Lula Lee, CSC Docket No. 2023-1809

BackgroundLula Lee appeals the administration of the promotional examination for Administrative Supervisor, Social Work (PC5093D), Hudson County.

The examination at issue was announced with specific requirements that had to be met as of the September 21, 2022 closing date. A total of four employees applied for the subject examination that resulted in a list of one eligible, which promulgated on March 23, 2023 and expired on March 22, 2025. The subject examination was administered on February 16, 2023, utilizing the Supervisory Test Battery (STB). To pass the STB with a minimum percentage score of 70%, candidates were required to achieve a minimum raw score of 51.2. The appellant’s raw score was 45.6. Thus, the appellant did not achieve a passing score on the examination.

Appellant's argumentIn an appeal letter, dated February 20, 2023, the appellant presents that she could not concentrate on the test because the monitor was eating some type of food that had a bad odor. In this regard, she states that she was seated in front of the monitor who started eating food that “burnt my n[ose] and upset my stomach.” Additionally, the appellant asserts that the candidates were told at the beginning of the examination that they could not have phones, watches, eat, or go to the bathroom and that they had to take care of those issues before entering the examination room. The appellant notes that when she entered the classroom, the atmosphere was good, but when the monitor started eating, she became nauseous, and her eyes were burning from the bad smell that came from the food. The appellant requests a “retest” because she knows the incident caused her to fail and that “she was afraid to say anything to the [monitor] because she made it very clearly at the beginning of the class we couldn’t talk as it would distract” other test takers. In a supplemental submission, that appellant asserts that the monitor never provided her with the opportunity to file an appeal at the test center during the night of the examination and that no one was available at the test center to complain about this issue after the test.

CONCLUSION

Initially, the appellant claims that she was never advised at the test center that she was required to file an appeal of the test administration before leaving the test center. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.4(c) states that an examination candidate wishing to challenge the way the examination was administered may file an appeal in writing at the examination site on the day of the examination. In order to ensure that all candidates are apprised of their rights and responsibilities, all monitors are required to follow a standardized protocol for checking the candidates in, which includes providing all candidates for examinations with an informational flyer called “Exam Review and Appeal Procedures for Multiple-Choice Examinations” at the examination center that specifically informs them that objections to the manner in which the examination was conducted must be made in writing on a form provided at the test center. In In the Matter of Kimberlee L. Abate, et al., Docket No. A-4760-01T3 (App. Div. August 18, 2003), the court noted that “the obvious intent of this ‘same-day’ appeal process is to immediately identify, address and remedy any deficiencies in the manner in which the competitive examination is being administered.”

With respect to the appellant’s assertion that candidates were not permitted to use the bathroom, monitors for the STB are required to read a standardized script to the candidates before the test. With respect to restroom use, the script specifically states:

If you need to use the rest room during the test, please notify me. It is recommended that you use the restroom, if at all possible, before you start to take the test on the computer. Administration time is not frozen or suspended for restroom breaks. (Emphasis added).

Other than the appellant’s allegation she was not provided with information regarding the same day appeal requirement, a review of the examination record, Center Supervisor Report on Conduct and the monitor’s Report on Conduct of Examination does not evidence any deviations from the standardized protocol for checking candidates into the examination. It is noted that since it is a computer administered examination, candidates for the STB are provided their test score after they complete the test on the night of the examination. In this case, although notified to do so on several occasions, the appellant did not raise the issue of her nauseousness or discomfort to the monitor or the center supervisor on the night of the examination even after she was apprised of her score. Since the appellant’s appeal pertaining to the test administration issues were not submitted on the night of test administration, her appeal regarding this issue is untimely and there is no basis on which the Civil Service Commission can provide relief.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be dismissed as untimely.

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