Many times, individuals apply for positions in law enforcement and are fortunate enough to be certified to the eligible list for the position. In simple terms, this means they have “made the list” in order to be considered for the position. After being certified, those persons are required to undergo a psychological evaluation to determine whether they are suitable for the position they are seeking, whether it be Police Officer, Correctional Police Officer, etc., as part and parcel of the hiring process. Unfortunately, however, certain applicants are deemed “not psychologically suitable” for employment as a law enforcement officer. In turn, they are removed from the eligible list.

At that point, the individual can file an appeal with the New Jersey Civil Service Commission challenging their removal from the eligible list. The appeal usually consists of the individual submitting written arguments and a rebuttal psychological report refuting the finding that they are “not psychologically suitable” for employment. Thereafter, the individual is personally evaluated by the Medical Review Panel, which consists of certain psychologists, physicians, etc. The Panel reviews the competing psychological reports, questions the individual, considers the arguments, and ultimately makes a recommendation as to whether the individual is “psychologically suitable” for employment. This recommendation is transmitted to the Civil Service Commission wherein it is, typically, adopted in totality.

While the appeal process is relatively simple and straightforward, the deadlines associated with the same are very stringent. To this end, the individual has only 90 days from the filing of the appeal to submit a rebuttal report from a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist in accordance with N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.5(e). When considering: (1) the underlying records need to be provided to your psychological expert; (2) an appointment with the expert needs to be made; (3) the evaluation must take place; and (4) the rebuttal report ultimately written, much must be completed within this 90 day time frame.

Even more concerning, the Civil Service Commission is somewhat reluctant to grant any extensions, irrespective if the psychologist’s schedule is not accommodating or when the records used in removing the individual’s name are provided from the prospective employer. While the Commission may grant an extension for “good cause,” it is unclear what constitutes such “good cause” as many requests for extensions are denied. In accordance therewith, Courts have routinely held that the Commission’s denial of extension requests are proper. As a result, if an individual attempts to submit a psychological report after the requisite deadline, the Commission will not consider the same. For all intents and purposes, this eviscerates any likelihood of success of the appeal and reinstatement to the eligible list.

Therefore, when filing a psychological appeal challenging your removal from an eligible list, deadlines matter. The failure to adhere to the requisite deadlines can be fatal to your appeal and, as demonstrated above, much must be accomplished within a short period of time. This is further compounded by the fact that any extension requests will likely be denied. As such, if you are considering filing such an appeal, you should contact an attorney experienced in such appeals to properly counsel you throughout the process.