J.P., CSC Docket No. 2026-128

BackgroundJ.P. appeals the decision to remove her name from the Sheriff’s Officer (C0419F), Middlesex County Sheriff’s Office eligible list on the basis of the falsification of her employment application.

The appellant took the open competitive examination for Sheriff’s Officer (C0419F), Middlesex County Sheriff’s Office, which had a April 1, 2024, closing date, achieved a passing score, and was ranked on the subsequent eligible list. Her name was certified (OL241385), and she was ranked first. In seeking her removal, the appointing authority indicated that the appellant falsified her application.

Specifically, the appointing authority’s background report indicated that the appellant did not report two civil courts actions (filed January 16, 2019, and June 9, 2022) and two police contacts (March 18, 2020, and June 17, 2016). Further, although the appellant indicated that she never had been subject to disciplinary action, the investigation revealed that while employed by MSI Surfaces (MSI), the appellant was disciplined twice (November 29, 2017, and January 9, 2019) for “Conduct Issues and Professionalism with Peers.” Moreover, MSI Surfaces indicated that it terminated the appellant from employment for leaving for maternity leave, never returning, and never providing notice that she was not returning.

Appellant's argumentOn appeal, the appellant states that she does not believe that she falsified her application and notes that she never received any follow up from the appointing authority questioning her application. In response to a clarification as to what she falsified, she states that she honestly does not recall the two civil court actions as she listed everything that she was able to obtain from pulling up her license records.

Concerning her incidents with her prior employer, MSI, the appellant indicates that she was disciplined because of the supervisors who were in charge. Specifically, she presents that on November 29, 2017, she was disciplined because she took a longer lunch to pick up her kids from school, to drop them off at day care, and the supervisor at the time was unaware of her situation. Regarding the incident that occurred on January 9, 2019, the appellant asserts that a new supervisor was harassing her because he was having an affair with another employee, and the other employee wanted her position as a Shipping Coordinator. She explains that she brought this situation to human resources’ attention, and she was reassigned to the front as a Customer Service Representative.

Referring to her termination from MSI, the appellant presents that her newborn son was put on an apnea monitor for an extra month after her maternity leave time was exhausted. Further, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, she indicates that she was scheduled to return to work on August 5TH. However, at the time, the appellant provides that her two oldest daughters were not physically in school as classes were virtual. Additionally, the appellant indicates that she could not find day care to take all three children together, and she refused to take them to separate childcare providers due to the spreading virus, her son having breathing issues since birth, and one of her daughter having asthma. The appellant states that she discussed the situation with MSI’s human resources, so she is not sure why it indicated that she abandoned her job without notice.

CONCLUSION

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(a)1, in conjunction with N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)6, allows the Civil Service Commission to remove an eligible’s name from an employment list when he or she has made a false statement of any material fact or attempted any deception or fraud in any part of the selection or appointment process. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b), in conjunction with N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(d), provides that the appellant has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that an appointing authority’s decision to remove his or her name from an eligible list was in error.

The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, in In the Matter of Nicholas D’Alessio, Docket No. A-3901-01T3 (App. Div. September 2, 2003), affirmed the removal of a candidate’s name based on his falsification of his employment application and noted that the primary inquiry in such a case is whether the candidate withheld information that was material to the position sought, not whether there was any intent to deceive on the part of the applicant.

In response, regarding the appellant’s statement that she does not recall the two civil court actions, candidates are responsible for the accuracy of their applications. See In the Matter of Harry Hunter (MSB, decided December 1, 2004). Additionally, the appellant did not respond to the appointing authority’s statement that she did not report two police contacts. Regarding her employment with MSI, the issue is that the appellant failed to report the disciplines and the termination on her employment application and not whether these actions were justified.

Therefore, even if there was no intent to deceive, the appellant’s failure to disclose this information was material. At minimum, the appointing authority needed this information to have a complete understanding of the appellant’s background to properly evaluate her candidacy. Therefore, in reviewing the totality of the appellant’s background, the appointing authority had a valid reason to remove the appellant’s name from the list. See In the Matter of Dennis Feliciano, Jr. (CSC, decided February 22, 2017).

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.