Oltjana Duraj, CSC Docket No. 2022-3236

BackgroundOltjana Duraj appeals the scoring and validity of the Senior Engineer Traffic (PS7382T), Department of Transportation promotional examination.

By way of background, the subject examination’s closing date was December 21, 2021. A total of 80 employees applied and 43 were admitted. The written test was conducted on June 4, 2022. A total of 29 employees were found eligible, including the appellant, who was ranked 16. Certification PS220957 was issued containing 21 names from the PS8966T eligible list and 28 names from the PS7382T eligible list, including the appellant who was in the 37th position. The certification’s disposition is due November 16, 2022, and the list expires on August 10, 2025.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant contends that the content of the test did not reflect the job description for a Senior Engineer Traffic. She believes that the test focused on engineering duties related to work zone safety rather than Traffic Engineering, which are her daily duties. The appellant asserts that the disproportionate focus on work zone safety caused her to spend more time trying to provide solutions for an area which she had not been exposed to and does not expect to be exposed to in the future. She expresses concern that the disproportionate focus on unfamiliar work zone safety questions was a distraction which may have caused her to skip questions which she could have answered otherwise.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that the appellant has the burden of proof in examination appeals.

AnalysisIn this matter, the written test consisted of technical and non-technical portions. The technical questions were developed by Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) provided by the appointing authority. The SMEs were chosen by the appointing authority to represent the area or areas that utilize the title within the T505 unit scope, which was the unit scope to which the examination was open. The SMEs under the T505 unit scope reviewed and revised the job specification’s task statements and Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs) for applicability to the T505 unit scope. The SMEs then wrote technical items based on the appropriate KSAs. The non-technical questions tested general knowledge that is expected by a candidate who is going to be a Senior Engineer Traffic. After conducting a job analysis with the SMEs to determine the different content areas, this agency developed the non-technical questions. Further, the appellants have not identified with any specificity which questions on the exam were not relevant for the subject title and why those questions were irrelevant. It is noted that examinations are not tailored for a specific position and test the KSAs required for overall successful performance in the title. Accordingly, the appellant has not met her burden of proof.

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.