|
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM GOVERNOR |
State of CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION JANET McCLELLAND |
commissionERS BRYAN J. WALDMAN, CHAIR ANDREW P. ABOOD SHERRY L. McMILLAN THOMAS M. WARDROP |
Office of Technical Complaints
TECHNICAL Review DECISION
|
In Re: Technical Qualification Complaint |
Date mailed |
|
|
|
|
of |
|
|
|
TAD 2008-129 |
|
|
Ref. No. 2008-03183 |
|
|
|
|
|
Key Word(s) |
|
Employment Sanction Selection |
|
Basis of Complaint and Relief Requested
The complainant is questioning the Civil Service decision to impose upon him an employment sanction at the request of the Department of Human Services (DHS). The complainant seeks a reversal of that decision.
Background
On
The DHS-1502 Pre-Employment Application specifically asks candidates if they have ever been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony. The DHS-1502, Pre-Employment Application, submitted by you on
* * *
We are contacting you at this time to verify that the information we obtained from the ICHAT is accurate. If the information is not accurate, it is your responsibility to work through the appropriate channels to clear your driving record. Once this has been accomplished you should contact me to let me know the results.
* * *
. . . If I have not heard from you regarding the status of the charge by
In a letter dated
In regards to the Misdemeanor of Retail Fraud 3rd Degree . . . This incident due occur (sic) in August of 1999, which was a stolen library book on a college campus (a value of $90). However, that (sic) did not charge me until
In regards to the pending felony charges, I was not aware of the charges when I submitted the application to DHS . . . I was placed in a Diversion program through Wayne County, which will clear my name of any wrongdoing in April of 2009 as well. In order for me to be accepted in this Program it was required that I am (sic) arrested, which took place on
The DHS states that it did not receive the complainant’s response.
In a letter dated
^3in part:
. . . On the application submitted and submitted (sic) by Mr. Lesure on
On
In a letter dated
Discussion
First, in their
. . . On the application submitted . . . Mr. LeSure . . . indicates his response to this question was that he had been found guilty of a misdemeanor of retail fraud 3rd degree in August of 1999.
Actually, that is not accurate. The DHS Pre-Employment Application does not ask for the date of conviction, and nowhere on the application did the complainant indicate that he was convicted in 1999. The DHS application asks for the date of the offense, not the date of the conviction. The complainant states that the actual offense took place in August 1999 and that he was not officially charged with the offense until May 2000, which is consistent with the information provided by ICHAT. The complainant was not aware of the charge until 2007, which is when he took steps to settle the issue by pleading guilty and paying the fine. However, the complainant truthfully reported that he had been convicted of the felony of retail fraud-3rd degree. He truthfully reported the date of the offense. He did not provide false information regarding the date of his conviction since the application does not ask for the date of the conviction. Based on all of the information in the record, I am unable to conclude that the complainant provided false information regarding his conviction or that he attempted to hide the fact that he ^4had been convicted. I am unable to conclude that this issue should result in the imposition of an employment sanction on the complainant.
With regard to the pending charges, the DHS states:
Additionally, ICHAT indicates that he has two other felony charges pending from an incident on
The complainant submitted the application on
The one issue where there is material disagreement between the DHS and the complainant is that the complainant contends that he responded to the DHS letter of
Decision
Based on all of the information in the record, I am unable to conclude that sufficient evidence exists to impose an employment sanction on the appellant for providing false information on his DHS Pre-Employment Application. The requested relief is granted. The employment sanction imposed on the complainant, therefore, is removed.
It must be noted, however, that removal of the employment sanction does not imply an obligation on the part of the DHS, or any other state agency, to consider the complainant a viable candidate or to appoint the complainant to any position. That determination still rests with the employing agency.
/S/
Kenneth Melaragni, Technical Review Officer
Office of Technical Complaints
^5
|
cc: |
Judy Sieffert, Department of Human Services |
|
This decision may be appealed to the Civil Service Commission through the Employment Relations Board within twenty-eight (28) calendar days after the mailing date of this decision, as authorized by Civil Service Commission Rule 8-3.4. You may appeal upon application and leave granted, in the discretion of the Board, upon showing of grounds for appeal under Civil Service Commission Rule 8‑7.5. If the Board grants your request for appeal, you will have to show grounds for modification or reversal of this decision, see §4(P)(1) of Civil Service Regulation 8.05, Employment Relations Board Appeal Procedures. You must serve copies of the application upon the Technical Review Officer and the persons copied on the decision and submit proof of service thereof to the Board with the application. Civil Service Regulation 8.05, and Civil Service Regulation 8.06, Computing Time and Filing Documents, should be referenced for directions on filing an application for leave to appeal. The applicable Michigan Civil Service Commission Rules; Civil Service regulations; and forms for filing an application for leave to appeal, and proof of service are available through the Civil Service Web site at www.michigan.gov/mdcs, or by contacting the Board office. Applications for leave to appeal and inquiries should be addressed to the Employment Relations Board, |