NJ Civil Service Navigator

N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.9 Commission hearings

N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.9, Commission hearings. Requests for a Commission hearing will be reviewed and determined by the Chairperson or the Chairperson's designee. (b) Major discipline hearings will be he Full text with 4 recorded amendments, 59 citing decisions, cited by 3 other rules.

Appeals, Discipline, and Separations · Major Discipline

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

Whether you get a hearing, and who conducts it. The Chairperson or a designee decides on requests for a Commission hearing. Major discipline appeals are heard either by the Commission itself or referred to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing before an administrative law judge. Minor discipline usually gets no hearing at all, with two exceptions that turn on accumulation rather than severity: the last suspension or fine of five working days or less where the year total reaches 15 working days, and the last one where you have received more than three such suspensions or fines in a calendar year. Where an employee has pleaded guilty to or been convicted of an offence causing forfeiture of employment under N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2, the section sets out separate treatment.

Written by the NJ Civil Service Navigator editorial team from the text of N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.9. It is a description of the rule, not the rule itself, and not legal advice.

(a) Requests for a Commission hearing will be reviewed and determined by the Chairperson or the Chairperson's designee. #

(b) Major discipline hearings will be heard by the Commission or referred to the Office of Administrative Law for hearing before an administrative law judge, except that an appeal by certain law enforcement officers or firefighters of a removal shall be heard as provided in N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.13. Minor discipline matters will be heard by the Commission or referred to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing before an administrative law judge for an employee's last suspension or fine for five working days or less where the aggregate number of days the employee has been suspended or fined in a calendar year, including the last suspension or fine, is 15 working days or more, or for an employee's last suspension or fine where the employee receives more than three suspensions or fines of five working days or less in a calendar year. See N.J.A.C. 1:1 for OAL hearing procedures. #

1. Where an employee has pled guilty to or been convicted of a crime or offense which is cause for forfeiture of employment under N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2, but the court has not issued an order of forfeiture, the Commission shall not refer the employee's appeal for a hearing regarding the applicability of N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2 nor make a determination on that issue. See N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.7. #

2. Where a court has entered an order of forfeiture, and the appointing authority has so notified the employee, but the employee disputes whether an order of forfeiture was actually entered, the Commission may make a determination on the issue of whether the order was actually entered. See N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.7. #

3. Notwithstanding (b)1 and 2 above, the Commission may determine whether an individual must be discharged from a State or local government position due to a permanent disqualification from public employment based upon the prior conviction of a crime or offense involving or touching on a previously held public office or employment, provided, however, that the Attorney General or county prosecutor has not sought or received a court order waiving the disqualification provision. See N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2(d) and (e). #

(c) The Commission may adopt, reject or modify the recommended report and decision of an administrative law judge. Copies of all Commission decisions shall be served personally or by regular mail upon the parties. #

(d) The Commission may reverse or modify the action of the appointing authority, except that removal shall not be substituted for a lesser penalty. #

Amendment history

Rule numbers, effective dates and New Jersey Register citations as published. 4 recorded changes.

  1. ReadoptedR.2010 d.176
    42 N.J.R. 693(a); 42 N.J.R. 1855(a)
  2. AmendedR.2006 d.271
    37 N.J.R. 4345(a); 38 N.J.R. 3016(b); 41 N.J.R. 2720(a)
  3. AmendedR.1995 d.417
    27 N.J.R. 1838(a); 27 N.J.R. 2885(a)
1 editorial correction (punctuation and cross-reference updates)
  1. AmendedR.2000 d.433
    32 N.J.R. 2275(a); 32 N.J.R. 3870(a)

How this rule has been applied

59 decisions have cited N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.9. 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

Cunningham v. Dept. of Civil Service69 N.J. 13, December 16, 1975

Two Directors of Design lost their titles in a departmental reorganisation and went onto a special reemployment list, then claimed a prior right to a newly classified position they said did the same work. A chief examiner decided by letter that the two titles were not comparable, and that was the end of it until the Supreme Court held the question could not be settled on paper. People in that position have enough at stake to be entitled to a hearing as a matter of fundamental fairness, and the agency owes them findings that actually compare the duties rather than a sentence echoing the words of the statute.

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

New Jersey Supreme Court (1)
  • Cunningham v. Dept. of Civil Service69 N.J. 13; 350 A.2d 581975
Appellate Division (4)
  • , No. A-1038-07T22008 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2882
  • , No. A-0653-05T12006 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2123
  • In the Matter of Morrison216 N.J.Super. 143; 523 A.2d 238
  • In the Matter of Parlow192 N.J.Super. 247; 469 A.2d 940
Civil Service Commission final determinations (13)
  • In re Melendez, Dep't of Corr., CSC DKT. NO. 2016-34732021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 223
  • In re Pinto, Program Specialist 4 (PS5653K), Dep't of Human Servs., CSC DKT. NO. 2021-14942021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 226
  • In re Pimentel, State Parole Bd., CSC DKT. NO. 2019-34342021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 234
  • In re Williams, Lawrence Twp. Dep't of Pub. Safety2021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 166; 2021 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 111Docket CSV 17964-19
  • In re Tonner, Edna Mahan Corr. Facility, CSC Docket No. 2017-646, Dep't of Corrs.2018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 682Docket 2017-646
  • In re Herrera, CSC Docket No. 2018-11922018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 439Docket 2018-1192
  • In re Jaime Colon, Police Dep't., City of Elizabeth2014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 1Docket CSB 00894-13
  • In re Linda Tisby, Camden Cnty., CSC Dkt. No. 2013-11662013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 580
  • In re Reid2011 N.J. CSC LEXIS 754Docket CSR 7477-10
  • In re Desmond2010 N.J. CSC LEXIS 584Docket CSV 8989-08
  • In re Owens2009 N.J. CSC LEXIS 1435Docket CSV 386-09
  • Russ v. Human Services Department95 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 647
  • Petescia v. County of Essex92 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 388
Office of Administrative Law initial decisions (41)
  • In re Stoner, Ancora Psychiatric Hosp., Dep't of Health2020 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 216Docket CSV 09806-13
  • In re Barnes, Monmouth Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs.2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 184
  • 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 724
  • In re Baker, Ann Klein Forensic Psychiatric Hosp., Dep't of Human Servs.2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 85Docket CSV 09967-12
  • In re Singletary, Judiciary, Essex Cnty. Vicinage2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1267Docket CSV 07364-13
  • In re Linda Tisby, Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility2013 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 572
  • In re Rosario2009 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1006Docket CSV 5829-08
  • In re Ross2009 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1001Docket CSV 8839-07
  • In re Sampson2009 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 968Docket CSV 126-08
  • In re Copling2009 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 983Docket CSV 4275-07
  • In re Crowder2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1053Docket CSV 2998-08
  • In re Daughtry2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 586Docket CSV 10171-06
  • In re Debias2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 508Docket CSV 6114-07
  • In re Sanders2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 591Docket CSV 11115-07
  • In re Clarke2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 551Docket CSV 4495-07
  • In re VanDerveer2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 511Docket CSV 6265-07
  • In re McFadden2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 579Docket CSV 07267-07
  • In re Ramos2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 541Docket CSV 3883-07
  • In re Martin2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 528Docket CSV 1303-06
  • In re Thompson2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1017Docket CSV 774-07
  • In re Gore-Bell2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1024Docket CSV 3975-06
  • In re Frederick2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1158Docket CSV 784-07
  • In re Hubbs2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1148Docket CSV 6528-06
  • In re Steiger2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1054Docket CSV 5463-05
  • In re Manay2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1162Docket CSV 8342-06
  • In re Gatewood2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1169Docket CSV 7812-06
  • In re Ricciardi2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1043Docket CSV 1851-06
  • In re R.J. Shumny, Monmouth Cnty., OAL Docket No. CSV 10291-05, DOP Docket No. 2006-18932007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1242
  • 2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 795
  • In re Martinez2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 909Docket CSV 6550-05
  • In re Salensky2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 910Docket CSV 7734-05
  • In re Graves2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 770Docket CSV 226-06
  • In re Rosado2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 778Docket CSV 9431-04
  • In re Hidalgo2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 542Docket CSV 6327-00
  • In re McGorty2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 636Docket CSV 9567-05
  • In re McConnell2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 547Docket CSV 9430-04
  • In re Ortiz2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 613Docket CSV 12056-04
  • In re Snyder2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 623Docket CSV 554-05
  • In re Washington2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 216Docket CSV 6778-04
  • In re Hayes2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 210Docket CSV 5089-05
  • In re Seitz2005 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1083Docket CSV 2889-05

This rule points to

Rules that point here

Elsewhere in Major Discipline