Khalid Sanders, CSC Docket No. 2022-1131

BackgroundKhalid Sanders appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services), which found that he did not meet the experience requirement for the open competitive examination for Storekeeper 2 (S0384C), Statewide.

The subject examination was announced with a closing date of September 21, 2021 and was open to New Jersey residents who possessed three years of experience in work involving receiving, storing, safeguarding, and recording parts, materials, equipment, and supplies of varied types in an organized storeroom. The examination resulted in an eligible list of 12 names that promulgated on October 28, 2021 and expires on October 27, 2024.

On his application, the appellant listed his experience as a provisional Storekeeper 2 from February 2019 to September 2021 and as a “Custodian/Maintenance” from January 2010 to February 2019, both with William Paterson University. The appellant indicated that his major duties as a “Custodian/Maintenance” were as follows: “[p]erformed custodial duties in Hamilton Hall, Shea Center and served as a floater when needed.” The Storekeeper 2 position was not credited because the appellant had copied the job specification. The “Custodian/Maintenance” position was not credited because this was a maintenance work position. Therefore, Agency Services deemed the appellant ineligible since he lacked three years of experience and thus did not meet the experience requirement set forth in the announcement.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), the appellant maintains that he is eligible because as of March 2022, he possesses the required three years of experience. He also states that he began assisting the Storekeeper 2 warehouse area in his department in June 2018 prior to being assigned to the Storekeeper 2 position in February 2019. He further states that prior to February 2019, he had served in an interim capacity during periods when the Storekeeper 2 was out. In support, the appellant provides a letter from James Shelley, Director of Physical Plant Operations and Facilities Management. Shelley indicates that the appellant began serving as the Storekeeper in May 2018, initially in an interim capacity, and presently through the current date. Shelley also states that the appellant conducted a full range of storekeeper responsibilities.

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. Initially, it is noted that Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant was not eligible for the subject examination as the appellant was required to possess three years of applicable experience. However, a review of the appellant’s application reveals that he did not possess the required experience.

AnalysisOn appeal, the appellant maintains that he possesses the requisite experience, highlighting his experience since 2018. Specifically, he states that prior to February 2019, when he was appointed provisionally as a Storekeeper 2, he began “assisting” the Storekeeper 2 warehouse area and serving as the Storekeeper 2 in an “interim capacity” when the Storekeeper 2 was out. However, in order for experience to be considered applicable, it must have as its primary focus full-time responsibilities in the areas required in the announcement. See In the Matter of Bashkim Vlashi (MSB, decided June 9, 2004). The amount of time, and the importance of the duty, determines if it is the primary focus. An experience requirement that lists a number of duties that define the primary experience, requires that the applicants demonstrate that they primarily performed all of those duties for the required length of time. Performance of only one or some of the duties listed is not indicative of comprehensive experience. See In the Matter of Jeffrey Davis (MSB, decided March 14, 2007). Even if the appellant’s provisional Storekeeper 2 experience from February 2019 to September 2021 were to be credited, it would not result in the appellant’s eligibility. In this regard, the appellant could only be credited with, at most, two years and eight months of experience. Specifically, although the appellant states that prior to February 2019, he began “assisting” the Storekeeper 2 warehouse area and serving as the Storekeeper 2 in an “interim capacity” when the Storekeeper 2 was out, it is clear from the record that the primary focus of his duties prior to February 2019 was custodial/maintenance, not the duties required for the subject examination. In this regard, the appellant indicated on his application that the major duties he performed in the position were as follows: “[p]erformed custodial duties in Hamilton Hall, Shea Center and served as a floater when needed.” Thus, no experience prior to February 2019 can be credited. Accordingly, the record reflects that the appellant did not meet the requirements for the title under test, and there is no basis to disturb Agency Services’ determination.

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.