Robert Iler, CSC Docket No. 2022-2946

BackgroundRobert Iler appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that he did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Environmental Scientist 3, Public Health (PS3937H), Department of Health.

The subject examination announcement was issued with a closing date of November 22, 2021. The examination was open to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the closing date in the title Environmental Scientist 2, Public Health; or to employees in the competitive division who had an aggregate of one year of continuous permanent service as of the closing date in any competitive title and who met the announced requirements. These include graduation from an accredited college or university with a Master’s degree in Biology, Biochemistry, Ecology, Industrial Hygiene, Epidemiology, ‘Toxicology, Physics, Public Health, Occupational Health, Environmental Management, Health Science, or other related science; and three years of experience in work involving evaluating health effects resulting from exposure to environmental or occupational substances. The appellant was determined to be ineligible for below minimum requirements in experience. As there were no admitted applicants, the examination was cancelled on May 27, 2022.

On his application, the appellant indicated that he possessed a Master's degree in Nutrition and Food Science, which was accepted. He listed three positions on his application and resume, Adjunct Professor (part-time, 8 hours per week), Instructor (part-time, 5 hours per week), and Registered Environmental Health

Inspector 2 from February 2008 to the closing date. Official records indicate that the appellant was a provisional Environmental Scientist 3 from October 2021 to the November 2021 closing date; a Registered Environmental Health Inspector 2 from September 2013 to October 2021; a Registered Environmental Health Inspector 1 from July 2009 to September 2013; a Public Health Representative 3 from November 2008 to July 2009; and a Medical CWA from February 2008 to November 2008. None of this experience was accepted, and he was found to be lacking three years of applicable experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant provides a lengthy description of his duties as a Registered Environmental Health Inspector 2. In support, the Director, Consumer, Environmental, and Occupational Health Service, states that she believes that the appellant's employment history exceeds the minimum three-year requirement. She stated that the appellant’s positions routinely required evaluating health effects resulting from exposure to environmental or occupational substances. For example, every inspection requires an evaluation of possible exposures from contaminated food, water, shellfish, dairy products, body art syringes and inks, as well as Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) from contaminated lake bathing waters.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the promotional examination announcement by the closing date.

AnalysisThe appellant was denied admittance to the subject examination since he lacked at least three years of experience in work involving evaluating health effects resulting from exposure to environmental or occupational substances. In order for experience to be acceptable, it must mirror the experience required in the examination announcement. In addition, 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). In this case, acceptable experience involves evaluating health effects.

The appellant's teaching positions are clearly inapplicable. In his position as a Registered Environmental Health Inspector 2, the appellant listed duties of inspecting food production and warehouse facilities (shellfish, milk, retail food facilities); preparing reports; providing training and technical and consultative assistance; and providing assistance to body art project coordinator. This is in-title work expected from a Registered Environmental Health Inspector 2. While public health effects may be impacted by violations of food production, the primary focus of the appellant’s position was inspections, not on evaluating health effects of those violations. Enforcing relevant public health laws is not the same as evaluating health effects resulting from exposure to environmental or occupational substances.

As such, if the appointing authority wants the appellant to remain in his current position, the appellant should provide a duties questionnaire (enclosed) to Agency Service within 30 days of the issuance of this decision detailing the duties of the position, so that an appropriate provisional title can be assigned. Should the appellant not be eligible for the new provisional appointment, he should be returned to his underlying permanent title at that time. In the future, if Agency Services determines that the position is that of Environmental Scientist 3, Public Health, a new examination can be announced.

The appellant was denied admittance to the subject examination since he lacked the minimum requirements in 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 his 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 the Division of Agency Services for review.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.