Title
Appeal of the Disqualification of Brandon Caston from the Equipment Mechanic I Recruitment
End
FileID
File ID: 2025-01881
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 Brandon Caston for the Equipment Mechanic I Recruitment pursuant to Civil Service Board Rule 4.11(c)(6).
End
Contact
Contact: Ambrosia Allen, Personnel Analyst, (916) 808-7065, alallen@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
End
Description/Analysis
IssueDetail
Issue Detail:
BACKGROUND
A job announcement for Equipment Mechanic I posted on September 16, 2025 (Attachment 2). On October 7, 2025, Brandon Caston submitted a timely application (Attachment 3) for the posting. On October 9, 2025, Appellant Caston received a notice of disqualification (Attachment 4) stating they “did not pass the stated qualifications under ‘Experience and Education’ portion of the job announcement.”
ISSUE RAISED BY APPELLANT
On October 13, 2025, Appellant Caston 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. Appellant Caston’s appeal states in part:
“I am writing to appeal the rejection of my application for the Equipment Mechanic I position (01-2009-25-PW-2). I believe the decision was based on erroneous interpretation of application of qualification standards prescribed for classification. I possess over 10 years of professional experience in equipment maintenance, have successfully completed high school, and am nearing the completion of my college degree, qualifications I believe align with the position’s requirements.
I respectfully request a thorough review of my qualifications for reconsideration of my application.”
CITY’S RESPONSE TO APPEAL
The City contends the qualification standards prescribed for the classification were correctly applied to Appellant Caston, and they do not meet the qualification standards as stated in the job announcement. The City responds to each item raised by Appellant Caston, respectively, as follows:
I. The minimum qualifications for the classification that Appellant applied to are as follows:
EDUCATION and EXPERIENCE
Experience:
Two years of experience in the general maintenance, servicing, and repair of vehicles and equipment.
Education:
Equivalent to graduation from high school.
Substitution:
Successful completion of the equivalent to one year of vocational education in the automotive, truck or heavy equipment service field may be substituted for one year of the work experience.
II. The City interprets and consistently applies the minimum qualifications to mean:
Demonstration of at least two (2) years of experience performing maintenance, service, and repair of both vehicles and equipment.
OR
Demonstration of at least one (1) year of experience performing maintenance, service, and repair of both vehicles and equipment.
AND
The completion of the equivalent to one year of vocational education in the automotive, truck or heavy equipment service field.
III. Appellant Caston listed current and previous experience in the Work Experience section of the application that demonstrates maintenance, service, and repair of equipment; however, the application does not show two (2) years of experience in the maintenance, service, and repair of vehicles.
The substitution pattern outlined in the job announcement allows one (1) year of vocational education in the automotive, truck, or heavy equipment service field to substitute for one (1) year of the required work experience. The remaining one (1) year must demonstrate experience in the maintenance, service, and repair of both equipment and vehicles. Appellant Caston did not demonstrate one (1) year of experience in the maintenance, service, and repair of vehicles.
The Selection Procedure section of the job announcement (Attachment 2), states:
“Employment applications will be considered incomplete and will disqualified: if applicants do not list current/and or past job-related experience in the duties of the “Work Experience” section” and “Position/job titles will not be considered in determining eligibility for meeting the minimum qualifications for this position.”
Additionally, Appellant Caston answered “Yes” to Agency-Wide Question Number 8, which states in part:
“I understand that I must list current and/or past job-related experience in the duties are of the “Work Experience” section of the employment application…omitted information cannot be considered or assumed.”
This means that all experience must be demonstrated in the Work Experience section of the employment application to be reviewed for minimum qualifications.
IV. While Appellant Caston 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 October 7, 2025, 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).
V. Appellant Caston’s application was reviewed during the initial screening process and again as part of the appeal review. Upon both reviews, the application did not demonstrate the required minimum qualifications.
Appellant Caston will have the ability re-apply in the future when the classification is recruited for again. Recruitments are conducted based on the operational needs of the department.
VI. 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 Caston’s application, Appellant Caston 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