N.J.A.C. 4A:2-4.1 Notice of termination
N.J.A.C. 4A:2-4.1, Notice of termination. An employee terminated from service or returned to his or her former permanent title at the conclusion of a working test period due to unsatisfactory perfor Full text with 3 recorded amendments, 27 citing decisions, cited by 2 other rules.
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
The notice that ends a working test period, and the timing rule that can hand you permanent status. An employee terminated, or returned to a former permanent title, at the conclusion of a working test period for unsatisfactory performance must be given written notice in person or by certified mail, and that notice has to tell them they may request a hearing before the Commission within 20 days of receiving it. The service window is narrow: no more than five working days before the last day of the working test period, and no more than five working days after it. A notice served after that window creates a presumption that the employee has attained permanent status. Late notice is therefore worth checking the dates on carefully.
Written by the NJ Civil Service Navigator editorial team from the text of N.J.A.C. 4A:2-4.1. It is a description of the rule, not the rule itself, and not legal advice.
(a) An employee terminated from service or returned to his or her former permanent title at the conclusion of a working test period due to unsatisfactory performance shall be given written notice in person or by certified mail by the appointing authority. #
(b) The notice shall inform the employee of the right to request a hearing before the Civil Service Commission within 20 days of receipt of the notice. #
(c) The notice shall be served not more than five working days prior to or five working days following the last day of the working test period. A notice served after this period shall create a presumption that the employee has attained permanent status. #
The notice that ends a working test period, and why its date matters
This section is short, and almost every word of it controls something. It applies when an appointing authority ends a working test period because of unsatisfactory performance, either by terminating the employee or by returning the employee to a former permanent title. Either way, the employee must get written notice, delivered in person or by certified mail.
The notice has to say one thing in particular: that you may request a hearing before the Civil Service Commission within 20 days of receiving it. The appeal rule counts the same 20 days from your receipt of the written notification, and if the appointing authority never gives the notice this section requires, the appeal is due within a reasonable time instead.
The date of service is the part people miss. Notice must be served no earlier than five working days before the last day of the working test period and no later than five working days after it. Serve it after that window closes and the rule presumes the employee has attained permanent status; the rule attaches no such consequence to notice served too early. Serve it after the last day but inside the window, and the duration rule treats the working test period as ending on the day the notice was served. Working out the last day is therefore the first step in reading any notice, and that depends on when the regular appointment began and whether an approved leave of absence or a voluntary furlough pushed the end date back by the length of the leave.
In State service there is a paper trail to check as well. When an employee is being separated or returned for unsatisfactory performance, the appointing authority must send Commission staff copies of every progress report, the final report and the written notice within five days after the last day of the period. The employee is entitled to a copy of every report along the way.
What the section does not do is define unsatisfactory performance or require reasons to be stated in the notice. The appeal that follows is decided on whether the action was taken in bad faith, and the employee carries that burden. A presumption of permanent status is also only a presumption; the rule does not say what, if anything, rebuts it.
Written by the NJ Civil Service Navigator editorial team. Every statement here traces to the rules cited on this page. It is not legal advice, and a collective agreement may change how these rules apply to you.
Amendment history
Rule numbers, effective dates and New Jersey Register citations as published. 3 recorded changes.
- AmendedR.2015 d.18647 N.J.R. 1689(a); 47 N.J.R. 2966(a)
- AmendedR.1992 d.41424 N.J.R. 2491(a); 24 N.J.R. 3716(a)
- date not statedAdministrative correction25 N.J.R. 686(a)
How this rule has been applied
27 decisions have cited N.J.A.C. 4A:2-4.1. The list below is citations to those decisions, not the decisions. We have not written summaries for this section. A citation with no summary is deliberate: we do not paraphrase a decision we have not read. Nothing here is legal advice.
Civil Service Commission final determinations (20)
- In re Saldana, Burlington Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Serv., CSC DKT. NO. 2025-622
- In re Jeremy Rodas, Dep't of Children & Families, CSC Dkt. No. 2012-3204Docket CSV 12410-12
- Davis v. Newark Public Library9 N.J.A.R. 841987
- Brown v. State Department of Education97 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 537
- Murry v. Geraldine L. Thompson Medical Home97 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 371
- Tassoni v. County of Cape May97 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 248
- Raffa v. County of Cape May97 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 203
- Polk v. City of Camden Utilities Department97 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 163
- Heim v. Monmouth County, Department of Parks97 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 143
- Kilpatrick v. Department of Community Affairs97 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 115
- Raymond v. Trenton Department of Public Works97 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 52; 96 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 780
- Harris v. Northern State Prison96 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 596
- Woodburn v. Ocean County Department of Roads96 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 387
- Walker v. Camden County Sheriff's Department96 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 295
- Plummer v. Monmouth County Department of Buildings and Grounds96 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 129
- Patel v. State Department of Human Services96 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 126
- Ball v. Burlington County96 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 33
- Chandiramani v. Bergen County Board of Social Services96 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 12
- Hamilton v. Essex County Hospital Center95 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 580
- Montesi v. Burlington County95 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 404
Office of Administrative Law initial decisions (7)
- In re Saldana, Dep't of Personnel, Burlington Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Serv.Docket CSV 13829-24
- In re Rindosh, Burlington Cnty. Dep't of Human Serv., OAL Docket No. CSV 06594-22
- In re Bloomfield, OAL Docket No. CSV 10511-18
- In re Hanns, Jr., City of Linden Police Dep'tDocket CSV 00745-17
- In re Delgaudio, Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs.Docket CSV 09823-16
- In re Ellington, Essex Cnty. Dep't of Citizen Servs.Docket CSV 12787-16
- In re BelliniDocket CSV 3584-02cites (c)