J.T., CSC Docket No. 2021-1609
NJ Civil Service Commission decision of January 19, 2022, CSC Docket No. 2021-1609: removal from an eligible list, denied. J.T. appeals his rejection as a County Correctional Police Officer by Camden County and its request to remove his name from the eligible list for County Correctional Police Offi
Commission decisions · Meeting of January 19, 2022
J.T. appeals his rejection as a County Correctional Police Officer by Camden County and its request to remove his name from the eligible list for County Correctional Police Officer (S9999A) on the basis of psychological unfitness to perform effectively the duties of the position.
- Matter
- Removal from an eligible list
- Decided
- January 19, 2022, item B-6
- Outcome
- Denied
- Stated ground
- Psychological evaluation
- Title
- COUNTY CORRECTIONAL POLICE OFFICER
- Examination
- S9999A
- Chair at the time
- Deirdre L. Webster Cobb, Chairperson
- Official decision
- Published by CSC in its monthly archive bundle (B-006 01-19-22 LRD.pdf)
Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission directed that this appeal be denied.
The decision
BackgroundJ.T. appeals his rejection as a County Correctional Police Officer candidate by Camden County and its request to remove his name from the eligible list for County Correctional Police Officer (S9999A) on the basis of psychological unfitness to perform effectively the duties of the position.
This appeal was brought before the Medical Review Panel (Panel) on October 27, 2021, which rendered its Report and Recommendation on October 28, 2021. No exceptions were filed by the parties.
The report by the 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 County Correctional Police Officer, indicate that the appellant is psychologically unfit to perform effectively the duties of the position sought, and therefore, the action of the appointing authority should be upheld. Accordingly, the Panel recommended that the appellant be removed from the subject eligible list.
CONCLUSION
The Job Specification for the title of County Correctional Police Officer is the official job description for such positions within the Civil Service system. According to the specification, officers are responsible for the presence and conduct of inmates as well as their safety, security and welfare. An officer must be able to cope with crisis situations and to react properly, to follow orders explicitly, to write concise and accurate reports, and to empathize with persons of different backgrounds. Examples of work include: observing inmates in a variety of situations to detect violations of institutional regulations; escorting or transporting individual and groups of inmates within and outside of the institution; describing incidents of misbehavior in a concise, factual manner; following established policies, regulations and procedures; keeping continual track of the number of inmates in his or her charge; and performing regular checks of security hazards such as broken pipes or windows, locks that were tampered with, unlocked doors, etc.
The Civil Service Commission has reviewed the Job Specification for this title and the duties and abilities encompassed therein and finds that the psychological traits, which were identified and supported by test procedures and the behavioral record, relate adversely to the appellant’s ability to effectively perform the duties of the title. Therefore, having considered the record and the Panel’s Report and Recommendation issued thereon and having made an independent evaluation of the same, the Civil Service Commission accepts and adopts the findings and conclusions as contained in the Panel’s Report and Recommendation.
ORDER
The Civil Service Commission finds that the appointing authority has met its burden of proof that J.T. is psychologically unfit to perform effectively the duties of a County Correctional Police Officer and, therefore, the Civil Service Commission orders that his name be removed from the subject eligible list.
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.