Komal Zafar, CSC Docket No. 2023-2263

BackgroundKomal Zafar appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that she did not meet the experience requirements for the promotional examination for Human Services Specialist 4 (PC5164D), Hudson County.

The closing date of the examination was September 21, 2022. In relevant part, the education requirements were 60 college credits. The experience requirements were three years of experience involving any combination of the following: securing/verifying information and making determinations or recommendations relating to eligibility or qualifications of applicants for loans, insurance, credit, employability, and/or job training services, or entitlement to cash awards, financial benefits, or adjustment and settlement of insurance claims; investigations which involve collection of facts and information by observing conditions, examining records, interviewing individuals, and preparing investigative reports of findings; or investigating, establishing, and/or enforcing support obligations in a welfare board or agency, court system, or related agency. One year of the above experience shall have been in a lead capacity. A Bachelor’s degree could have been substituted for the education requirement and for two of the three years of required experience. However, there was no substitution for the remaining one year of experience. A total of 109 employees applied for the promotional examination, 62 were admitted and 33 were determined eligible after the test. Certification PL230405 was issued containing the names of 35 eligibles and its disposition has not yet been returned. The list expires on March 22, 2025.

On the appellant’s application, she indicated that she possesses a Bachelor’s degree. Also, she indicated that, for Hudson County, she was a Human Services Specialist 3 from May 2022 to the September 21, 2022, closing date, and a Human Services Specialist 1 from April 2015 to May 2022. Agency Services credited her with having met the education and general experience requirements, but it determined that she lacked one year of lead worker experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant presents that she has eight years of experience performing the required duties. Additionally, she states that prior to her experience with Hudson County, she was a Teller and Senior Teller. As a Senior Teller, the appellant indicates that she performed daily lead worker duties for three to four tellers such as scheduling daily activities, assisting other tellers with complex customer transactions, overseeing and training new tellers, securing and verifying client information, making product recommendations, assisting branch managers, handling the vault, and handling other daily Head Teller tasks. Further, she provides that she was an Assistance Supervisor for Educational Testing Services, where she monitored and supervised testing sessions for 20 to 25 test takers, maintained test security standards, supervised other proctors for further assistance, provided administrative support to senior supervisors and test takers, and ensured that all materials were verified, collected, and secured. Therefore, she asserts that her Senior Teller and Assistant Supervisor experience provided her more than one year of required lead worker experience. Additionally, the appellant presents that as a Human Services Specialist 1, she trained many co-workers, which she believes is a Human Services Specialist 4 duty. Further, while she did not list that she was a lead worker as a Human Services Specialist 3 on her application, this was because her department does not have any Human Services Specialist 1s. Therefore, she contends that she is currently performing the duties of both a Human Services Specialist 3 and 1. She believes that it is unfair that she was determined ineligible because she did not indicate on her application that she was a lead worker as a Human Services Specialist 3 when she submitted a resume with her application. Also, she asserts that she is more than capable of performing the required lead worker duties based on her experience, the compliments that she received from current and past supervisors regarding her work ethic, and she has previously been given the responsibility of training new hires. Moreover, she contends that it is unfair that she, as a Human Services Specialist 3, was determined ineligible for the subject examination while a Human Services Specialist 1 was determined eligible.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.6(a)2 provides that applicants shall meet all requirements specified in the promotional announcement by the examination closing date. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that the appellant has the burden of proof in examination appeals.

AnalysisIn this matter, the record indicates that Agency Services correctly determined that the appellant was ineligible for the subject examination because she lacked one year of experience as a lead worker. Specifically, the appellant did not indicate on her application that she led any workers as a Human Services Specialist 3. Further, on appeal, she explains that she did not lead any workers as a Human Services Specialist 3 because there were no Human Services Specialist 1s in her department. Therefore, she asserts that she is performing the work of both a Human Services 3 and 1. However, while the appellant may have more work due to a lack of lower-level employees in her department, having a greater volume of work is not the same thing as performing lead worker duties on a regular basis for specific named employees by assigning and reviewing the work of such employees as well as training them. It is also noted that the appellant only had five months of experience as a Human Services Specialist 3 by the examination closing date.

Regarding any lead worker experience that the appellant may have had in positions prior to her experience with Hudson County, these positions were not listed on her application, and contrary to what the appellant indicates on appeal, a review of the Online Application System does not indicate that she submitted a resume with her application. Therefore, these positions cannot be considered since they were not included on her application and would be considered an amendment to her application after the closing date. See N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f). Regardless, even if she had provided a resume with these positions on her application, although the appellant may have performed lead worker duties as a Head Teller and Assistance Supervisor for Educational Testing Services, she did not lead employees whose primary responsibility was making eligibility determination for financial programs. It is noted that while bank tellers handle financial transactions, they do not primarily make financial eligibility determinations as required. Therefore, these experiences were not applicable as the lead worker requirement was not simply having sufficient lead worker experience. Rather, an applicant must have sufficient experience leading workers who were performing applicable duties.

Concerning the appellant’s comments about another candidate, the determination of eligibility of another candidate has no bearing on the determination of her eligibility. As her application indicated that she lacked the required lead worker experience, she cannot be determined eligible for the subject examination. Further, concerning candidates who lacked one year of permanent service as a Human Services Specialist 3 as of the September 21, 2022, closing date, the determination of eligibility was not based on the appellant’s title with Hudson County. Rather, the determination was based on the candidate demonstrating on their application that they met the open competitive requirements for the subject promotional examination. Accordingly, there is no basis to disturb the decision of Agency Services that the appellant did not possess sufficient applicable lead worker experience to establish eligibility for the subject examination.

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.