SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4619-17T3

IN THE MATTER OF

DANIEL COLLINS,

DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF (PM0130V),

CLIFTON

______________________________

Submitted September 11, 2019 – Decided 

Before Judges Haas and Mayer.

On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service 

Commission, Docket No. 2018-187.

Weiner Law Group LLP, attorneys for appellant Daniel 

Collins (Joshua I. Savitz, of counsel and on the briefs).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent Civil Service Commission (Melissa Dutton 

Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; 

Steven Michael Gleeson, Deputy Attorney General, on 

the brief).

PER CURIAM

Daniel Collins appeals from a May 2, 2018 final decision of the Civil 

Service Commission (Commission) denying his appeal and finding the 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

September 19, 2019
2

A-4619-17T3

promotional examination for the Deputy Fire Chief position in the City of 

Clifton was properly scored. We affirm.

Collins sat for a promotional examination to become the Deputy Fire 

Chief. He passed the examination and ranked fourth on the list of eligible 

candidates for the position. Based on his ranking, Collins challenged the scoring 

of the examination.

Questions for the promotional examination covered various topic areas. 

The candidates' responses to the questions were evaluated based on scoring 

criteria developed by an expert panel. Specifically, Collins challenged the 

scoring of candidates' responses to the examination question related to "Incident 

Command – Non-fire scenario." 

The scenario for this question involved a freight train derailment, leaking 

flammable chemicals in a location with residential and commercial uses. In 

response to this question, Collins indicated the area should be evacuated. His 

answer received partial credit as a correct response. However, the Commission 

noted Collins' answer failed to include establishing monitoring stations, which 

was an additional action required in response to the question.

In his appeal to the Commission, Collins contended the removal of 

railroad workers in the area, one of the answers he supplied in response to the 
3

A-4619-17T3

question, should have been deemed a mandatory response. He requested the 

responses given by the other candidates be reviewed to ensure each candidate 

provided the required mandatory responses. Collins cited a promotional 

examination issued in Irvington, involving a similar factual scenario as depicted 

in the Clifton examination, which found the response to evacuate the area not 

sufficiently specific to receive full credit as a correct mandatory response.

In rejecting Collins' argument, the Commission explained, "Each 

examination is separate, and the scoring criteria for one examination cannot be 

used to score a different examination. It is simply not psychometrically

appropriate to score candidates for an examination using the scoring criteria for 

a different examination." In addition, the Commission noted the factual scenario 

in the Irvington promotional examination was different from the scenario 

presented in the Clifton promotional examination and thus the mandatory 

responses to the examination questions were not interchangeable. Therefore, 

the Commission declined to rescore the examination responses and denied 

Collins' appeal.

On appeal, Collins raises the following arguments:

POINT I

THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION'S FINAL 

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION SHOULD BE 
4

A-4619-17T3

REVERSED UNDER THE APPLICABLE 

STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW.

POINT II

THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION'S DECISION 

SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE IT WAS 

ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, UNREASONABLE 

AND/OR LACKING IN FACTUAL BASIS.

Our review of a final agency decision is limited. Stein v. Dep't of Law & 

Pub. Safety, 458 N.J. Super. 91, 99 (App. Div. 2019) (citing In re Stallworth, 

208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011)). We will affirm an agency's final action unless the 

decision is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or lacks fair support in the record 

as a whole. J.B. v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 229 N.J. 21, 43 (2017) (quoting In re 

Hermann, 192 N.J. 19, 27-28 (2007)). A strong presumption of reasonableness 

attaches to final agency decisions. In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429, 437 (App. 

Div. 2001). Moreover, a court is "oblig[ated] to give due deference to the view 

of those charged with the responsibility of implementing legislative programs." 

In re Reallocation of Prob. Officer, 441 N.J. Super. 434, 444 (App. Div. 2015) 

(quoting In re N.J. Pinelands Comm'n Resol. PC4-00-89, 356 N.J. Super. 363, 

372 (App. Div. 2003)).

We affirm for the reasons expressed in the May 2, 2018 Commission 

decision. The Commission's findings are supported by the record and are 
5

A-4619-17T3

entitled to our deference. The Commission's determination regarding acceptable 

mandatory responses for the promotional examination was not arbitrary,

capricious, or unreasonable. We add only the following comment.

Pursuant to the Civil Service Act, N.J.S.A. 11A:1-1 to 12-6 (Act), the 

Commission has the power to "devise a fair, secure, merit-based testing process 

by which candidates are selected for employment and promotion." Brady v. 

Dep't of Personnel, 149 N.J. 244, 254 (1997). The Commission is charged with 

the "administration of examinations which shall test fairly the knowledge, skills 

and abilities required to satisfactorily perform the duties of a title or group of 

titles." N.J.S.A. 11A:4-1. Courts have a "limited role in reviewing the 

[Commission's] determinations regarding civil-service testing processes." In re 

Police Sergeant (PM3776V) City of Paterson, 176 N.J. 49, 58 (2003). "[C]ourts 

will defer to an agency's grading of a civil-service examination except in the 

most exceptional of circumstances that disclose a clear abuse of discretion." 

Brady, 149 N.J. at 258. We "conduct only a limited review of the reasonableness 

of a grading system and determine simply whether the testing and grading were 

clearly arbitrary." Ibid. A reviewing court should not "routinely review the 

contents of civil-service examinations and answers" to determine "whether the 
6

A-4619-17T3

questions were 'well or poorly answered.'" Ibid. (quoting Lavash v. Kountze, 

604 F.2d 103 (1st Cir.), aff'g, 473 F.Supp. 868 (D. Mass 1979)). 

We are satisfied that the Commission's administration of the promotional 

examination in this case comported with the requirements of the Act and Collins 

failed to demonstrate that the testing process was arbitrary, capricious, or 

unreasonable. 

Affirmed.