K.R., CSC Docket No. 2025-2760

BackgroundK.R. appeals the discontinuance of her provisional appointment as a Social Worker 1, Psychiatric (Social Worker) with Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital (Greystone).

On appeal, K.R. presents that she was appointed by Greystone in March 2017 as a Payroll Clerk, then on December 6, 2021, she was appointed as a Youth Group Worker with the Juvenile Justice Commission, and subsequently provisionally appointed as a Social Worker with Greystone on June 5, 2023. Thereafter, on September 6, 2024, Greystone “terminated” her provisional appointment. She notes that on June 16, 2025, she was permanently appointed as a Social Worker by Trenton Psychiatric Hospital.

K.R. asserts that her “termination” from her provisional position with Greystone did not follow her collective negotiation agreement’s (CNA) procedures as she was not given disciplinary due process. She states that during her “termination” meeting, she experienced an episode of general anxiety disorder. K.R. provides that three days after her “termination,” this agency announced a Social Worker open competitive examination where she was ranked seventh out of 15 eligibles.1 She explains that she attempted to view her personnel records from

1 Agency records indicate that the Social Worker (S1270E), Statewide open competitive examination was announced with a December 21, 2023, closing date. The eligible list promulgated on September 19, 2024, and it expires on September 18, 2026.

Greystone, including viewing her termination letter. Greystone responded that as a provisional employee, she had no right to appeal her appointment was provisional. She claims that under her CNA and Civil Service rules, Greystone falsely informed her that she did not have the right to appeal.

Additionally, K.R. presents that Greystone attempted to remove her from the Social Worker (S1270E), Statewide open competitive examination based on an incomplete list. She claims that Greystone’s actions were a pretext to not permanently appointment her.

K.R. claims that while she worked at Greystone, she was subjected to discrimination, harassment, and a hostile work environment by supervisors due to her general anxiety disorder. She indicates that supervisors threatened to terminate her, told her to “be quiet,” berated her, threatened to discipline her, and engaged in other hostile behavior. Subsequently, she presents that she was informed that she was “terminated” because she was a provisional employee without permanent status.

K.R. presents that she was initially determined eligible for the Social Worker (S1270E) open competitive examination. Thereafter, her name was certified to several appointing authorities. K.R. admits that she did not respond to these certifications as she was unable to function due to her general anxiety disorder.

K.R. requests that she be reinstated as of September 6, 2024, with backpay, seniority, and all costs associated due to the wrongful “termination,” such as, but not limited to, personal health insurance, attorney’s fees, costs, and all other equitable relief.

K.R. reiterates that due to being physically and mentally broken down due to the alleged discrimination, harassment, and wrongful “termination” that she suffered from Greystone, she would have timely responded to the Social Worker certifications. In fact, she notes that her name was restored to the subject Social Worker eligible list, which led to her name being certified for a position in that title. In the alternative, K.R. requests that this matter be transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law. She claims that Greystone’s decision to “terminate” her was arbitrary and capricious, and a hearing will enable full discovery to determine whether she was subjected to discrimination, harassment, and unlawful “termination.” K.R. asserts that there are disputed material facts, and a hearing is needed so that an Administrative Law Judge can assess the parties’ credibility.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.1(d) provides that except when a hearing is required by law, this chapter of N.J.A.C. 4A:8, or where the Civil Service Commission (Commission) finds that a material and controlling dispute of facts exists that can only be resolved by a hearing, an appeal will be reviewed on a written record.

AnalysisIn this matter, K.R. claims that on September 6, 2024, she was wrongfully “terminated” from her provisional appointment as a Social Worker with Greystone. However, the record indicates that K.R. was not “terminated.” Rather, her provisional position as a Social Worker with Greystone was merely discontinued as a a provisional appointee can be removed at any time and does not have a vested property interest in the provisional title. In other words, a provisional employee has no automatic right or expectation of achieving permanent appointment to the position to which he or she is occupying. See O’Malley v. Department of Energy, 109 N.J. 309 (1987). Further, under Civil Service law and rules, there is no required process to discontinue a provisional appointment. Moreover, regarding any claim that the Greystone’s discontinuance of her provisional appointment violated the CNA, the Commission does not have any jurisdiction over such issues and such a claim would need to be addressed in an appropriate forum. Also, if K.R. is claiming that she was unaware that her appointment was provisional and the impact of that distinction, employees are responsible for knowing the status of their appointments.

Moreover, regarding the claim that K.R. is making that the discontinuance of her provisional appointment with Greystone was based on discriminatory reasons, she presents several incidents where she disagreed with her supervisor’s behavior towards her. However, disagreements between co-workers cannot sustain a violation of the State Policy. See In the Matter of Aundrea Mason (MSB, decided June 8, 2005) and In the Matter of Bobbie Hodges (MSB, decided February 26, 2003). Additionally, K.R., other than her statements and beliefs, has not presented any evidence, such as a witness statement, document, or other evidence, that confirms the reason for the alleged hostile behavior towards her was based on her membership in a protected class. Mere speculation, without evidence, is insufficient to substantiate a violation of the State Policy. See In the Matter of T.J. (CSC, decided December 7, 2016). Further, regarding the appellant’s removal from the Social Worker (S1270E), Statewide eligible list, despite K.R. acknowledging that she did not respond to certifications from that eligible list, on appeal, her name was restored to the eligible list. Subsequently, her name was certified to Trenton Psychiatric Hospital on certification OS250104, and it appointed her as a Social Worker, effective June 16, 2025. Accordingly, under these circumstances, there is no basis to transmit this matter to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing. See N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.1(d).

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.