N.J.A.C. 4A:2-4.3 Civil Service Commission hearing
N.J.A.C. 4A:2-4.3, Civil Service Commission hearing. An appeal to the Commission shall be processed in accordance with N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.9. (b) The employee has the burden of proof to establish that the action w Full text with 1 recorded amendment, 69 citing decisions.
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 hardest sentence in this part of the code sits here: the employee has the burden of proof to establish that the action was in bad faith. Not that the performance assessment was wrong, not that it was unfair, but that the appointing authority acted in bad faith, and it is on you to prove it. That is a materially higher bar than a major discipline appeal, where the appointing authority has to justify its own action. The appeal itself is processed like any other Commission matter under 4A:2-2.9. If bad faith is found, the remedy is a new working test period, full or shortened, along with other appropriate remedies under the general remedies rule.
Written by the NJ Civil Service Navigator editorial team from the text of N.J.A.C. 4A:2-4.3. It is a description of the rule, not the rule itself, and not legal advice.
(a) An appeal to the Commission shall be processed in accordance with N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.9. #
(b) The employee has the burden of proof to establish that the action was in bad faith. #
(c) If bad faith is found by the Commission, the employee shall be entitled to a new full or shortened working test period and other appropriate remedies. See N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.5. #
Amendment history
Rule numbers, effective dates and New Jersey Register citations as published. 1 recorded change.
- AmendedR.2015 d.18647 N.J.R. 1689(a); 47 N.J.R. 2966(a)
How this rule has been applied
69 decisions have cited N.J.A.C. 4A:2-4.3. 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 (22)
- In re Saldana, Burlington Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Serv., CSC DKT. NO. 2025-6222025 N.J. CSC LEXIS 195
- In re Saldana, Burlington Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Serv., CSC DKT. NO. 2025-6222025 N.J. CSC LEXIS 195
- In re Brittingham, Mercer Cnty. Corr. Ctr., CSC Docket No. 2023-9772024 N.J. CSC LEXIS 439Docket 2023-977
- In re Petrosky, Union Cnty., Dep't of Human Serv.2024 N.J. CSC LEXIS 263Docket CSV 05680-23
- In re Jaime, Union Cnty. Dep't of Human Services2022 N.J. CSC LEXIS 425Docket CSV 09761-21
- In re Payne, Camden Cnty. Dep't of Corr.2021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 273Docket CSV 04382-19
- In re Walker, Ancora Psychiatric Hosp., CSC Docket No. 2019-25992019 N.J. CSC LEXIS 53Docket 2019-2599
- In re Jimenez, Cape May Cnty., CSC Docket No. 2016-36802017 N.J. CSC LEXIS 668Docket 2016-3680
- In re Hanns, Jr., City of Linden, Police Dep't., CSC DKT. NO. 2017-20282017 N.J. CSC LEXIS 627
- In re Pierce, City of Hackensack, Police Dep't., CSC DKT. NO. 2015-18912017 N.J. CSC LEXIS 629
- In re Patel, Dep't of Transp., CSC DKT. NO. 2010-14492014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 775
- In re Brown, Dep't of Children & Families, CSC DKT. NO. 2013-19842014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 409
- In re Matthew Sailey Dep't of Transp., CSC Dkt. No. 2013-18672014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 20
- In re Melissa Brown, Montclair State University, CSC DKT. NO. 2011-47932013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 812Docket CSV 04763-12
- In re Shawn Pressley2013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 471Docket CSV 00731-12
- In re Jeremy Rodas, Dep't of Children & Families, CSC Dkt. No. 2012-32042013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 657Docket CSV 12410-12
- County. In re Rachmiel2010 N.J. CSC LEXIS 586Docket CSV 11354-09
- In re Salva2010 N.J. CSC LEXIS 616Docket CSV 941-09
- In re Pinckney, Dep't. of the Treasury, OAL Docket No. CSV 6968-07, CSC Docket No. 2008-4532008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1555Docket 2008-453
- Howarth v. Department of Transportation95 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 636
- Kreudl v. Department of Public Works95 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 584
- Hamilton v. Essex County Hospital Center95 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 580
Office of Administrative Law initial decisions (47)
- In re Saldana, Dep't of Personnel, Burlington Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Serv.2025 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 292Docket CSV 13829-24
- Petrosky v. Union Cnty. Dep't of Human Serv.2024 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 487Docket CSV 05680-23
- In re Miller, Essex Cnty. Dep't of Citizen Servs.2019 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 48Docket CSV 00727-18
- In re Slyke, Monmouth Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs.2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 725Docket CSV 17652-13
- In re Pierce2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1288Docket CSV 01242-15
- In re Hanns, Jr., City of Linden Police Dep't2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1203Docket CSV 00745-17
- In re Hanns, Jr., City of Linden Police Dep't2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 563Docket CSV 00745-17
- In re Delgaudio, Bergen Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs.2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 371Docket CSV 09823-16
- Sarmad v. Dep't of Children & Families2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 243Docket CSV 12825-14
- In re Whelan, Office of the Public Defender2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 517Docket CSV 11498-13
- In re Ray, N.J. State Prison, Dep't of Corrs.2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 544Docket CSV 15310-13
- In re Guevara, Union City Dep't of Pub. Safety2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 311Docket CSV 09238-14
- In re Voigtsberger, Camden Cty. Dep't of Corrs.2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 227Docket CSV 17848-13
- In re Rosiak, Bayside State Prison, Dep't of Corr.2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 247Docket CSV 17568-13
- In re Bhadreshku Patel2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 714Docket CSV 14102-09
- Lisa Brown v. Dep't of Children & Families2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 175Docket CSV 2630-13
- In re Barbarita Melendez, Superior Ct. of New Jersey, Hudson Vicinage2013 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 353Docket CSV 04350-13
- In re Graves2009 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 985Docket CSV 4701-08
- In re Ocasio2009 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 958Docket CSV 01171-08
- In re Mitchell2009 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 969Docket CSV 1478-09
- In re Johnson2009 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 963Docket CSV 07526-08
- In re Macklin2009 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 888Docket CSV 02016-08
- In re Kanis2009 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 996Docket CSV 782-07
- In re Robinson2009 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 804Docket CSV 12165-07
- Group Home. In re Pennington2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1081Docket CSV 10039-07
- In re Maldonado2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 396Docket CSV 07337-04
- In re Villecca2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 710Docket CSV 2978-06
- In re Villecca2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 710Docket CSV 2978-06
- In re Afolo2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 546Docket CSV 4145-07
- In re Afolo2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 546Docket CSV 4145-07
- In re Ehrenkranz2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 545Docket CSV 4026-07
- In re Britton2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 520Docket CSV 8350-06
- In re Howe, City of Clifton2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1545Docket CSV3601-06
- In re Matus2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1029Docket CSV 5064-07
- In re Petty2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1141Docket CSV 60-07
- 2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1280Docket PTC2091-07
- In re Stubbs2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1145Docket CSV 6150-06
- In re Woodford2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1064Docket CSV 11157-04
- co-worker. In re Barnes2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1099Docket CSV 2885-05
- 2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1028
- In re Ausby2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 863Docket CSV 5735-04
- In re Olofintuyi2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 619Docket CSV 4571-05
- In re Yanes2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 560Docket CSV 11481-04
- In re Mabson2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1101Docket CSV 2164-05
- In re Woolford2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1125Docket CSV 803-04
- In re Cooper2005 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1190Docket CSV 3473-05
- In re Tolbert2005 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1260Docket CSV 4337-01