NJ Civil Service Navigator

N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.4 Burden of proof

N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.4, Burden of proof. In appeals concerning major disciplinary actions, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2, the burden of proof shall be on the appointing authority. (b) In appeals concerning minor Full text with 2 recorded amendments, 256 citing decisions.

Appeals, Discipline, and Separations · Appeals

Current through New Jersey Register, Vol. 58 No. 14, July 20, 2026. Reviewed as of July 26, 2026.

This is an annotated mirror, not the official publication. Verify against the Civil Service Commission before relying on it.

In plain language

Who has to prove what, settled in three lines. In appeals concerning major disciplinary actions under 4A:2-2, the burden of proof is on the appointing authority, so the employer has to prove the charges rather than the employee having to disprove them. In every other appeal to the Commission the burden is on the appellant, which is to say on the person who filed. Minor discipline is not decided in this section at all. It is sent to 4A:2-3.7(f), where the answer depends on whether the matter is a grievance or a minor disciplinary charge, and where a threshold about issues of general applicability has to be cleared before the burden question arises.

Written by the NJ Civil Service Navigator editorial team from the text of N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.4. It is a description of the rule, not the rule itself, and not legal advice.

(a) In appeals concerning major disciplinary actions, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2, the burden of proof shall be on the appointing authority. #

(b) In appeals concerning minor disciplinary actions, See N.J.A.C. 4A:2-3.7(f) for burden of proof standards. #

(c) In all other Civil Service Commission appeals, the burden of proof shall be on the appellant. #

Amendment history

Rule numbers, effective dates and New Jersey Register citations as published. 2 recorded changes.

  1. AmendedR.2015 d.186
    47 N.J.R. 1689(a); 47 N.J.R. 2966(a)
  2. AmendedR.1989 d.569
    21 N.J.R. 1766(a); 21 N.J.R. 3448(b)

How this rule has been applied

256 decisions have cited N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.4. The list below is citations to those decisions, not the decisions. The summary above is ours, written from the opinion after reading it. Nothing here is legal advice.

Decisions we have read

In re Foglio207 N.J. 38, July 19, 2011

A firefighter candidate was passed over while the city appointed three people ranked below him. The Supreme Court did not question the power to appoint a lower-ranked candidate, which the Rule of Three plainly allows. What it would not accept was the explanation: a reason that is generic enough to fit any bypass, and says nothing specific about this candidate, does not satisfy the appointing authority's duty to report why it went past somebody. Foglio won. Two things are worth knowing alongside the case: the word bypass is the courts' shorthand rather than the code's, since Title 4A never uses it, and the report the rule requires goes to the Commission rather than to the candidate who was passed over.

Read the opinion (free, via CourtListener). Summary written from the decision, checked July 26, 2026.

New Jersey Supreme Court (1)
  • In re Foglio207 N.J. 38; 22 A.3d 9582011
Appellate Division (8)
  • , No. A-3145-08T2
  • , No. A-1070-07T2
  • , No. A-5532-05T3
  • , No. A-4669-05T1
  • , No. A-4451-05T1
  • , No. A-4080-05T5
  • , No. A-2435-05T5
  • , No. A-1576-05T5
Civil Service Commission final determinations (152)
Office of Administrative Law initial decisions (95)
  • In re Coley, City of Plainfield, Fire Dep'tDocket CSV 09815-21
  • In re Govens, South Woods State PrisonDocket CSR 09450-23
  • Major v. Toyota Motor Sales, Inc.
  • In re Samayoa, Ann Klein Forensic Ctr., Dep't of HealthDocket CSV 05869-16
  • Butler v. FCA US, LLC
  • DPW. In re Morris, City of Newark, Dep't of Pub. WorksDocket CSV 04504-19
  • Lemon Law. Borough of Madison v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.Docket CMA 05150-19
  • In re Goding, Hudson Cnty. Dep't of Corrs.
  • Lemon Law. Blasi v. FCA US, LLC.Docket CMA 15304-18
  • Dagan v. Amer. Honda Motor Co., Inc.Docket CMA 0020
  • Lemon Law. Dagan v. Amer. Honda Motor Co. Inc.Docket CMA 00209-19
  • In re Dubuisson, Woodbridge Dev. Ctr., Dep't of Human Servs.Docket CSV 08857-15
  • Kreis v. Ford Motor Co.Docket CMA 11785-18
  • In re Bender, City of Trenton Police Dep'tDocket CSV 02992-13
  • In re Thomas, City of Newark Dep't of LawDocket CSV 15862-16
  • In re Cortez, Jersey City Sch. Dist.Docket CSV 05253-17
  • In re Kinion, City of Paterson, Div. of Bus. Admin.Docket CSV 03717-17
  • Fung v. BMW of N. Am.Docket CMA 08231-17
  • Bloomfield v. Am. Honda Motor Co.Docket CMA 9936-17
  • Lemon Law. Cai v. Am. Honda Motor Co.Docket CMA 07438-17
  • Bloomfield v. Am. Honda Motor Co.Docket CMA 09936-17
  • Pearl v. Hudson Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't.Docket CSV 11832-16
  • Lemon Law. Starrick v. Hyundai Motor AmericaDocket CMA 00093-17
  • Mulcahy et al v. City of Bayonne, Muni. Servs.Docket CSV 13798-15
  • In re Oladipo, Dep't of Human Servs., Trenton Psychiatric Hosp.Docket CSV 16161-13
  • Lemon Law. Debari v. Jaguar Land Rover N.A.Docket CMA 05312-16
  • Caporaso v. Ford Motor Co.Docket CMA 03885-16
  • Deminno v. Maserati North America, Inc.Docket CMA 03884-16
  • In re Hoyer, N.J. Dep't of Transp.Docket CSV 02591-15
  • In re Rivera, City of Newark Police Dep't.Docket CSV 14906-13
  • In re Hill, Twp. of Lakewood, Dep't of Public WorksDocket CSV 09021-14
  • Motor Vehicle Comm'n v. DawsonDocket MVH 12468-13
  • In re Hendrickson, Jr., et al, Vernon Twp., Dep't of Public SafetyDocket CSV 4683-13cites (c)
  • Weinstock v. LexusDocket CMA 02837-14cites (a)
  • Kerwyn Pierre v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc.Docket CMA 02921-14cites (a)
  • Stanislaw Labuda v. Chrysler Group, LLCDocket CMA 17548-13cites (a)
  • In re Curtis Robinson, Dep't of Human Servs., Ann Klein Forensic Psychiatric Hosp.Docket CSV 14260-12cites (a)
  • I/M/O Kenneth Gaburo, South Woods State Prison, Dep't of Corr.Docket CSV 11448-12cites (a)
  • In Re O'GaraDocket CSR 15573-12
  • In re Cathcart, Borough of Beach HavenDocket CSV 06387-07cites (c)
  • In re VensonDocket CSV 07545-07
  • In re GreggDocket CSV 6712-08
  • In re CassidyDocket CSV 2852-08
  • In re CorkerDocket CSV 236-09
  • In re CruzDocket CSV 4146-07
  • (Consolidated)
  • In re DeansDocket CSV 01134-09
  • In re PatelDocket CSV 11119-07
  • City. In re PappasDocket CSV 09761-05
  • In re SlackDocket CSV 8826-08
  • In re DowdDocket CSV 05028-08
  • In re BellDocket CSV 9013-07
  • In re MossDocket CSV 10398-07
  • In re LaCavaDocket CSV 10401-07
  • In re EchevarriaDocket CSV 6730-08
  • In re CirasellaDocket CSV 09100-06
  • In re SimmonsDocket CSV 11726-07
  • In re RamosDocket CSV 50-06
  • In re WalskiDocket CSV 01859-06
  • In re MedinaDocket CSV 7820-07
  • In re FairmonDocket CSV 3289-08
  • In re BeltreDocket CSV 07910-06
  • In Re Griffin-Staples, Dept. of Children and FamiliesDocket CSV8810-07
  • In re Giordarno, N. State PrisonDocket CSV05897-07
  • In re HendersonDocket CSV 9214-07
  • In re PorchDocket CSV 01307-07
  • In re RodriguezDocket CSV 05518-06
  • Holland v. Newark Pub. Schs.Docket CSV1861-07
  • In re LivingstonDocket CSV 05786-06
  • In re LaPointDocket CSV 5590-07
  • In re Bice-BeyDocket CSV 8296-06
  • In re CowansDocket CSV 10725-06
  • In re ScipioDocket CSV 4447-06
  • In re FrakeDocket CSV 45-06
  • In re MorrisDocket CSV 8075-04
  • In re LoveDocket CSV 8835-06
  • In re PeraltaDocket CSV 9980-06
  • In re PecorellaDocket CSV 4663-06
  • In re GreinerDocket CSV 7150-06
  • In re LaPointDocket CSV 3585-06
  • In re DammannDocket POL 6003-05
  • In re BradleyDocket CSV 5837-02
  • In re MessingerDocket CSV 8947-05
  • In re GreenDocket CSV 2832-05
  • In re FortsonDocket CSV 8699-05
  • In re ParksDocket CSV 8702-05
  • In re GoldenDocket CSV 918-03
  • In re OlukuDocket CSV 11932-05
  • In re JenkinsDocket CSV 6363-04
  • In re OrtizDocket CSV 6670-04
  • In re LoreDocket CSV 544-05
  • In re MountDocket CSV 10610-04
  • In re CooperDocket CSV 3639-03
  • In re JoyceDocket CSV 9392-03
  • In re McKoyDocket CSV 8344-02

Commission decisions citing 4A:2-1.4

173 decisions of the Civil Service Commission since January 16, 2019 cite this section (denied 147, referred for further review 10, granted 5, as the minutes record the outcome). The newest:

All 173 decisions

This rule points to