In th e M atter of N ich olas R . Foglio, Fire Figh ter (M 2246D), Ocean City
CSC Docket No. 2012-750
(Civ il S e rv ic e Co m m is s io n , d e c id e d F e bru a ry 22, 2012 )
Nich ola s R. F oglio, r epr esen t ed by Ca r l N. Tr ipicia n , E sq., a ppea ls t h e bypa ss
of h is n a m e on t h e F ir e F igh t er (M2246D), Ocea n Cit y, eligible list .
By wa y of ba ckgr ou n d, t h e a ppella n t , a n on vet er a n , a ppea r ed a s t h e 11 t h
r a n ked eligible on t h e F ir e F igh t er (M2246D), Ocea n Cit y, eligible list , wh ich
pr om u lga t ed on Ma r ch 16, 2004 a n d expir ed on Novem ber 2, 2007. Th e eligible list
wa s cer t ified t o t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y on Ma y 24, 2007 wit h 15 n a m es. Th e
a ppella n t , wh o r a n ked t h ir d on t h e cer t ifica t ion , wa s bypa ssed for a ppoin t m en t a n d
Da n iel Coa n ,1 Ken n et h P olla ck, J r ., a n d Kim ber ly McKa y, wh o r a n ked secon d,
eigh t h , a n d t en t h on t h e cer t ifica t ion , r espect ively, wer e a ppoin t ed effect ive J u ly 11,
2007. Th e a ppella n t h a d been a volu n t eer fir efigh t er a n d a n em er gen cy m edica l
t ech n icia n for over eigh t yea r s wh en h is n a m e wa s cer t ified. P olla ck a n d McKa y
h a d exper ien ce a s a ba r t en der a n d a lifegu a r d, r espect ively. Th e a ppella n t
a ppea led h is bypa ss t o t h e Division of Loca l H u m a n Resou r ce Ma n a gem en t
(LH RM), 2 wh ich fou n d t h a t t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y pr oper ly disposed of t h e
cer t ifica t ion . Th e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y infor m ed LH RM t h a t P olla ck a n d McKa y
wer e a ppoin t ed beca u se ea ch of t h em “best m eet s n eeds of Depa r t m en t .” It is n ot ed
t h a t t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y sign ed t h e followin g decla r a t ion on t h e cer t ifica t ion
t h a t “[a ]n y a ppoin t m en t of a n eligible n ot st a n din g h igh est in cer t ifica t ion h a s n ot
been by r ea son of r a ce, color , sex, polit ica l beliefs or cr eed bu t beca u se of t h ose
r ea son s list ed in t h e Disposit ion /Com m en t s colu m n .” Th e a ppella n t t h en a ppea led
t o t h e Civil Ser vice Com m ission (Com m ission ). Th e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y a r gu ed
t h a t t h e a ppella n t h a d n ot offer ed eviden ce sh owin g t ha t it ha d viola t ed t h e “Ru le of
Th r ee,” N .J .A.C. 4A:4-4.8(a )3, a n d t h a t it h a d pr oper ly exer cised it s discr et ion in
t h e a ppoin t m en t s it m a de. Th e Com m ission fou n d t h a t t h e a ppella n t h a d t h e
bu r den of pr oof, by a pr epon der a n ce of t h e eviden ce, t o sh ow t h a t h e h a d been
im pr oper ly bypa ssed. It fu r t h er fou n d t h a t t h e a ppoin t in g a u t hor it y h a d in dica t ed
in disposin g of t h e cer t ifica t ion t h a t it a ppoin t ed lower -r a n ked eligibles beca u se
t h ey best m et t h e needs of t h e fir e depa r t m en t . Th e Com m ission n ot ed t h a t
pla cem en t on a n eligible list does not gu a r a n t ee a ppoin t m en t , bu t only
con sider a t ion for a va ca n cy. F ina lly, t h e Com m ission fou n d t h a t t h e a ppoin t in g
a u t h or it y wa s per m it t ed t o a ppoin t in dividu a ls wit h lesser qu a lifica t ion s t h a n t h e
bypa ssed eligible, so lon g a s t h e decision wa s n ot ba sed on a n u n la wfu l m ot ive, su ch
a s discr im in a t ion or polit ica l in flu en ce. Accor din gly, t h e Com m ission u ph eld t h e
1
Sin ce Coa n r a n k ed secon d a n d t h e a ppella n t r a n ked t h ir d on t h e cer t ifica t ion , t h e a ppella n t wa s
n ot bypa ssed wh en Coa n wa s a ppoin t ed. Addit ion a lly, t h e fir st r a n ked eligible wa s r em oved.
2
LH RM is n ow t h e Division of St a t e a n d Loca l Oper a t ion s.
2
a ppella n t ’s bypa ss. S ee In th e M atter of N ich olas R . Foglio (CSC, decided F ebr u a r y
11, 2009).
Th e a ppella n t a ppea led t o t h e Su per ior Cou r t of New J er sey, Appella t e
Division . Upon it s r eview, t h e cou r t det er m in ed t h a t t h e Ru le of Th r ee wa s
design ed t o a ffor d a n a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y wit h som e degr ee of discr et ion in m a kin g
a ppoin t m en t s. Mea n wh ile, t h e cou r t sa id t h a t eligible list s a r e n ot pr om u lga t ed for
t h e ben efit of a n y pa r t icu la r in dividu a l, bu t a n eligible’s in t er est in bein g on a list is
in bein g con sider ed for a va ca n cy. Addit ion a lly, t h e cou r t h eld t h a t t h e Rule of
Th r ee per m it t ed a n a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y t o bypa ss a n eligible for lower -r a n ked
in dividu a ls for a legit im a t e r ea son . Th e cou r t obser ved t h a t n in e eligibles wer e
r em oved fr om t h e list for va r iou s r ea son s, wh ile, of t h e r em a in in g n in e, t h e n in t h r a n ked eligible h a d filed a la t e r espon se t o t h e cer t ifica t ion , a n d t h e a ppoin t in g
a u t h or it y a ppoin t ed t h e eligibles in qu est ion for r ea son s ot h er t h a n a n im pr oper
m ot ive, su ch a s a ge or gen der discr im in a t ion or a n t i-u n ion a n im u s. Th er efor e, t h e
cou r t a ffir m ed t h e Com m ission ’s decision . S ee In th e M atter of N ich olas R . Foglio,
Fire Figh ter (M 2246D), Ocean City, Docket No. A-3609-08T3 (App. Div. J u n e 24,
2010).
Th er ea ft er , t h e Su pr em e Cou r t of New J er sey gr a n t ed t h e a ppella n t ’s
pet it ion for cer t ifica t ion . In re Foglio, 204 N .J . 39 (2010). Upon it s r eview, t h e
Su pr em e Cou r t det er m in ed t h a t N .J .A.C. 4A:4-4.8(b)4 r equ ir es a st a t em en t of
r ea son s by t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y for t h e select ion of lower -r a n ked eligibles. Th e
Cou r t h eld t h a t , a s bypa ssin g a h igh er -r a n ked eligible is fa cia lly in con sist en t wit h
pr in ciples of m er it a n d fit n ess, t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y m u st ju st ify it s select ion of
a lower -r a n ked eligible wit h a specific r ea son . Th e Cou r t viewed Ocea n Cit y’s
r ea son a s “boiler pla t e.” It in dica t ed t h a t a llowin g t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y t o
pr ovide a n on specific r ea son did n ot en su r e t h a t t h e bypa ss wa s ba sed on m er it a n d
fit n ess. Th er efor e, t h e Cou r t r ever sed t h e Appella t e Division ’s decision a n d
r em a n ded t h e m a t t er t o Ocea n Cit y t o supply a “pr oper st a t em en t of r ea son s” for
t h e bypa ss. Th e a ppella n t wou ld t h en h a ve a n oppor t u n it y t o m a ke a sh owin g
befor e t h e Com m ission t h a t t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y’s a ct ion wa s a r bit r a r y. S ee In
th e M atter of N ich olas R . Foglio, Fire Figh ter (M 2246D), Ocean City, 207 N .J . 38
(2011) (a t t a ch ed).
It is n ot ed t h a t , a t it s m eet in g of Decem ber 7, 2011, t h e Com m ission
a ppr oved for pu blica t ion in t h e N ew J ersey R egister a n a m en dm en t t o N .J .A.C.
4A:4-4.8, Disposit ion of a cer t ifica t ion , wh ich wou ld delet e t he r equ ir em en t for a
st a t em en t of r ea son s, pa r a gr a ph (b)4 of t he r u le. Th e Com m ission in dica t ed t h a t
t h e r u le pr ovision wa s in t en ded t o en su r e t h a t a n a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y exer cises it s
discr et ion u n der t h e Ru le of Th r ee ba sed on legit im a t e r ea son s. H owever , t h e
Com m ission fou n d t h a t t h e r equ ir em en t h a d don e lit t le t o a dva n ce it s or igin a l
pu r poses. It a lso fou n d t h a t a ppoin t in g a u t h or it ies pr ovide lit t le r ea son on t h e
cer t ifica t ion for a bypa ss a n d r ou t in ely u se ph r a ses su ch a s “best m eet s n eeds of t h e
depa r t m en t ,” a s wa s don e in t h e in st a n t m a t t er . Th u s, beca u se pa r a gr a ph (b)4 of
3
t h e r u le is n ot r equir ed by st a t u t e a n d h a s n ot fu lfilled it s in t en ded fu n ct ion , t h e
Com m ission pr oposed it s delet ion . Th e r u le pr oposa l a ppea r ed in t h e J a n ua r y 17,
2012 issu e of t h e N ew J ersey R egister, 44 N .J .R . 137(a ), a n d a pu blic h ea r in g on t h e
pr oposa l wa s h eld on F ebr u a r y 9, 2012. Th e com m en t per iod expir es on Ma r ch 17,
2012. In t h e m ea n t im e, a ppoin t in g a u t hor it ies a r e r equir ed t o su bm it a pr oper
st a t em en t of r ea son s.
On J u ly 25, 2011, t h e Dir ect or , Division of St a t e a n d Loca l Oper a t ion s,
r et u r n ed t h e Ma y 24, 2007 cer t ifica t ion of t h e F ir e F igh t er (M2246D), Ocea n Cit y,
eligible list , t o t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y in or der for it t o dispose of t h e cer t ifica t ion
pu r su a n t t o t h e Su pr em e Cou r t ’s opin ion . Th e a ppoin t in g a u t hor it y r et u r n ed t h e
cer t ifica t ion on Au gu st 19, 2011, bypa ssing t h e a ppella n t a n d st a t in g t h a t “[w]it h
r espect t o P olla ck, Ken n et h W. J r . a n d McKa y, Kim ber ly A., t h eir in t er views wit h
t h e a ppoin t in g a u t hor it y dem on st r a t ed t h e m a t u r it y a n d t em per a m en t for t h e
posit ion .” Th is a gen cy a ppr oved t h e disposit ion of t h e cer t ifica t ion . Th e a ppella n t
t h en filed t h e in st a n t a ppea l, in dica t in g t h a t h e will r ely on h is pr eviou s a r gu m en t s
t o t h e Appella t e Division a n d Su pr em e Cou r t t h a t h is bypa ss wa s im pr oper .
In r espon se t o t h e a ppella n t ’s a ppea l, t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y, r epr esen t ed
by Dor ot h y F . McCr osson , E sq., in dica t es t h a t t h er e is in su fficien t spa ce on t h e
cer t ifica t ion for m t o pr ovide a det a iled expla n a t ion of a ll t h e fa ct or s con sider ed in
t h e h ir in g pr ocess. It believed t h a t t h e st a t em en t “best m eet s n eeds of Depa r t m en t ”
wa s su fficien t for pu r poses of t h e cer t ifica t ion . H owever , it h a s a lwa ys m a in t a in ed
t h a t t h e r ea son for t h e a ppella n t ’s bypa ss wa s beca u se h is in t er view wa s wea k a n d
h e la cks t h e “r equir ed” edu ca t ion . 3
The a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y a r gu es t ha t a n
in t er view is a legit im a t e em ploym en t pr a ct ice a n d it is “com m on kn owledge” t h a t
t h e in t er view is oft en t h e m ost cr it ica l ph a se of t h e h ir in g pr ocess. In t h a t r ega r d, it
su bm it s t h a t du r in g a n in t er view, t h e em ployer is a ble t o eva lu a t e t h e a pplica n t ’s
com m u n ica t ion a n d socia l skills, a s well a s his or h er level of in t er est a nd
kn owledge of t h e posit ion . Th e in t er view is a lso a t ool t o a ssess t h e a pplica n t ’s
m a t u r it y a n d over a ll fit wit h in t h e or ga n iza t ion a n d m a y pr ovide a glim pse of t h e
m a n n er in wh ich a n a pplica n t h a n dles st r essfu l sit u a t ion s. Th e a ppoin t in g
a u t h or it y cla im s t h a t t h e a ppoin t ed eligibles h a d bet t er in t er views wit h t h e for m er
Bu sin ess Adm in ist r a t or a n d t h a t is wh y t h ey wer e a ppoin t ed. Wit h r ega r d t o t h e
Ru le of Th r ee, t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y m a in t a in s t h a t it h a s t h e discr et ion t o
a ppoin t on e of t h e t op t h r ee ca n dida t es in t h e a bsen ce of a n im pr oper m ot ive. In
t h e a ppella n t ’s ca se, t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y st a t es t h a t t h er e is n o a llega t ion of a n
im pr oper m ot ive. F u r t h er , sin ce it h a s a m en ded t h e Ma y 24, 2007 cer t ifica t ion
con sist en t wit h t h e Su pr em e Cou r t ’s m a n da t e t o pr ovide a specific r ea son a s t o t h e
3
A F ir e F igh t er is r equ ir ed t o h a ve a h igh sch ool degr ee or a n a ppr oved h igh sch ool equ iva len cy
cer t ifica t e. Th e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y does n ot cla im t h a t t h e a ppella n t la ck s t h is r equ ir em en t n or
does it cla r ify it s posit ion a s t o wh a t edu ca t ion t h e a ppella n t la cks. H owever , a s in dica t ed in t h e
Com m ission ’s pr ior decision , t h e a ppella n t did n ot list t h a t h e possessed a college degr ee a n d st a t es
t h a t a t lea st on e eligible is a college gr a du a t e.
4
a ppella n t ’s bypa ss, t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y a sser t s t h a t t h e a ppella n t h a s n ot m et
h is bu r den of sh owin g t h a t it s a ct ion s wer e a r bit r a r y.
Th e a ppella n t r eplies t h a t t h e r ea son s pr ovided by t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y
for h is bypa ss a r e u n su ppor t ed by eviden ce or com pet en t pr oofs. H e su bm it s t h a t
t h e a ppoin t in g a u t hor it y did n ot h a ve specific gu idelin es a s t o wh a t t h e F ire
Depa r t m en t wa s seekin g in a ca n dida t e. Mor eover , n o st a n da r d qu est ion s or ot h er
object ive cr it er ia wer e est a blish ed pr ior t o t h e in t er views. In a ddit ion , t he
a ppella n t em ph a sizes t h a t t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y did n ot t a ke a n y n ot es, keep
scor es, or develop a n y kin d of r ecor d t o su bst a n t ia t e it s select ion. 4 H e con t en ds t h a t
t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y did n ot su fficien t ly docu m en t h is per for m a n ce du r in g t h e
in t er view. It is n ot ed t h a t t h e a ppella n t does n ot ch a llen ge t h e qu est ion s posed
du r in g t h e in t er view. Ra t h er , in h is let t er t o t h e Com m ission , da t ed J u ly 19, 2007,
h e cla im s t h a t h e a n swer ed a ll qu est ion s in a “dir ect a n d r espect fu l m a n n er .” H e
a lso a sser t s t h a t , u pon con clu sion of h is in t er view, t h e F ir e Ch ief in for m ed h im t h a t
h e did ver y well. Th e a ppella n t st a t ed t h a t t h e in t er view wa s con du ct ed on J u n e
15, 2007 by t h e Bu sin ess Adm in ist r a t or a n d F ir e Ch ief. Th er efor e, h e cla im s t h a t
t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y on ce a ga in pr esen t s con clu sor y, u n r evea l ing st a t em en t s a s
t o wh y h e wa s bypa ssed, a n d t h u s, it h a s n ot sa t isfied it s obliga t ion u n der N .J .A.C.
4A:4-4.8(b)4. Th e a ppella n t a lso a lleges t h a t t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y “h a s n ow
m a n u fa ct u r ed a n en t ir ely n ew r ea son .” H e con t en ds t h a t t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y
did n ot expla in it s pr ior st a t em en t of h ow lower r a n ked ca n dida t es “best [m eet ]
n eeds of Depa r t m en t .” Mor eover , t h e a ppella n t qu est ion s wh et h er t h e a ppoin t in g
a u t h or it y con t a ct ed t h e for m er Bu sin ess Adm in ist r a t or a n d h ow a ll of a su dden t h e
Bu sin ess Adm in ist r a t or r eca lls t h e specifics of t h e t h r ee in t er views. F u r t h er m or e,
h e em ph a sizes t h a t t h e posit ion a t issu e is F ir e F igh t er a n d n ot a con ver sa t ion a list
wh ose a ppoin t m en t m igh t be ju st ified by a bet t er in t er view. Th e a ppella n t
h igh ligh t s t h e fa ct t h a t h e h a d a h igh er t est scor e t h a n t h e a ppoin t ed eligibles a n d
h a d yea r s of fir efigh t in g exper ien ce a n d t r a in in g.
In r eply, t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y m a in t a in s t h a t it s a m en ded st a t em en t
com plies wit h t h e Su pr em e Cou r t ’s m a n da t e. Th e specific r ea son wh y t h e
a ppoin t ed eligibles best m et t h e n eeds of t h e F ir e Depa r t m en t wa s t h a t t h ey
per for m ed bet t er du r in g t h eir in t er views. Th e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y t a kes except ion
t o t h e a ppella n t ’s a sser t ion t h a t it s r ea son s a r e “m a n u fa ct u r ed” or “en t ir ely n ew.”
It st a t es t h a t t h is a sser t ion is in a ccu r a t e a n d u n su ppor t ed by t h e r ecor d. It poin t s
ou t t h a t , in t h e a ppella n t ’s J u ly 19, 2007 let t er , h e st a t es t h a t h e m et wit h t h e
Bu sin ess Adm in ist r a t or som et im e in J u ly 2007 a n d wa s a dvised t h a t h e did n ot
h a ve t h e edu ca t ion for t h e posit ion a n d h is in t er view wa s wea k. Th u s, t h e
a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y con t en ds t h a t t h e a ppella n t h a s kn own t h ese sa m e r ea son s for
over fou r yea r s.
As in dica t ed in t h e Com m ission ’s pr ior decision , t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y st a t ed t h a t t h er e wer e n o
r ecor ds or docu m en t s r ela t in g t o t h e in t er views. Th e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y a dvised t h e a ppella n t
t h a t t h e Ma yor a ccept ed t h e r ecom m en da t ion of t h e Bu sin ess Adm in ist r a t or wh o in t er viewed t h e
eligibles a n d eva lu a t ed t h eir per for m a n ces.
4
5
Th e a ppella n t r espon ds t h a t t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y fa ils t o su bm it a n y
su bst a n t ive expla n a t ion for h is bypa ss. It on ly pr esen t s wh y it h ir ed t wo lower
r a n kin g eligibles. H e con t en ds t h a t t h e “m a t u r it y a n d t em per a m en t ” of t h e
a ppoin t ed eligibles a r e ir r eleva n t in t his m a t t er . In ot h er wor ds, t h e a ppella nt
con t en ds t h a t t h e la w m a n da t es t h a t t he a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y expla in why it
bypa ssed h im , a h igh er r a n kin g eligible. H e a sser t s t h a t t h e Su pr em e Cou r t did n ot
dir ect t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y t o ju st ify it s a ppoin t m en t of t h e t wo lower r a n kin g
eligibles.
In t h e fin a l su bm ission , t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y r eplies t h a t it h a s in fa ct
pr ovided a specific r ea son for t h e a ppella nt ’s bypa ss. It st a t es t h a t “[t ]h e specific
a r ea in wh ich t h e ot her ca n dida t es best ed Mr . F oglio wa s t h e int er view. Th e Cit y’s
r evised Cer t ifica t ion m a kes t h a t clea r .”
CON CLU S ION
N .J .A.C. 4A:4-4.8(a )3i pr ovides in r eleva n t pa r t t h a t u pon r eceipt of a
cer t ifica t ion , a n a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y sh a ll a ppoin t on e of t h e t op t h r ee in t er est ed
eligibles (Ru le of Th r ee) fr om a n open com pet it ive list , pr ovided t h a t disa bled
vet er a n s a n d t h en vet er a n s sh a ll be a ppoin t ed in t h eir or der of r a n kin g fr om a n
open com pet it ive list . S ee also, N .J .S .A. 11A:4-8 a n d N .J .S .A. 11A:5-6. Mor eover ,
N .J .A.C. 4A:4-4.8(b)4 st a t es t h a t in disposin g of a cer t ifica t ion , a n a ppoin t in g
a u t h or it y m u st , wh en bypa ssin g a h igh er r a n ked eligible, give a st a t em en t of t h e
r ea son s wh y t h e a ppoin t ee wa s select ed in st ea d of a h igh er r a n ked eligible or a n
eligible in t h e sa m e r a n k du e t o a t ie scor e. N .J .A.C. 4A:2-1.4(c), in con ju n ct ion
wit h N .J .A.C. 4A:4-4.8(b)4, pr ovides t h a t t h e a ppella n t h a s t h e bu r den of pr oof t o
sh ow by a pr epon der a n ce of t h e eviden ce t h a t a n a ppoin t in g a ut h or it y’s decision t o
bypa ss t h e a ppella n t on a n eligible list wa s im pr oper .
In Foglio, su pra, t h e Su pr em e Cou r t det er m in ed t h a t t o sa t isfy t h e
r equ ir em en t of N .J .A.C. 4A:4-4.8(b)4, t he a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y m u st pr ovide a
specific r ea son for t h e bypa ss. Th e Cou r t st a t ed t h a t :
. . . it is clea r t ha t t h e boiler pla t e a dva n ced by t h e Cit y a s a n
expla n a t ion for t h e bypa ss h er e wa s in a d equ a t e in sofa r a s it fa iled t o
pr ovide a n y r ea l en ligh t en m en t wh a t soever a s t o wh y t h e bypa ss
occu r r ed. Th a t is n ot t o su ggest t h a t t h e st a t em en t of r ea son s n eed be
len gt h y or m u lt ifa cet ed t o pa ss m u st er . Wh a t is wr on g wit h “best
m eet s n eeds of Depa r t m en t ” is n ot it s br evit y, bu t it s fa ilu r e t o r evea l
a n yt h in g a bou t t h e bypa ss decision . Th e Cit y m igh t ju st a s well h a ve
st a t ed: “we liked t h em bet t er ,” a n equ a lly u n r evea lin g expla na t ion .
6
Th e r equ ir ed st a t em en t n eeds t o a ddr ess t h e r ea son s wh y a
h igh er r a n ked ca n dida t e wa s bypa ssed. F or exa m ple, t h e Cit y m ight
h a ve r elied on a pr efer en ce for a college degr ee; or t h e per for m a n ce of
t h e a pplica n t s in t h e give-a n d-t a ke of a n int er view; or on ext r a or din a r y
ch a r a ct er a n d em ploym en t r efer en ces. H a d F oglio been ch osen over a
h igh er -r a n ked eligible, t h e Cit y cou ld h a ve poin t ed t o h is va st
fir efigh t in g exper ien ce a n d t r a in in g. E a ch of t h ose r ea son s wou ld h a ve
sa t isfied N .J .A.C. 4A:4-4.8(b)(4). Th e possibilit ies a r e en dless -- a s
va r ied a s t h e ca n dida t es t h em selves. Wh a t is n ot per m it t ed is t h e kin d
of con clu sor y, u n r evea ling st a t em en t issu ed in t h is ca se t h a t did n ot
expla in t h e select ion pr ocess or ot h er wise a ssu r e t h a t t h e bypa ss of a
h igh er -r a n ked ca n dida t e wa s n ot a r bit r a r y. Id . a t 49.
In it ia lly, t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y did n ot in clu de edu ca t ion a s t h e r ea son for t h e
a ppella n t ’s bypa ss in t h e a m en ded cer t ifica t ion , a lt h ou gh it st a t ed in it s a ppea l
r espon se t h a t it h a s a lwa ys m a in t a in ed t h a t la ck of t h e “r equ ir ed” edu ca t ion wa s
a lso a ba sis for t h e bypa ss. As n ot ed a bove, a F ir e F igh t er is on ly r equ ir ed t o h a ve a
h igh sch ool degr ee or a n a ppr oved h igh sch ool equ iva len cy cer t ifica t e. Th e
a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y h a s n ot sh own t h a t t h e a ppella n t la cks t h is r equ ir em en t . As
su ch , t h e Com m ission will n ot con sider edu ca t ion a s a fa ct or in t h e a ppella n t ’s
bypa ss. Ra t h er , t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y a m en ded t h e cer t ifica t ion , st a t in g t ha t
P olla ck a n d McKa y’s in t er views dem on st r a t ed t h eir m a t u r it y a nd t em per a m en t for
t h e posit ion . Th e a ppella n t cla im s t h a t t h is st a t em en t is ju st a s con clu sor y a n d
u n r evea lin g a s wa s t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y’s or igin a l st a t em ent . Th e Com m ission
disa gr ees. Th e Su pr em e Cou r t in dica t ed t h a t t h e st a t em en t of r ea son s n eed n ot be
len gt h y or m u lt ifa cet ed, bu t r a t h er , it m u st pr ovide wh y t h e bypa ss occu r r ed. H er e,
t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y clea r ly in for m ed t h is a gen cy t h a t t h e r ea son for t h e
a ppoin t m en t s of t h ese lower -r a n ked eligibles wa s t h eir dem on st r a t ed per for m a n ce
du r in g t h eir in t er views. In deed, t h e Su pr em e Cou r t n ot ed t h a t t h e a ppoin t in g
a u t h or it y cou ld h a ve r elied on t h e per for m a n ce of t h e a pplica n t s in t h e in t er view a s
t h e r ea son for it s bypa ss a n d su ch r ea son wou ld sa t isfy N .J .A.C. 4A:4-4.8(b)4.
F u r t h er m or e, t h e a ppella n t a r gu es t h a t t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y did n ot pr ovide a
su bst a n t ive r ea son wh y h is specific bypa ss occu r r ed. H owever , N .J .A.C. 4A:44.8(b)4 does n ot com pel a n a ppoin t in g a ut h or it y t o a r t icu la t e a n ega t ive r ea son or
disqu a lifyin g fa ct or wh y t h e a ppella n t , a h igh er r a n kin g eligible, wa s bypa ssed. As
lon g a s t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y pr ovides a n expla n a t ion t o ju st ify wh y t h e lower
r a n kin g eligibles wer e a ppoin t ed, N .J .A.C. 4A:4-4.8(b)4 is sa t isfied. Th u s, t h e
Com m ission fin ds t h a t t h e a ppoin t ing a u t h or it y h a s su bm it t ed a r ea l st a t em en t of
r ea son s a n d n ot boiler pla t e la n gu a ge, wh ich t h e Su pr em e Cou r t h a s deem ed t o be
in su fficien t . Th er efor e, t h e Com m ission con clu des t h a t t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y
com plied wit h N .J .A.C. 4A:4-4.8(b)4 a n d su bm it t ed a pr oper st a t em en t of r ea son s.
Tu r n in g t o t h e su fficien cy of t h a t r ea son , t h e a ppella n t con t en ds t h a t t h e
in t er view wa s essen t ia lly in va lid sin ce t h er e is n o docu m en t a t ion of t h e
7
per for m a n ce of t h e a pplica n t s, su ch a s n ot es or a st a n da r d set of qu est ion s wh ich
t h e a pplica n t s cou ld be scor ed. H e a lso a r gu es t h a t t h e r ea son wa s “m a n u fa ct u r ed”
a n d “en t ir ely n ew.” Mor eover , h e m a in t a in s t h a t a bet t er in t er view does n ot ju st ify
t h e a ppoin t m en t of a F ir e F igh t er .
Appoin t in g a u t h or it ies a r e per m it t ed t o in t er view ca n dida t es a n d ba se t h eir
h ir in g decision on t h e in t er view. Th e u se of st r u ct u r ed in t er views wit h t h e
a ssign m en t of n u m er ica l scor es in a n u m ber of ca t egor ies r ela t ed t o t h e posit ion is a
per m issible wa y for a n a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y t o m a ke a h ir in g decision . S ee e.g., In
th e M atter of Wayn e R occo, Docket No. A-2573-05T1 (App. Div. Apr il 9, 2007)
(Appella t e Division det er m in ed t h a t it wa s a ppr opr ia t e for a n a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y
t o u t ilize a n or a l exa m ina t ion /in t er view pr ocess wh en select in g ca n dida t es for
pr om ot ion ); In th e M atter of Pau l M ik olas (MSB, decided Au gu st 11, 2004)
(St r u ct u r ed in t er view u t ilized by a ppoin t ing a u t h or it y t h a t r esu lt ed in t h e bypa ss of
a h igh er r a n ked eligible wa s ba sed on t h e object ive a ssessm en t of ca n dida t es’
qu a lifica t ion s a n d n ot in viola t ion of t h e Ru le of Th r ee). H owever , in t er views,
wh et h er st r u ct u r ed or n ot , a r e n ot r equ ir ed. I t is wit h in t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y’s
discr et ion t o ch oose it s select ion m et h od, i.e., wh et h er or n ot t o int er view ca n dida t es
a n d a sk h ypot h et ica l qu est ion s. S ee e.g., In th e M atter of An gel J im en ez (CSC,
decided Apr il 29, 2009); In th e M atter of Abbas J . B ash iti (CSC, decided Sept em ber
24, 2008); In th e M atter of Pau l H . Con over (MSB, decided F ebr u a r y 25, 2004); In
th e M atter of J an et Potock i (MSB, decided J a n u a r y 28, 2004). Th u s, sin ce
con du ct in g in t er views is discr et ion a r y, t h e la ck of docu m en t a t ion or st r u ct u r e in t h e
a ppella n t ’s in t er view is n ot ca u se t o fin d t h a t h is bypa ss wa s im pr oper . S o lon g a s
t h e h ir in g decision is in com plia n ce wit h N .J .A.C. 4A:4-4.8(a )3i, t h e Com m ission
ca n n ot fin d t h a t t h e in t er view wa s con du ct ed in a ppr opr ia t ely. In deed, t he
a ppella n t does n ot ch a llenge t h e in t er view it self. F or in st a n ce, h e does n ot cla im
t h a t h e wa s in t er viewed in a n u n la wfu l m a n n er or wa s a sked u n la wfu l qu est ion s.
S ee e.g., Con over, su pra (Th e Mer it Syst em Boa r d fou n d t h a t t h e a ppella n t fa iled t o
pr esen t a n y su bst a n t ive eviden ce t h a t h e wa s in t er viewed in a n u n la wfu l m a n n er or
wa s a sked u n la wfu l qu est ion s. Th e r ecor d a lso did n ot est a blish t h a t t h a t t h e
a ppella n t wa s su bject t o a m or e r igor ou s in t er view, a n d t h u s, t h e a ppella n t ’s a ppea l
of h is bypa ss on a P olice Lieu t en a n t eligible list wa s den ied). Ra t h er , t h e a ppella nt
a r gu es t h a t h a ving a bet t er in t er view does n ot ju st ify t h e a ppoin t m en t of a F ir e
F igh t er . Th e Com m ission disa gr ees. As in dica t ed a bove, so lon g a s t h e in t er view
com plies wit h N .J .A.C. 4A:4-4.8(a )3i, a ppoin t in g a u t h or it ies a r e per m it t ed t o
in t er view ca n dida t es a n d ba se t h eir hir in g decision on t h e in t er view. Th is is wit hin
a n a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y’s select ion discr et ion a n d m a y a pply t o a ll posit ion s,
in clu din g F ir e F igh t er s.
F u r t h er m or e, t h e Com m ission fin ds t h a t t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y wa s in
com plia n ce wit h N .J .A.C. 4A:4-4.8(a )3i, a s it h a s sh own t h a t t h e a ppoin t m en t s of
P olla ck a n d McKa y wer e ba sed on m er it a n d fit n ess con sider a t ion s. In t h a t r ega r d,
t h e a ppoin t in g a u t hor it y deem ed t h ese ca n dida t es t o possess t h e m a t u r it y a n d
8
t em per a m en t n eeded for a F ir e F igh t er posit ion . Th eir in t er views r evea led t h e
possession of t h ese ch a r a ct er ist ics. Addit ion a lly, a lt h ou gh t h e a ppella n t con t en ds
t h a t h e h a s sign ifica n t exper ien ce a n d t r a in in g a s a F ir e F igh t er , P olla ck a n d
McKa y h a ve a lso been deem ed eligible for t h e posit ion by vir t u e of t h eir pa ssin g t h e
F ir e F igh t er exa m in a t ion , a ppea r in g on t h e eligible list (M2246D), a n d h a vin g n o
disqu a lifyin g issu es in t h eir ba ckgr ou n d. Th e a ppella n t h a s n ot a lleged n or
su bm it t ed a n y eviden ce wh a t soever t o con clu de t h a t t h e r ea son set for t h by t h e
a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y for h is bypa ss wa s pr et ext u a l. Th e r ecor d a lso does n ot r evea l
in vidiou s m ot iva t ion in t h e a ppella n t ’s n on -select ion . Com pare, In re Crow ley, 193
N .J . S u per. 197 (App. Div. 1984) (H ea r in g gr a n t ed for in dividu a l wh o a lleged t ha t
bypa ss wa s du e t o a n t i-u n ion a n im u s); Kiss v. Departm en t of Com m u n ity Affairs,
171 N .J . S u per. 193 (App. Div. 1979) (In dividu a l wh o a lleged t h a t bypa ss wa s du e t o
sex discr im in a t ion a ffor ded a h ea r in g).
Non et h eless, even a ssu m in g t h a t im pr oper m ot ives wer e a sser t ed by t h e
a ppella n t , a n a n a lysis of t h e com pet in g ju st ifica t ion s t o a scer t a in t h e a ct u a l r ea son
u n der lyin g t h e a ct ions wou ld be wa r r a n t ed. S ee J am ison v. R ock aw ay T ow n sh ip
B oard of E d u cation , 242 N .J . S u per. 436 (App. Div. 1990). In J am ison , su pra a t
445, t h e Cou r t ou t lined t h e bu r den of pr oof n ecessa r y t o est a blish discr im in a t or y
a n d/or r et a lia t or y m ot iva t ion in em ploym en t m a t t er s. Specifica lly, t h e in it ia l
bu r den of pr oof in su ch a ca se r est s on t h e com pla in a n t wh o m u st est a blish
discr im in a t ion or r et a lia t ion by a pr epon der a n ce of t h e eviden ce. On ce a prim a
facie sh owin g h a s been m a de, t h e bu r den of goin g for wa r d, bu t n ot t h e bu r den of
per su a sion , sh ift s t o t h e em ployer t o a r t icu la t e a legit im a t e n on -discr im in a t or y or
n on -r et a lia t or y r ea son for t h e decision . If t h e em ployer pr odu ces eviden ce t o m eet
it s bu r den , t h e com pla in a n t m a y st ill pr eva il if h e or sh e sh ows t h a t t h e pr offer ed
r ea son s a r e pr et ext u a l or t h a t t h e im pr oper r ea son m or e likely m ot iva t ed t h e
em ployer . Sh ou ld t h e em ployee su st a in t h is bu r den , h e or sh e h a s est a blish ed a
pr esu m pt ion of discr im in a t or y or r et a lia t ory in t en t . Th e bu r den of pr oof t h en sh ift s
t o t h e em ployer t o pr ove t h a t t h e a dver se a ct ion wou ld h a ve t a ken pla ce r ega r dless
of t h e discr im in a t or y or r et a lia t or y m ot ive. In a ca se su ch a s t h is, wh er e t he
a dver se a ct ion is fa ilu r e t o a ppoin t , t h e em ployer wou ld t h en h a ve t h e bu r den of
sh owin g, by pr epon der a t in g eviden ce, t h a t ot h er ca n dida t es h a d bet t er
qu a lifica t ion s t h a n t h e com pla in a n t . As n ot ed ea r lier , t h e a ppella n t ha s n ot
est a blish ed discr im in a t ion , r et a lia t ion or ot h er im pr oper m ot ive a s a r ea son for h is
bypa ss, a n d t h er efor e, h e h a s n ot est a blish ed a prim a facie ca se of discr im in a t ion or
r et a lia t ion .
H owever , a ssu m in g, argu en d o, t h a t t h e a ppella n t h a d est a blish ed a prim a
facie ca se of discr im in a t ion or r et a lia t ion , t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y h a s a r t icu la t ed a
legit im a t e r ea son for it s bypa ss of t h e a ppella n t . F u r t h er , t h e Com m ission does n ot
fin d a n y su ppor t for t h e a ppella n t ’s a r gum en t t h a t t h e r ea son for h is bypa ss wa s
“m a n u fa ct u r ed” a n d “en t ir ely n ew.” Ra t h er , t h e r ecor d r evea ls t h a t t h e a ppel la n t ’s
per for m a n ce du r in g t h e in t er view wa s a r ea son given t o h im by t h e Bu sin ess
9
Adm in ist r a t or for h is bypa ss ba ck in 2007. Mor eover , t h e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y
sign ed t h e Ma y 24, 2007 cer t ifica t ion , decla r in g t ha t “[a ]n y a ppoin t m en t of a n
eligible n ot st a n din g h igh est in cer t ifica t ion h a s n ot been by r ea son of r a ce, color ,
sex, polit ica l beliefs or cr eed bu t beca u se of t h ose r ea son s list ed in t h e
Disposit ion /Com m en t s colu m n .” Th e a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y ha s cla r ified t h ose
r ea son s in or der t o be in com plia n ce wit h N .J .A.C. 4A:4-4.8(b)4. Th er efor e, t h e
a ppella n t h a s n ot sh own t h a t t h e r ea son for h is bypa ss wa s pr et ext u a l.
Accor din gly, h e h a s n ot est a blish ed a n u n la wfu l in t en t on t h e pa r t of t h e a ppoin t in g
a u t h or it y in or der for h im t o m eet his bu r den of pr oof u n der t h e for egoin g st a n da r d.
It m u st be em ph a sized t h a t , even a ssu m ing, argu en d o, t h a t t h e a ppella n t is
m or e qu a lified for t he posit ion a t issu e, t he a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y st ill ha s select ion
discr et ion u n der t h e Ru le of Th r ee, a bsen t a n y u n la wfu l m ot ive. S ee N .J .A.C. 4A:44.8(a )3i; T erry v. M ercer Cou n ty B oard of Ch osen Freeh old ers, 86 N .J . 141, 149
(1981) (Th e Rule of Th r ee a ffor ds a n a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y som e la t it u de in m a king
it s h ir in g decision , by n ot r equ irin g t he a ppoin t m en t of t h e h igh est r a n king
ca n dida t e.) Th er e is n ot h in g in t h e r ecor d t o in dica t e t ha t t h e a ppella n t ’s n on select ion wa s a r bit r a r y or ba sed on a n u nla wfu l m ot ive. F u r t her , it is n ot ed t h a t
t h e a ppella n t does n ot possess a vest ed pr oper t y in t er est in t h e posit ion . Th e on ly
in t er est t h a t r esu lt s fr om pla cem en t on a n eligible list is t h a t t h e ca n dida t e will be
con sider ed for a n a pplica ble posit ion so lon g a s t h e eligible list r em a in s in for ce. S ee
N u n an v. Departm en t of Person n el, 244 N .J . S u per. 494 (App. Div. 1990); Craw ley,
su pra a t 210. Accor din gly, a t h or ou gh r eview of t h e r ecor d in dica t es t h a t t h e
a ppoin t in g a u t h or it y’s bypa ss of t h e a ppella n t wa s pr oper a n d t h e a ppella n t h a s
fa iled t o m eet h is bu rden of pr oof in t h is m a t t er .
ORD ER
Th er efor e, it is or der ed t h a t t h is a ppea l be den ied.
Th is is t h e fin a l a dm in ist r a t ive det er m in a t ion in t h is m a t t er . An y fu r t h er
r eview sh ou ld be pu r su ed in a ju dicia l for um .