Christian Posso, CSC Docket No. 2022-747
NJ Civil Service Commission decision of April 27, 2022, CSC Docket No. 2022-747: removal from an eligible list, granted. Christian Posso appeals the removal of his name from the eligible list for Police Officer (S9999A), Elizabeth on the basis of falsification of the preemployment application.
Commission decisions · Meeting of April 27, 2022
Christian Posso appeals the removal of his name from the eligible list for Police Officer (S9999A), Elizabeth on the basis of falsification of the preemployment application.
- Matter
- Removal from an eligible list
- Decided
- April 27, 2022, item B-4
- Outcome
- Granted
- Stated ground
- Falsification or omission
- Title
- POLICE OFFICER
- Employer
- Elizabeth
- Examination
- S9999A
- Chair at the time
- Deirdre L. Webster Cobb, Chairperson
- Official decision
- Published by CSC in its monthly archive bundle (B-004 04-27-22 LRG.pdf)
Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission directed that this appeal be granted.
Rules this decision applies
- N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(a)1
- N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)6
- N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b)
- N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(d)
- N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(b)1
The decision
BackgroundChristian Posso appeals the removal of his name from the eligible list for Police Officer (S9999A), Elizabeth Police on the basis of falsification of the preemployment application.
The appellant, a non-veteran, took and passed the open competitive examination for Police Officer (S9999A), which had a closing date of August 31, 2019. The resulting eligible list promulgated on May 15, 2020 and expires on May 14, 2023.1 The appellant’s name was certified to the appointing authority on April 15, 2021. In disposing of the certification, the appointing authority requested the removal of the appellant’s name due to falsification of his preemployment application. Specifically, the appointing authority asserted that the appellant failed to disclose that his driver’s license had been suspended between August 18, 2009 and August 26, 2009. In support, the appointing authority submitted a copy of the appellant’s certified driver abstract dated May 6, 2021 and portions of the appellant’s preemployment application pertaining to “Legal/Motor Vehicle History Information.”
Appellant's argumentOn appeal to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), the appellant maintains, among other things, that he had given the appointing authority a copy of his certified driver abstract. In support, he submits a copy of his certified driver abstract dated April 26, 2021, which includes the suspension that the appellant was asserted to have omitted.
1 The list was extended one year to May 14, 2023.
BackgroundDespite the opportunity, the appointing authority did not submit any further arguments.2
CONCLUSION
N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(a)1, in conjunction with N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)6, allows the Commission to remove an eligible’s name from an eligible list when he has made a false statement of any material fact or attempted any deception or fraud in any part of the selection or appointment process. 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 an eligible list was in error.
A review of the record in this matter fails to support the removal of the appellant’s name from the subject eligible list on the basis of a falsified preemployment application. The appointing authority maintained that the appellant did not disclose on his preemployment application that his driver’s license had been suspended between August 18, 2009 and August 26, 2009. However, on appeal, the appellant maintains that he provided the appointing authority with a copy of his certified driver abstract and submits a copy of his certified driver abstract dated April 26, 2021, which includes the suspension that the appellant was asserted to have omitted. Since the appointing authority has not contested the appellant’s claim, the Commission will credit the appellant’s claim that he provided the appointing authority with a copy of his certified driver abstract that included the pertinent suspension. Therefore, while the appellant may not have written out that information on the preemployment application, he did provide all the material facts relevant for the appointing authority to review his candidacy and therefore did not falsify his application. See In the Matter of Lance Williams (CSC, decided May 7, 2014); In the Matter of Julio Rivera (MSB, decided February 11, 2004). Accordingly, there is not a sufficient basis to remove the appellant’s name from the subject eligible list.
2 It is also noted that the Commission received no evidence that the appointing authority provided the appellant with a copy of all documents and arguments upon which it based its request to remove his name from the eligible list when it disposed of the certification. See N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(b)1 (“Upon request of the eligible or upon the eligible’s appeal, the appointing authority shall provide the eligible with copies of all materials sent to the appropriate Commission representative”).
ORDER
Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be granted and Christian Posso’s name be restored to the eligible list for Police Officer (S9999A), Elizabeth for prospective employment opportunities.
ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.
Decisions this one cites
- In the Matter of Lance Williams (May 7, 2014)
- In the Matter of Julio Rivera (February 11, 2004)
About this page
Not an official copy. The decision of record is CSC's monthly archive. The text above was extracted from it and may differ in layout or, rarely, in a character.
Names appear as the Commission published them in its public minutes and decisions, initials where it used initials. This site does not offer a search by a person's name.
The labels are ours. The kind of matter and the outcome are our reading of the minutes; the ACTION text the Commission recorded is quoted verbatim above. A decision applies the rules to its own facts and is not a prediction for any other matter, and nothing here is legal advice.
To report an error on this page, use the contact form.