer. Also, the appellant’s four positions as Administrative Environmental Assistant were administrative in nature, and did not have a primary focus environmental control work involving field surveys, investigations, inspections, and preparation of reports on the environment, the preparation/review of environmental impact statements, or the prevention or elimination of one or more environmental health hazards. Those positions involved removal of underground storage tanks, including creating proposals, customer assistance, scheduling jobs and inspections, data entry, selling services, writing reports, securing and completing documentation, pricing, and other administrative tasks.

As the appellant’s position appears to be misclassified, if the appointing authority wants the appellant to remain in her current position, the appellant should provide a Position Classification Questionnaire to Agency Services detailing the duties of the position, along with a completed examination application within 30 days of the issuance of this decision, so that an appropriate provisional title can be assigned, and a pre-qualification determination can be made. The subject examination announcement for the appellant’s provisional position was canceled. In the future, if Agency Services determines that the position is that of Environmental Health Specialist, a new examination can be announced.

The appellant was denied admittance to the subject examination since she lacked the minimum requirements in education and experience. An independent review of all material presented indicates that the decision of Agency Services that the appellant did not meet the announced requirements for eligibility by the closing date 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.