Shequell Richards, CSC Docket No. 2022-1555

BackgroundShequell Richards appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that she did not meet the experience requirements for the open competitive examination for Behavior Support Technician (S0303C), Statewide.

The examination at issue was announced with specific requirements which had to be met as of the August 23, 2021 closing date. The requirements were possession of a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology, Special Education, Sociology, Guidance and Counseling, Social Work, or other similar behavior science program; and one year of experience working in rehabilitation or therapeutic treatment programs for the mentally ill or developmentally disabled involving behavior support, or the successful completion of a one year program as a Behavior Support Technician Trainee. The resulting eligible list of eight names promulgated on November 24, 2022 and expires on November 23, 2025. Eight certifications were issued and four appointments were made.

A review of the appellant’s application and resume reveals that she possesses a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology, and that she served, in relevant part, as a Human Services Assistant at Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital from April 2018 to the closing date. Specifically, she indicated her duties included: performing as a patient care provider; completing basic life support certification; reading vital signs; conducting one to one observation for high risk patients; assisting with lead group activities including exercise, music, thinking and social skills; working with a psychologist; entering case information into computer system; and working with juveniles and families. Agency Services credited the appellant for her Bachelor’s degree, but it did not find any of the appellant’s experience applicable. Accordingly, Agency Services determined that the appellant lacked one year of applicable experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant asserts, in relevant part, that she possesses three years of experience working in a therapeutic setting. Specifically, she reiterates that her duties as a Human Services Assistant include, among other things, leading therapeutic groups with issues including developing social skills; discussing current events; and completing exercise, thinking and music activities. In support, she provides a schedule to show when she performed such work.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the announcement by the closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.4(c) provides that the burden of proof shall be on the appellant.

AnalysisIn this matter, Agency Services correctly determined that none of the appellant’s experience was applicable. Regarding the appellant’s argument that she performed duties assisting with leading group activities, such duties were not the primary focus of her position as a Human Services Assistant. In this regard, the primary focus of the appellant’s duties as a Human Services Assistant did not include experience in rehabilitation or therapeutic treatment programs for the mentally ill or developmentally disabled involving behavior support. 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). Rather, the primary duties performed by the appellant, as indicated on her application, resume and on appeal, included among other things, reading vital signs; conducting one to one observation; assisting with leading group activities; and entering case information into the computer system. Although the appellant maintains that she performed applicable duties as required, she indicated on her application that she only assists with leading group activities, which confirms that she does not perform the above listed applicable duties as a primary part of her duties. As such, the appellant’s experience is not applicable to satisfy the duties required to establish eligibility for the title under test. Thus, the appellant has failed to support her burden of proof in this matter.

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.