Claudia Jackson, CSC Docket No. 2023-819

BackgroundClaudia Jackson appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services that she was ineligible for the open competitive examination for Social Worker 2 (S1084D), Statewide.

The subject examination had an August 22, 2022, closing date. The experience requirements were one year of experience in social case work, which shall have involved the responsibility for gathering and analyzing social information from clients, the determination of their needs, and the planning and administration of treatment plans geared toward the need of the individual clients. Possession of a master’s degree in social work from an accredited College or University may be substituted for the above stated education and experience requirements. A total of 21 employees applied for the subject examination and 14 were found eligible. A list containing the 14 eligibles promulgated on October 13, 2022, and expires October 12, 2025. One certification has been issued on which one appointment was made and two eligibles were removed. There are 11 remaining eligibles on the list.

On the appellant’s application, she did not enter any experience, nor did she attach a resume with her application in the Online Application System (OAS). Personnel records indicate that she was a provisional Social Worker 2 when she was hired at Hunterdon Developmental Center on March 28, 2022. Agency Services indicated that due to her incomplete application, her eligibility could not be determined.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant presents that she started working provisionally for the appointing authority in the title of Social Worker 2 as of March 28, 2022. She attaches her resume, and states that she possesses a bachelor’s degree in Psychology and a master’s degree in Human Services. She asserts that she previously worked in the private sector with Penn Reach and states that her job responsibilities were gathering and analyzing social information from clients, determining their needs and planning and administration of treatment plans geared toward the needs of individual clients. The appellant states that she sent all the materials that were not originally submitted, including her experience, education and current resume, with her appeal. Therefore, she believes that the determination that she was ineligible does not make sense and is unfair.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f) provides that an application may only be amended prior to the announced closing date. That is, any documentation indicating work in any setting that was not previously listed on an application or resume cannot be considered after the closing date. See In the Matter of Joann Burch, et al. (MSB, decided August 21, 2003) and In the Matter of Rolanda Alphonso, et al. (MSB, decided January 26, 2005). N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) provides that the appellant has the burden of proof in examination appeals.

AnalysisA review of Online Application System (OAS) indicates that the appellant’s application did not contain any employment information, nor did she attach a resume. The OAS User Guide asks candidates to review the application to make sure the information is complete and accurate. It also states that, by clicking “yes” to make a payment and submit the application, the candidate is told that he or she is certifying that the application is complete and accurate. See In the Matter of Michael Gelesky (CSC, decided July 26, 2017). Further, the appellant’s resume, which was not submitted until October 17, 2022 on appeal, well after the August 22, 2022 closing date, is considered an amendment to her application. As such, it cannot be considered under N.J.A.C. 4A:4-2.1(f). Additionally, as there are 11 eligibles currently on the list, it is considered complete. Therefore, there are no grounds to relax the rules. Accordingly, the appellant has failed to meet her burden of proof in this matter.

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.