Title
Appeal of the Disqualification of Miguel Jurado from the Street Construction Laborer Recruitment
End
FileID
File ID: 2026-01496
End
Location
Location: Citywide
End
Recommendation
Recommendation: Pass a Motion: 1) waiving formal rules for conducting the hearing pursuant to Civil Service Board Rule 4(11)(c)(7); and 2) adopting the Director’s findings, determinations, and decision of disqualification in the appeal of Miguel Jurado for the Street Construction Laborer recruitment pursuant to Civil Service Board Rule 4.11(c)(6).
End
Contact
Contact: Alex Lopez, Personnel Analyst, (916) 808-8953, alopez3@cityofsacramento.org, Human Resources Department
End
Presenter
Presenter: None
End
Attachments
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Job Announcement
3-Applicant’s Application
4-Notice of Disqualification
5-Appeal from Applicant
6-NeoGov Confirmation
End
Description/Analysis
IssueDetail
Issue Detail:
BACKGROUND
A job announcement for Street Construction Laborer posted on March 23, 2026 (Attachment 2). On March 24, 2026, Miguel Jurado submitted a timely application (Attachment 3) for the posting. On May 22, 2026, Appellant Jurado received a notice of disqualification (Attachment 4) stating they did not pass the stated qualifications under the “Experience and Education” portion of the job announcement.
ISSUE RAISED BY APPELLANT
On May 22, 2026, Appellant Jurado submitted an appeal response (Attachment 5) to the disqualification, citing Civil Service Board (CSB) Rule 4.10(c)(1): Erroneous interpretation or application of the qualification standards prescribed for the classification and Civil Service Board (CSB) Rule 4.10(c)(2): Improper procedure in the administration of the test. Appellant Jurado’s appeal states in part:
“In the application under 'Work Experiece' I wrote out my prior experience several times; however, each time it would for one reason or another not save and be deleted from the application. The application provided an option to leave my resume, so to prevent me from not applying I opted to attach my resume for review. Had the application stated that it was mandatory to fill out the 'Work Experience' section, I would have sought out IT support. Given the technical issues of the only site to apply for this position and the lack of clear direction for submitting the application, I am appealing on the grounds of (2) improper procedures in the administration of the application. Furthermore, I would like to appeal on the grounds of (1) erroneous interpretation of application of qualification standards, given the application failed to state that the only form of providing my experience was through the 'Work Experience' portion.
I have worked for the City close to two years now and have done everything to promote to the laborer position. I have attached my resume for your review and I hope my application can be reconsidered for this position.”
CITY’S RESPONSE TO APPEAL
The City contends the qualification standards prescribed for the classification were correctly applied to Appellant Jurado, and they do not meet the qualification standards as stated in the job announcement. The City responds to each item raised by Appellant Jurado, respectively, as follows:
I. To clarify, the rule cited in the appeal request, “4.10(c)(2) improper procedures in the administration of the application,” was cited incorrectly. The correct citation is “4.10(c)(2) Improper procedure in the administration of the test.” However, this rule does not apply in this situation, as the appellant was not invited to participate in any examination associated with this recruitment. As a result, the appeal cannot be accepted under that rule. However, the appeal is accepted under rule 4.10(c)1), Erroneous interpretation or application of qualification standards prescribed for the classification.
II. The minimum qualifications for the classification that Appellant Jurado applied to are as follows:
Experience:
Two years of experience operating medium street construction and maintenance equipment and performing skilled heavy manual street construction, maintenance, and repair duties.
OR
Two years of experience comparable to a Street Construction Laborer Trainee with the City of Sacramento.
III. The City interprets and consistently applies the minimum qualifications to mean: Demonstration of two years of experience operating medium street construction and maintenance equipment to perform skilled heavy manual street construction, maintenance, and repair duties.
OR
Demonstration of two years of experience comparable to a Street Construction Laborer Trainee with the City of Sacramento. Examples of comparable duties include, but are not limited to, in a training capacity; spread asphaltic road material; seal road surfaces; repair concrete; clean and adjust service tools; setup traffic barricades or warning signs; operate dump trucks, water trucks, front end loaders, spreaders, tractors, and/or pavement rollers; and operate a jackhammer and other pneumatic tools.
IV. Appellant Jurado did not complete the Work Experience Section of their submitted application and stated in their appeal response they submitted a resume instead. Applications are screened based on the information provided by the applicant in the duties area of the Work Experience section of the employment application and a resume cannot substitute for the information required in the Work Experience section of the application. Appellant Jurado answered “Yes” to understanding the following supplemental question on their application (Attachment 3) indicating they understood they must list current and/or past job experience in the duties area of the Work Experience Section of their application.
The Selection Procedures on the job announcement (Attachment 2) for Street Construction Laborer included the same information regarding completing the Work Experience section of the application:
Appellant Jurado stated in their appeal that, “Had the application stated that it was mandatory to fill out the Work Experience section, I would have sought out IT support.” The NeoGov system does not allow the Work Experience section to be designated as mandatory in its entirety or on a per-recruitment basis, and because not all City classifications require work experience, it is both reasonable and necessary to allow applicants to submit applications without completing that section.
Additionally, the City requires applicants to complete the work experience section of the official employment application because it provides standardized information in a consistent format that can be evaluated fairly and uniformly against the minimum qualifications for all applicants. Resumes are not accepted in lieu of completing the application because they vary significantly in format, content, organization, and level of detail, making consistent and equitable evaluation difficult. Additionally, attachments, including resumes, are not a required component of the City's application process, and not all applicants submit or possess a resume. Relying on optional attachments could create inconsistencies in the evaluation process and result in applicants being assessed based on different information. Requiring all applicants to document their qualifying experience within the designated application fields ensures that every applicant is evaluated using the same criteria and information, supporting a fair, transparent, and merit-based civil service selection process.
V. Appellant Jurado stated in their appeal response that they were unable to save their work experience in the application. Employment Services contacted NeoGov, the organization that manages governmentjobs.com, to inquire if there were any reported outages or system errors during the time Appellant Jurado was completing their application. NeoGov Customer Support confirmed there was no record of any outages that would have prevented Appellant Jurado from entering and saving information in the Work Experience Section (Attachment 6).
Additionally, the job announcement (Attachment 2), provides contact information for both technical application support from governmentjobs.com and general support from Human Resources. Employment Services confirmed there is no record of Appellant Jurado reaching out to governmentjobs.com (Attachment 6) or Employment Services for support to complete their application during the time the job announcement was active from March 23, 2026 - April 06, 2026. The appellant submitted their application on March 24, 2026, which provided 13 days to contact Human Resources or GovernmentJobs.com for clarification and/or support regarding the work-experience section before the posting closed on April 6, 2026.
VI. While Appellant Jurado provided additional details in reference to their work experience within their appeal, this information could not be accepted or considered as it was received past the final filing deadline of April 6, 2026, in alignment with Civil Service Board Rule 4.2.
“Applicants for examinations must meet the qualification standards for the classification by the date set forth in the announcement. Any license requirements, however, shall be met at time of appointment.”
Applications are evaluated based on the information provided in the work experience section of the application submitted before the final filing deadline. This requirement is also outlined in the Selection Procedure and Supplemental Questions sections of the job announcement (Attachment 2).
VII. As there was no work experience listed on the application, Appellant Jurado failed to demonstrate they met the minimum qualifications for the classification.
Appellant Jurado will have the ability to re-apply in the future when the classification is recruited for again. Recruitments are conducted based on the operational needs of the department.
VIII. The same evaluation standards prescribed for the classification were applied to all applicants.
As such, the Director of Human Resources recommends that the Board adopt the Director’s findings, determination, and decision of disqualification pursuant to Civil Service Board Rule 4.11(c)(6).
End
PolicyConsiderations
Policy Considerations: Civil Service Board Rule 4.3 Disqualification (a) Failure to meet any of the requirements or qualifications established for the examination, as published in the announcement. Appeals for disqualification shall be heard by the Board unless the Board requests and receives permission from the City Council to utilize the services of a hearing officer. (Civil Service Board Rule 4.11). When the Board hears the appeal itself, the Board may waive the formal rules of procedure in the interest of justice in individual cases and may adopt its own findings, determinations, and decision for adoption and incorporation into the official Board minutes. (Civil Service Board Rules 4.11(c)(6) and (c)(7)).
End
EconomicImpacts
Economic Impacts: Not applicable.
End
EnvironmentalConsiderations
Environmental Considerations: The recommendation does not constitute a “project” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines as the recommendation is a continuing administrative or maintenance activity and an organizational or administrative activity of the City that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(5)).
End
Sustainability
Sustainability: Not applicable.
End
Commission/Committee Action
Commission/Committee Action: None.
End
RationaleforRecommendation
Rationale for Recommendation: The City strives to ensure the qualification and evaluation standards prescribed for recruitment processes and practices are correctly and consistently applied to all applicants. Based on the information provided with Appellant Jurado’s application, Appellant Jurado did not meet the qualification standards as stated in the job announcement for this position.
End
FinancialConsiderations
Financial Considerations: Not applicable.
End
LocalBusinessEnterprise
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.
End