William Louis- Baptiste, CSC Docket No. 2022-622

BackgroundWilliam Louis-Baptiste appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that he did not meet the experience requirement for the promotional examination for Affirmative Action Officer (PM3275C), Newark.

The subject examination was announced with specific requirements that had to be met as of the June 21, 2021 closing date. The requirements were graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree, and three years of experience in the administration or implementation of programs involving the affirmative action or equal employment opportunity, one year of which shall have been in a supervisory capacity, or three years of technical experience in the development and/or operation of programs designed to further the training and employment of minority groups. It was noted that applicants could substitute additional experience as indicated on a year for year basis with 30 semester hour credits being equal to one year of experience. The examination was cancelled on September 17, 2021 as the appellant, the only applicant for the examination, was found ineligible for the examination.

A review of the appellant’s application and resume reveals that he possesses a Bachelor’s Degree in Economics. He also indicated that he served provisionally in the subject title from July 6, 2020 to the June 21, 2021 closing date, as a Senior Program Monitor from February 12, 2018 to July 6, 2020, and as a Program Monitor from April 28, 2003 to February 12, 2018. He also listed that he worked at Prudential Insurance Company from October 1999 to January 2001. Agency Services credited the appellant with one year of applicable supervisory and general experience for his provisional service in the subject title. However, it did not find any of his other experience applicable. Accordingly, Agency Services determined that the appellant was ineligible for the subject examination as he lacked two years of applicable general experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant maintains that he is eligible for the examination, and he has been performing work as an Affirmative Action Officer since February 2018. He asserts, among other things, that his assignments since February 2018 have included conducting 22 investigations involving sexual harassment and hostile work environment claims.

BackgroundOfficial personnel records indicate that the appellant continues to serve provisionally in the subject title.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the promotional announcement by the closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:1-1.2(c) provides that a rule may be relaxed for good cause in a particular situation. Initially, it is noted that Agency Services correctly credited the appellant with one year of applicable general and supervisory experience for his provisional service in the subject title. Although the appellant’s experience as a Senior Program Monitor and as a Program Monitor does not precisely mirror the required experience, the Civil Service Commission (Commission) is satisfied that the totality of his experience in that those titles beginning in February 2018 satisfies the announced requirements. Additionally, the Commission notes that the appellant continues to serve provisionally in the title under test and has accrued an additional five months of applicable experience. Moreover, the examination has been cancelled and there are no other applicants. Under these circumstances, good cause exists to relax the provisions of N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a) and accept the totality of the appellant’s experience, including experience gained after the closing date, for eligibility purposes only, and admit him to the examination.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be granted, the cancellation of the examination be rescinded and the appellant’s application be processed for prospective employment opportunities only.

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