E.A., CSC Docket No. 2025-1298

BackgroundE.A., represented by Michael L. Prigoff, Esq., appeals his rejection as a Sheriff’s Officer candidate by Essex County and its request to remove his name from the eligible list for Sheriff’s Officer (C0218D)1 on the basis of psychological unfitness to perform effectively the duties of the position.

This appeal was brought before the Medical Review Panel (Panel) on August 1, 2025, which rendered its Report and Recommendation on August 4, 2025. No exceptions were filed by the parties.

The report by the Panel discusses all submitted evaluations. The Panel concluded that the test results and procedures and the behavioral record, when viewed in light of the Job Specification for Sheriff’s Officer, indicated that the appellant is psychologically fit to perform effectively the duties of the position sought, and therefore, the action of the appointing authority should not be upheld. Accordingly, the Panel recommended that the appellant be restored to the subject eligible list.

1 It is noted that the subject eligible list promulgated on November 10, 2022 and expired on November

19, 2024.

CONCLUSION

The Job Specification for the title, Sheriff’s Officer, is the official job description for such county positions within the Civil Service system. According to the definition section, incumbents perform one or more functions in the following areas: maintaining order and security in a courtroom, serving court processes, criminal identification, ballistics and investigation, and the apprehension of violators of the law. A Sheriff’s Officer may be assigned to perform other law enforcement or public safety related duties outside the parameters of a courtroom environment. Examples of work include the field and office work necessary to serve and execute warrants, writs, court orders, summonses, subpoenas, and other documents directed to the Sheriff; making arrangements for the sequestering of juries; guarding and transporting prisoners; testifying in court; collecting monies to satisfy legal debts as ordered by the court; taking fingerprints; analyzing, indexing and classifying fingerprints; examining bullets and fragments; testing fired weapons in evidence and comparing test bullets with those on the crime scene; conducting criminal and other special investigations; locating and apprehending violators of the law; conducting classes related to departmental functions; operating a variety of communication equipment; providing security at public functions and county facilities; and conducting search and rescue operations.

Having considered the record, including the Job Specification for Sheriff’s Officer and the duties and abilities encompassed therein, and the Panel’s Report and Recommendation issued thereon, and having made an independent evaluation of the same, the Civil Service Commission accepts and adopts the findings and conclusions as contained in the Panel’s Report and Recommendation and grants the appellant’s appeal.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the appointing authority has not met its burden of proof that E.A. is psychologically unfit to perform effectively the duties of a Sheriff’s Officer and, therefore, the Civil Service Commission orders that the eligible list for Sheriff’s Officer (C0218D), Essex County, be revived and the appellant’s name be restored. Absent any disqualification issue ascertained through an updated background check conducted after a conditional offer of appointment, the appellant’s appointment is otherwise mandated. A federal law, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.A. § 12112(d)(3), expressly requires that a job offer be made before any individual is required to submit to a medical or psychological examination. See also the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ADA Enforcement Guidelines: Preemployment Disability Related Questions and Medical Examination (October 10, 1995). That offer having been made, it is clear that, absent the erroneous disqualification, the aggrieved individual would have been employed in the position.

Since the appointing authority has not supported its burden of proof, upon the successful completion of his working test period, the Civil Service Commission orders that appellant be granted a retroactive date of appointment to January 17, 2025, the date he would have been appointed if his name had not been removed from the subject eligible list. This date is for salary step placement and seniority-based purposes only. However, the Civil Service Commission does not grant any other relief, such as back pay or counsel fees, except the relief enumerated above.

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