Title
Appeal of the Disqualification of Tahlon Brasier from the Junior Plant Operator (Wastewater/Drainage) Recruitment
End
FileID
File ID: 2026-01493
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 Tahlon Brasier for the Junior Plant Operator (Wastewater/Drainage) 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 Junior Plant Operator (Wastewater/Drainage) posted effective April 07, 2026 (Attachment 2). On April 07, 2026, Tahlon Brasier submitted a timely application (Attachment 3) for the posting. On May 06, 2026, Appellant Brasier received a notice of disqualification (Attachment 4) stating they were not successful in the examination process.
ISSUE RAISED BY APPELLANT
On May 12, 2026, Appellant Brasier submitted an appeal response (Attachment 5) to the disqualification and cited Civil Service Board (CSB) Rule 4.10(c)(1): Erroneous interpretation or application of the qualification standards prescribed for the classification. Appellant Brasiers’ appeal states in part:
“I believe i am qualified to be a candidate for this position because i am currently working a similar position for the state of california department of water resources. An the research ive done on a junior position is an entree level position that im qualified for. I currently have a class A drivers license, i work with heavy equipment such as back-hoes, skid steers, vactor trucks, dozers, slope mowers, motor graders, working with pumps and generators. Also have over 10 in construction from concrete finishing to metal fabrication.”
Additionally, in their appeal, Appellant Brasier requested the opportunity to resubmit their application to revise their responses to the experience and supplemental questions. (Attachment 5).
CITY’S RESPONSE TO APPEAL
The City contends the qualification and evaluation standards prescribed for the classification were correctly applied to Appellant Brasier in alignment with the standards stated in the job posting and in the administration of the examination. The City responds as follows:
I. For clarification, Appellant Brasier’s experience and education were not evaluated for the minimum qualifications. Appellant Brasier was disqualified from the recruitment process for not receiving a passing score on the examination (Attachment 4). This disqualification is in alignment with CSB Rule 4.3(a) referenced below:
“The Director has the authority to disqualify applicants, candidates or eligibles consistent with the provisions of these rules. The following shall constitute grounds for disqualification of an applicant, candidate or eligible: (a) Failure to meet any of the requirements or qualifications established for the examination, as published in the announcement.”
Candidates who successfully pass the Training and Experience exam and are in one of the top three reachable ranks are placed on the eligible list and their application is forwarded to the hiring department for further consideration. Human Resources only evaluates applications for the minimum qualifications for applications selected for an interview by the hiring department.
II. Consistent with the Civil Service Board (CSB) rules and exam administration protocols, the Human Resources Department collaborated with subject matter experts possessing direct knowledge of the duties, requirements, and responsibilities associated with the classification to develop the examination.
The resulting Training and Experience (T&E) examination was specifically designed to evaluate each applicant’s training and experience in relation to the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) identified as most critical for successful performance in the classification, as defined in the classification specification. The published job announcement (Attachment 2) clearly outlined both the minimum qualification standards, as well as the examination process under the Selection Procedure section of this recruitment.
III. Consistent with Civil Service Board (CSB) rules, City practices, and exam administration protocol, the minimum pass point for the examination was established during the examination development process (CSB Rule 4.9(a)).
“The Director shall set minimum qualifying ratings for each phase of the examination and shall provide that all candidates failing to achieve such rating in any phase shall be disqualified from any further participation in the examination. The Director shall set minimum qualifying ratings in accordance with the Director’s normal practices which shall be in compliance with state and federal law.”
IV. Pursuant to CSB Rule 5.3(e), due to Appellant Brasier’s failure to meet the qualifications established for the examination, the City is unable to certify Appellant Brasier for placement on the eligibility list:
“Open lists. These lists consist of eligibles who have successfully competed in an examination open to any person.”
V. Appellant Brasier provided information regarding their experience in their appeal response. However, this information could not be accepted or considered as it was received past the final filing deadline of May 05, 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.”
Additionally, if the appellant had submitted the additional experience before the deadline and within the appropriate section of the application, it would not have changed the outcome. Appellant Brasier did not achieve a passing score on the examination, and under the Selection Procedure outlined in the job announcement (Attachment 2), applicants must first pass the exam before Human Resources reviews minimum qualifications. Because the appellant did not progress beyond the examination stage, their minimum qualifications were not reviewed. Therefore, even timely submission of the additional experience would not have impacted the exam disqualification.
VI. In their appeal response, Appellant Brasier requested to resubmit the application to revise their responses to the experience and supplemental questions. Because the final filing deadline for this recruitment has passed, appellant Brasier cannot update or submit a new application for the corresponding recruitment. However, Appellant Brasier will have the opportunity to re-apply and re-test when this classification is recruited for again. Recruitments are conducted as needed based on department operational needs.
VII. The same evaluation standards prescribed for the examination 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 Appellant Brasier’s examination results, Appellant Brasier did not obtain a passing score on the examination for this classification.
End
FinancialConsiderations
Financial Considerations: Not applicable.
End
LocalBusinessEnterprise
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.
End