Madelen Lemoine, CSC Docket No. 2024-2163

BackgroundMadelen Lemoine appeals the determination of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) which found that she did not possess the required experience for the promotional examination for Social Work Supervisor (PC4213E), Passaic County.

By way of background, the subject examination was announced with a closing date of November 21, 2023, and was open to employees in the competitive division who were currently serving in the title of Social Work Specialist or Social Worker Bilingual in Spanish and English or, in pertinent part, to applicants who possessed a Bachelor’s degree supplemented by a Master’s degree in social work, psychology, guidance and counseling, or other fields related to social work or social service; and two years of social work experience involving gathering social information from clients, determine their needs, and planning and carrying out treatment plans and/or service plans geared to individual client needs. Applicants who did not possess the Master’s degree could substitute an additional year of the indicated experience. The subject eligible list of five names promulgated on August 29, 2024 and expires on August 28, 2026.

Agency records indicate that the appellant received a provisional appointment, pending promotional procedures to the title of Human Services Specialist 3, effective August 22, 2022 and was returned to her permanent title of Human Services Specialist 1, effective September 18, 2023. Upon review of the appellant’s application, Agency Services credited the appellant’s Bachelor’s degree and found that none of her duties listed on her application demonstrated social work experience involving gathering social information from clients, determining their needs, planning, and carrying out service plans geared to individual client needs. Accordingly, it found that she lacked three years of the required experience.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant argues that she has approximately 10 years of relevant work experience as a Human Services Specialist 1. She further argues that she should be eligible to test for the above-referenced examination because there is a different employee currently serving provisionally in the title of Social Work Supervisor while permanent in the Human Services Specialist 1 title. Therefore, she maintains that she should be admitted to the examination.

CONCLUSION

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

AnalysisUpon Agency Service’s review of the appellant’s application, it correctly determined that the appellant’s experience as a Human Services Specialist 1 and as a Human Services Specialist 3 was primarily focused on eligibility determinations. The appellant’s other experience as a Community Outreach Coordinator for Lions Club International indicates gathering information from clients and determining their needs but does not indicate treatment planning, and her other experience working at Benjamin Moore Paints, Anthem Institute, Capcana and Marriot Hotel and Casino also does not qualify as social work experience involving gathering social information from clients, determining their needs, planning, and carrying out service plans geared to individual client needs. Furthermore, despite the appellant submitting an updated resume and multiple references, the appellant does not indicate social work experience involving gathering social info from clients, determining their needs, and planning and carrying out treatment plan, and/or service plans geared to individual client needs as a primary focus of any of her positions.

Moreover, with respect to the appellant’s statement that other employees were provisionally serving or were eligible to apply for Social Work Supervisor announcements while holding a Human Services Specialist 1 position, it must be noted that eligibility is determined on the basis of each discrete announcement and each candidates’ education and experience. If an applicant does not meet the requirements for a current announcement, the fact that another candidate in the same title was admitted based on a review of their education and experience, does not provide the original applicant with an entitlement to eligibility.

Accordingly, the determination of Agency Services that the appellant was not eligible for the subject examination as she did not possess three years of relevant experience as announced was proper and there is no basis for any relief.

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.