Minely Taylor, CSC Docket No. 2022-630

BackgroundMinely Taylor appeals the removal of her name from the eligible list for Correctional Police Officer Recruit (S9988A), Department of Corrections (DOC) on the basis that she failed to complete pre-employment processing.

The appellant, a non-veteran, took and passed the open-competitive examination for Correctional Police Officer Recruit (S9988A), which had a closing date of January 31, 2019. The resulting eligible list promulgated on June 27, 2019 and expired on June 26, 2021. The appellant’s name was certified to the appointing authority. In disposing of the certification, the appointing authority removed the appellant’s name on the basis that she failed to appear to complete pre-employment processing by failing to attend a Training Academy Orientation (Orientation) on August 24, 2021.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant indicates that she began to feel ill on the evening of August 23, 2021, and by the next morning her symptoms were worse. As a result, the appellant claims that she called DOC’s Human Resource Office indicating she was ill with COVID-like symptoms and requested that she be rescheduled. However, the appellant maintains that she was told that she would not be rescheduled and would instead be removed from the subject eligible list. In support, she submits a sworn notarized statement attesting to the foregoing. She also submits medical documentation from September 1, 2021, which indicated that she had COVID-like symptoms since August 23, 2021 and that she was advised to self-isolate and follow

CDC guidelines. The appellant also submits a phone log of outgoing calls, including a call to the DOC central office and to another number she identifies as the “recruiter” on August 25, 2021.

Appointing authority's argumentIn response, the appointing authority argues that the appointment notice specifies that this was a mandatory Orientation. The appointing authority maintains that it only reschedules candidates who contact it via phone or email, and provide it with documentation to support unexpected emergencies. Additionally, the appointing authority maintains that it has no record that the appellant called, but that if she had, she would have been told to send an email and it notes she did not send an email. The appointing authority also claims that she also did not provide it with any medical documentation, despite knowing that constant communication was important during the process.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C 4A:4-4.7(a)6 provides that an eligible’s name may be removed from a list for “non-compliance with the instructions listed on the notice of certification.” N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b), in conjunction with N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(d), provides that the appellant has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that an appointing authority’s decision to remove his name from the eligible list was in error.

AnalysisIn the instant matter, the appointing authority requested the removal of the appellant’s name from the subject eligible list on the basis of her failed to complete pre-employment processing on August 24, 2021. The appointing authority maintains that it only reschedules candidates who contact them via phone or email with documentation to support unexpected emergencies, however, the appellant failed to do so. However, the appellant has submitted a sworn, notarized statement, attesting to the fact that she had an unexpected illness on the day of her appointment, and had requested that the appointment be rescheduled. Moreover, although the appointing authority maintains that the appellant did not provide it with proof of an emergency or any medical documentation, on appeal the appellant has submitted a sworn notarized statement attesting that she had contacted the appointing authority via telephone. Additionally, the appellant has provided medical documentation indicating she was suffering from COVID-like symptoms since August 23, 2021 and she was advised to self-isolate and follow all CDC guidelines. Thus, it is appropriate that the appellant’s name be restored to the subject eligible list for prospective employment opportunities only.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be granted and the eligible list for Correctional Police Officer Recruit (S9988), Department of Corrections, be revived in order for appellant’s name be restored to the subject eligible list for prospective employment opportunities only.

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