Title
Appeal of the Disqualification of Wendy Guerrero from the Customer Service Specialist (Revenue Services) Recruitment
End
FileID
File ID: 2026-00688
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 Wendy Guerrero, for the Customer Service Specialist (Revenue Services) recruitment pursuant to Civil Service Board Rule 4.11(c)(6).
End
Contact
Contact: Abby Souza, Personnel Analyst, (916) 808-8907, asouza@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 Customer Service Specialist (Revenue Services) posted on December 8, 2025 (Attachment 2). On December 8, 2025, Wendy Guerrero submitted a timely application (Attachment 3) for the posting. On January 9, 2026, Appellant Guerrero 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 January 9, 2026, Appellant Guerrero 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 Guerrero’s appeal states in part:
“I am writing to formally appeal the determination that I am not qualified for the position of Customer Service Specialist, based on the assertion that I did not disclose my qualifications in my original application.
I would like to clarify that my application included my resume at the time of submission, which fully outlined my qualifications, education, and relevant experience. I did not add or attempt to add new qualifications after submission, rather all information referenced was already provided and available for review during that initial evaluation process.
Additionally, I was notified via email that my application was accepted and that I ranked number one among the candidates. This communication reasonably indicated that my application and attached resume had been reviewed and that my qualifications met the requirements of the position.
Given this, I respectfully request clarification as to how my qualifications were initially deemed to acceptable-resulting in a top ranking- yet are now considered to undisclosed or insufficient. I believer this represents a discrepancy in the review process that warrants reconsideration to ensure fairness and consistency.
I remain very interested in the position and confident that my qualifications meet the stated requirements. I am more than willing to provide any clarification or documentation needed to support a fair review of my application.”
CITY’S RESPONSE TO APPEAL
The City contends the qualification standards prescribed for the classification were correctly applied to Appellant Guerrero, and they do not meet the qualification standards as stated in the job announcement. The City responds to each item raised by Appellant Guerrero respectively, as follows:
I. The minimum qualifications for the classification that Appellant Guerrero applied to are as follows:
EDUCATION and EXPERIENCE
Any combination of experience and education that would provide the required knowledge and abilities is qualifying. Atypical way to obtain the knowledge and abilities would be:
Experience
Two (2) years of progressively responsible journey-level experience performing customer service work responding to customer complaints and inquiries in a public service operation.
-AND-
Education
Equivalent to the completion of the twelfth grade.
II. The City interprets and consistently applies the minimum qualifications to mean:
Any combination of education and experience that demonstrates the ability to independently perform the full range of customer service duties as a primary function of the position, including responding to customer complaints and inquiries, and providing direct service to the public.
III. Appellant Guerrero’s application primarily described transactional and administrative duties, such as processing payments, issuing permits, and administering established programs in accordance with defined policies and procedures. Although these functions may involve contact with the public, the duties as written do not demonstrate that customer service, specifically responding to customer complaints and inquiries as a primary or essential responsibility of the position.
The application also included the statement, “customer service on floor and I am also a backup cashier”; however, this description does not identify the level, scope, or context of the customer service performed. For minimum qualification purposes, qualifying customer service experience must clearly demonstrate responsibility for activities such as responding to inquiries, resolving complaints or disputes, providing guidance or interpretation, handling escalated issues, and exercising independent judgment in addressing customer concerns.
Minimum qualifications are evaluated solely by the experience detailed in the duties area of the Work Experience section of the application. As such, qualifying experience cannot be inferred from brief or general statements, nor from transactional or compliance-based tasks that do not explicitly demonstrate customer service as a primary function. Based on the information provided, the application did not show journey-level customer service experience involving the regular responsibility for responding to customer complaints and inquiries in a public service operation.
While Appellant Guerrero 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 December 22, 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.”
IV. Additionally, in their appeal, Appellant Guerrero indicated, “I would like to clarify that my application included my resume at the time of submission, which fully outlined my qualifications, education, and relevant experience”. However, the clarifying details of Appellant’s work experience provided in their resume, and in their appeal statement, could not be accepted or considered because minimum qualifications are determined by the information listed in the duties area of the Work Experience section of the employment application only. Appellant Guerrero answered yes to the supplemental question on their application (Attachment 3) indicating they understood they must list current and/or past job-related experience in the duties area of the Work Experience Section of their application.
V. The minimum qualifications for this classification permit any combination of education and experience that would provide the requisite knowledge and abilities. Meaning, applicants may meet the minimum qualifications through relevant educational coursework applicable to the classification only. However, Appellant Guerrero did not report completion of any units from an accredited college or university in response to Supplemental Question #3 on their application. In the absence of qualifying education, the applicant would need to meet the minimum qualifications through relevant work experience, which was not demonstrated in the duties area of the work experience section of their application.
VI. In their appeal, Appellant Guerrero states, “I was notified via email that my application was accepted and that I ranked number one among the candidates. This communication reasonably indicated that my application and attached resume had been reviewed and that my qualifications met the requirements of the position”. To clarify, the ranking referenced by Appellant Guerrero reflects a candidate’s relative position on the eligible list based solely on their final examination score, not a determination that the candidate meets the minimum qualifications for the classification. The Training and Experience (T&E) Examination evaluates the depth, recency, and relevance of an applicant’s training and experience in relation to the most critical knowledge, skills, and abilities for the classification. A candidate’s placement on the eligible list therefore indicates only how their examination responses compare to those of other candidates. Consistent with Step 2 (Training and Experience Exam) of the Selection Procedure outlined in the job announcement (Attachment 2), the establishment of the eligible list occurs prior to and separate from a minimum qualifications review.
Pursuant to Step 4 (Screening Committee) of the Selection Procedure within the job announcement (Attachment 2), Human Resources evaluates minimum qualifications only for candidates selected by the hiring department after the department has reviewed all applicants who passed the examination. Accordingly, Appellant Guerrero’s rank placement reflects their examination score only and does not indicate that their minimum qualifications had been reviewed or confirmed at that stage of the process.
VII. Based on the work experience provided on the application, Appellant Guerrero failed to demonstrate they met the minimum qualifications for the classification. As stated in the job announcement, and in alignment with Civil Service Board Rule 4.3(a), Appellant Guerrero is not eligible for further consideration as their application failed to demonstrate they met the minimum qualifications for the job announcement.
“Failure to meet any of the requirements or qualifications established for the examination, as published in the announcement.”
Appellant Guerrero will have the ability to re-apply when this classification is recruited for again. Recruitments are conducted on an as-needed basis based on Department needs.
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 Guerrero’s application, Appellant Guerrero 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