1213 - Unlawful Appointments (Historical View)

** Effective: 11/6/2024 2:27:12 PM - Present **

Status: Active

Change Notes

New policy which outlines roles and responsibilities in the resolution of unlawful appointments.

Audience List

Administrative Chiefs
Examination Managers
Human Resources Chiefs
Labor Relations Officers
Personnel Officers
Personnel Transactions Staff
Personnel Transactions Supervisors

Synopsis

Pursuant to Article VII of the California Constitution and State Personnel Board Rules, civil service appointments must follow a merit-based selection process. Appointing powers are required to evaluate each candidate’s merit and fitness. If an appointment is found to not satisfy the elements of a good faith appointment, delegated departments must promptly investigate and resolve all appointments deemed unlawful.

This policy also clarifies the official start date of an appointment is recognized as the date the employee accepts the formal job offer, based on the Government code section 18525.

Introduction

This policy section provides guidance to appointing powers on what to do if they discover facts or information that may render an appointment unlawful. In addition, this policy covers the following:

Defines unlawful appointment and outlines good faith appointment requirements
Outlines roles and responsibilities of the appointing power, the State Personnel Board (SPB), and the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR)
Corrective actions and remedial measures to correct an unlawful appointment
Employee appeal rights and appointing power appeal obligations

Please note that the information and guidance provided in this policy section also applies to Career Executive Assignment (CEA) appointments.

Statement

Article VII of the California State Constitution and SPB rules provide that all civil service appointments shall be made according to a merit-based selection process. Current regulation provides that appointing powers shall assess candidates’ merit and fitness for appointment based on candidates’ qualifications and performance in the selection process.

Part of this obligation also requires that the appointing power make, and the candidate accept, an appointment in good faith. Conversely, when the appointing power does not make an appointment in good faith, and/or an employee does not accept an appointment in good faith, then the appointment is invalid and therefore unlawful.

When questions arise concerning the validity of an appointment, those appointing powers that have entered into an Unlawful Appointment Investigation Delegation Agreement with CalHR must investigate to determine if the appointment was lawful and whether it was made and accepted in good faith.

When delegated appointing powers sign an Unlawful Appointment Investigation Delegation Agreement, they agree to “comply with the laws and rules governing equitable administration of the civil service merit system,” which includes the requirement that all appointments be made in good faith.

As such, potential unlawful appointments must be promptly investigated and addressed upon discovery. Failure to timely address potential unlawful appointments may lead to corrective action on the appointing power, including the potential revocation of delegated authority.

At no point during the investigation shall the appointing power return the employee to their previous position or encourage them to relinquish their current position. The employee should continue to work in the position and continue to receive compensation until the investigation is complete and formal action is taken which may include voiding the unlawful appointment.

Appointing powers that do not have an Unlawful Appointment Investigation Delegation Agreement with CalHR must immediately inform CalHR in writing when they discover a potential unlawful appointment. CalHR’s Personnel Management Division (PMD) or the SPB’s Compliance Review Division will conduct the investigation to determine if the appointment was made and accepted in good faith.

All appointing powers, whether they have delegated authority or not, must comply with all laws and rules governing equitable administration of the civil service merit system.

Definition of Appointment

According to Government Code section 18525, an appointment means the offer and acceptance by a person of a position in the State civil service.

Additionally, the court decision in Nancy Michaels v. State Personnel Board provides further clarification to Government Code section 18525. The Michaels court decision found that, under Government Code section 18525, the official appointment date for the employee is the date the employee accepts the formal offer of employment, which includes verbal acceptance.

As such, when delegated appointing powers are considering corrective action for unlawful appointments that have not yet exceeded one year, they must be mindful that the start date of the appointment under investigation begins the date the employee accepted the formal job offer and not the date the employee reported to work and began performing the duties of the position.

Good Faith Appointment Requirements

Lawful civil service appointments made and accepted in good faith shall fulfill the requirements outlined in California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 243, by both the appointing power and the employee.

An appointment made in good faith exists when the appointing power does all of the following:

Intends to follow the spirit and intent of all applicable laws, regulations, and policies.
Makes a reasonable and serious attempt to determine how applicable laws, regulations, and policies should be applied to the appointment.
Ensures the position of appointment is properly classified.
Ensures prior to the appointment that the selected candidate is eligible for the appointment.
Intends to employ the selected candidate in the classification, tenure, and location, and under the terms and conditions specified in the appointment documents.
Makes serious and reasonable efforts to provide staff involved in the selection process with the relevant materials, training, and supervision necessary to avoid any mistakes of law or fact related to making civil service appointments.
Acts in a manner that does not violate the rights and privileges of other persons affected by the appointment, including other eligible candidates.

An appointment accepted in good faith exists when the employee does all of the following:

Provides complete, truthful, and accurate information related to experience, education, and level of competencies, whether verbally, via documents, or other materials.
Makes prompt, sincere, and reasonable efforts to correct any information, documents, or other materials that the employee later learned were inaccurate, misleading, or false.
Intends to serve in the classification, tenure, and location, and under the terms and conditions set forth in the appointment documents.

Common Causes of Unlawful Appointments

Unlawful appointments may occur for a variety of reasons including administrative errors, oversight, misinformation, or attempts to circumvent the State’s civil service system. The most common reasons for unlawful appointments are:

Transfer of an individual based on an inaccurate interpretation of the transfer requirements.
Appointment of an individual who has fabricated their qualifications to meet the minimum qualifications of appointment.
Appointment of an individual from a non-reachable rank of the certification list.
Appointment of an individual who does not meet the minimum qualifications of the classification, either at the time of examination or appointment.
Appointment of an individual who did not possess the requisite eligibility (e.g., list certification; transfer; reinstatement) at the time of appointment.
Willful dishonesty or cheating during the examination and/or selection process.
Any other appointment that is intended to circumvent the rules.

Voiding of an Unlawful Appointment

Appointments in Effect Less Than One Year

According to California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 243.2, subdivision (a), SPB, its Executive Officer, CalHR, or the delegated appointing power may take appropriate action to void unlawful appointments that have been in effect for less than one year under any of the following circumstances:

The employee, the appointing power, or both, did not act in good faith.
The appointment was made and accepted in good faith by both the appointing power and employee but, due to some mistake of law or fact, the appointment was unlawful when made.

Typically, this occurs when the appointing power discovers that the employee was not eligible for the appointment due to administrative error or a mistake on the part of the appointing power. For example, it is discovered after appointment that the appointee did not meet the minimum qualifications of the classification or was not reachable on the certification list.

Appointments in Effect Longer Than One Year

According to California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 243.2, subdivision (b), ONLY SPB or its Executive Officer may take appropriate action to void unlawful appointments that have been in effect for longer than one year, and only under any of the following circumstances:

The employee, the appointing power, or both, did not act in good faith.
The acts or omissions which render the appointment unlawful are so severe and egregious and/or of such a widespread, systemic nature so as to constitute a willful or grossly negligent failure to comply with mandated appointment requirements. An example could be a flawed examination process leading to non-merit-based hiring.

When any of the above circumstances exist, there is no time limitation on the SPB or its Executive Officer’s authority to take appropriate action up to and including voiding the appointment.

When it is necessary to void an appointment in effect for longer than one year, SPB or its Executive Officer may direct the appointing power to void the appointment and provide the impacted employee the right to respond to the appointing power.

According to California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 243.2, subdivision (c), if an appointing power or CalHR finds that an appointment was not made in good faith and has been in effect longer than one year, the appointing power shall request the SPB or its Executive Officer to take appropriate action up to and including voiding an appointment using the template provided in the resources section.

Application

Appointing powers are encouraged to contact their assigned PMD consultant for consultation on unlawful appointment matters to ensure the appropriate application of laws, regulations, and policies.

Note: When an unlawful appointment impacts multiple appointing powers, the appointing power must contact CalHR’s PMD to facilitate a resolution.

For example, when voiding an appointment would trigger a subsequent unlawful appointment under another appointing power, the appointing power must contact PMD to coordinate with the employee’s subsequent appointing power(s). A sample scenario is as follows: Department A hired an employee for an Associate Governmental Program Analyst (AGPA) position. The employee had been a Staff Services Analyst (SSA) at Department B prior. Subsequently, Department B finds that the employee fabricated qualifying experience on their SSA application and moves to void the SSA appointment. Department B must contact PMD so that PMD may work with Department A to determine if the AGPA position is valid, and if not, work with Department A to void the AGPA position.

Non-Delegated Appointing Powers

Non-delegated appointing powers must notify their PMD consultant in writing of any potential unlawful appointment as soon as it is discovered. The non-delegated appointing power’s notification to PMD shall include the following:

The specific facts surrounding the appointment in question;
A description of the circumstances that may have resulted in an unlawful appointment;
Copies of relevant appointment documents; and
Any information or documentation that may demonstrate that the appointing power and employee acted in good faith or not in good faith when the appointment was offered and accepted.

Delegated Appointing Powers: Conducting the Unlawful Appointment Investigation

Delegated appointing powers shall conduct a prompt and thorough investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding any potential unlawful appointment.

As a best practice delegated appointing powers should engage with employees early in the investigative process to ensure they are aware of the potential outcomes.

Unlawful appointment investigations shall follow the basic investigatory process. This process entails gathering facts and/or documents relevant to the appointment and analyzing to determine whether the totality of those facts violate any applicable laws, rules, and/or policies.

The list below outlines the key documents and information needed for an unlawful appointment investigation:

Full name of employee
Copy of the vacancy announcement
Copies of any relevant or required degrees, certificates, licenses, and/or transcript evaluations
PIMS Employment History
Copy of the organization chart(s)
Copy of the hiring package
Dates of job offer and acceptance
Description of what was offered to the employee
Date the employee started working in the position
Employee’s civil service appointment eligibility
The basis on which the employee had eligibility
The name of the appointing authority’s employee who authorized the appointment
Chronology of events
Specific civil service laws and rules that apply
Salary impact/compensation concerns with the appointment
Calculation(s) showing the transfer (transfer worksheet)
Copy of the certification list used
Copy of the State employment application and resume
Copy of the alternate range determination worksheet
Copy of the employee’s signed Notice of Personnel Action

In some cases, it may be appropriate to obtain written communications and/or witness statements related to the hiring and recruitment process. To ensure the integrity of witness statements, it is recommended that appointing powers consult with their Legal Division prior to conducting interviews.

Please note, all documents and/or information obtained during an investigation must be maintained pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 26. Additionally, the appointing authority will be required to produce these documents in the event of an appeal to SPB.

When investigating, the appointing power shall:

Use the employee’s official employment history to verify appointments held, dates, tenure, and time base to verify eligibility for the examination and the position.
Review all relevant class specifications, salaries, and alternate range criteria that may be applicable to verify the employee met the relevant criteria outlined in those documents.
Review the certification list that was used to ensure that the employee was on a valid list and was reachable.
Review the employee’s State application, resume, and/or transcript to determine whether minimum qualifications were met.
If the investigated appointment was a transfer appointment, review the transfer worksheet to verify whether the transfer adhered to all applicable transfer rules.
Always verify the accuracy of information received. This may include contacting previous employers to verify duties and dates or employment.
Interview the employee to gain additional information and to resolve discrepancies.
Take notes and keep a thorough investigation file.

The goal of a complete and thorough investigation is to answer the following questions:

Has the appointment been in effect for longer than one year (from the date the employee was offered and formally accepted the position)?
What are the specific facts regarding the appointment?
What civil service laws, rules, and policies apply to the appointment?
Is the appointment in compliance with those laws, rules, and policies?
Was the selection process based solely upon merit?
Were other candidates significantly impacted?
Was the appointment made and accepted in good faith?
- Did the employee act in good faith?
- Did the appointing power act in good faith?

To determine if an unlawful appointment was made in “good faith,” appointing powers must determine whether the appointment was the result of a reasonable mistake or the result of some intent to violate or circumvent civil service laws and rules.

An example of an unlawful appointment which was made in “good faith” would be an instance where, after an employee is appointed, the department determines, upon closer review of the appointee’s prior job experience, that the employee did not meet the minimum qualifications. In this case, the employee properly provided complete, truthful, and accurate information related to their experience, education, and level of competencies on their application and during the selection process. Moreover, the department, during their initial review of the appointee’s application, conducted a thorough and serious assessment of the appointee’s work experience and the criteria of the minimum qualifications; however, a technical aspect of the minimum qualifications was misinterpreted during the selection process. Overall, both parties made a serious and reasonable attempt to comply with existing merit civil service laws and regulations and therefore it was more likely than not that the unlawful appointment was made in “good faith.” This of course assumes that all other criteria of a good faith appointment were fulfilled.

A common example of an employee failing to act in “good faith” when accepting an appointment is when a department discovers that an appointee intentionally misrepresented their job experience on their job application and/or during the selection process (i.e. in an exam and/or during hiring interviews) to gain an unfair advantage over other candidates or to meet the minimum qualifications of the position. In this instance, the employee did not provide complete, truthful, or accurate information related to their work experience and as such failed to act in “good faith.” The department’s investigation must thoroughly identify and support their determination that the employee intentionally misrepresented their job experience on their job application.

An example of an appointing power failing to act in “good faith” when making an unlawful appointment would be when it is discovered that the hiring manager pre-selected a certain applicant to be hired to the position before it was advertised. During the department’s investigation, an email exchange, along with other supporting documentation such as witness statements and inflated interview scores, showed that the hiring manager communicated their intent to hire a particular individual before the position was even advertised and then made efforts to ensure the individual was appointed. In this instance, the department failed to observe the spirit and intent of civil service laws, including the merit principle, and acted in a manner that improperly diminished the rights and privileges of other persons affected by the appointment, including other eligibles.

The above examples serve to clarify the distinction between an appointment made and/or accepted in “good faith” and an appointment that was not made and/or accepted in “good faith” and cannot be assumed to apply universally to all situations.

Notice and Employee's Right to Respond

Delegated appointing powers must provide two distinct written notifications to the affected employee(s) during the unlawful appointment process. The first notice is the Intent to Void Notice and the second is the Final Determination of Voided Appointment.

Intent to Void Notice

At the conclusion of the investigation, if the determination has been made that the voiding of an unlawful appointment is the appropriate course of action, the delegated appointing power must provide written notification to the affected employee(s) of the intent to void the appointment(s). The Intent to Void Notice shall state the specific facts and reasons supporting the appointing power’s determination that the appointment may be unlawful. The letter shall also inform the employee of their right to respond to the appointing power, either verbally or in writing, within 15 calendar days of the date of the Intent to Void Notice. As a best practice, when an employee’s response is provided verbally, the department should document in writing the information provided by the employee as part of its investigatory record.

The 15-calendar day response period may be extended an additional 15 calendar days upon a showing of good cause. “Good cause” is defined as a substantial and compelling reason allowing the appointing power or affected employee(s) to be given additional time to respond.

The delegated appointing power’s human resources office should first meet with the employee to discuss the unlawful appointment determination and how it will impact the employee. At this meeting, the appointing power should provide the employee with a copy of the Intent to Void Notice and answer any questions the employee may have related to the determination and process.

If the delegated appointing power’s human resources office is unable to schedule an in-person or virtual meeting, they must send the impacted employee the Intent to Void Notice via email and certified mail on the same day.

As a best practice, appointing powers should use the Intent to Void Notice template provided by CalHR found under the “Resources” section of this policy to ensure compliance with Board rules, while also ensuring the corrective action is not endangered by any technical errors.

Note: There is no exemption from the requirement that employees be provided a 15-calendar day response period. Failure to do so will result in an invalid voided appointment and may jeopardize the appointing authority’s delegation.

Note: If one year or longer has elapsed from the date of appointment (i.e. the date the final job offer was accepted) as defined in Nancy Michaels v. State Personnel Board and there is a finding of bad faith, the appointing power must submit a request to the Board or Executive Officer to void the appointment. Delegated appointing authorities do NOT have the authority to void an appointment after one year.

Instructions on how to make this request can be found below under the section “Request the Board to Take Appropriate Action-After One Year and with a Finding of Bad Faith".

Final Determination of Voided Appointment

The information provided in the affected employee’s response shall be reviewed and considered against the facts of the investigation to determine if it may impact the appointing power’s determination. The appointing power must always carefully evaluate the employee’s response prior to voiding an appointment.

When, after reviewing all the documentation submitted by the employee and all the documentation relevant to the appointment in total, the appointing power determines that the appointment should be voided, the delegated appointing power must provide a second written notification to the affected employee(s) informing them of the final determination.

The Final Determination of Voided Appointment notice must include the following:

The specific facts and reasons supporting the final determination to void the appointment;
the effective date of the voided appointment;
the estimated amount of reimbursement ordered (pertinent only if the employee acted in bad faith); and,
the employee’s right to file an appeal with the SPB or its Executive Officer challenging the voided appointment, and/or challenging the amount of any reimbursement ordered within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the voided appointment.

The effective date of the voided appointment may not be earlier than the date the employee is provided the Final Determination of Voided Appointment and no later than five working days from the affected employee’s receipt of the Final Determination of Voided Appointment. Additionally, the effective date of the voided appointment cannot be more than one year from the date the employee accepted the position (See “Definition of Appointment” section above for more detailed information.)

As a best practice, appointing powers should use the Final Determination of Voided Appointment notice templates provided by CalHR found under the “Resources” section of this policy to ensure compliance with Board rules and appeals processes, while also ensuring the corrective action is not jeopardized by technical errors.

If the employee has former state service prior to the unlawful appointment, the Final Determination of Voided Appointment notice should inform the impacted employee and prior appointing authority, of the employee’s return rights to their former position, as defined in Government Code section 18522 which is their last permanent, probationary, or career executive position. In most cases, the impacted employee shall be returned to their former position as if the unlawful appointment never occurred.

If the employee has no former state service, voiding an unlawful appointment will separate the employee from state service.

Note: The appointing power shall consult with CalHR’s PMD to determine the return rights of the impacted employee in those instances where the impacted employee’s last position held was of temporary or limited term status.

Additionally, the Final Determination of Voided Appointment notice must be sent to the State Controller’s Office (SCO) Personnel/Payroll Services Division, which is responsible for keying the transaction that separates the employee from the unlawful appointment. Appointing powers must keep all letters and documentation for audit purposes and in the event of an appeal to the SPB, pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 26.

Note: Delegated appointing powers are responsible for notifying their PMD consultant of all completed unlawful appointment investigations through the Unlawful Appointment Reporting Worksheet submitted to both their PMD consultant and the Delegation Team at Delegation.Project@calhr.ca.gov.

Lawful Appointment Determination Notice

In some cases, after sending the Intent to Void Notice, the appointing power may determine that the appointment is lawful. If so, the appointing powering must provide the affected employee a Lawful Appointment Determination Notice informing the affected employee that their appointment will not be voided and layout the specific facts and reasons supporting the lawful appointment determination.

The Lawful Appointment Determination Notice shall also be provided to the affected employee in those instances where the appointment is determined to be unlawful but was made in good faith and is beyond a year.

In both instances, the appointing power is obligated to inform the impacted employee that their appointment is lawful, and all the rights attached to the appointment remain intact such as future transfer eligibility and compensation.

As a best practice, appointing powers should use the Lawful Appointment Determination Notice templates provided by CalHR found under the “Resources” section.

Right to Appeal

When CalHR and/or a delegated appointing power take appropriate action to void an unlawful appointment, the impacted employee and/or appointing power may file an appeal challenging the voided appointment with the SPB’s Appeals Division within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the voided appointment.

Appeals challenging a voided appointment shall be limited to 15 pages, except upon a showing of good cause, and state all applicable reasons and legal bases supporting the appeal.

Request the Board to Take Appropiate Action - After One Year and with a Finding of Bad Faith

In instances where the effective date of the voided appointment occurs more than one year after the effective date of the appointment, and CalHR and/or the delegated appointing power has determined that either the appointing power or employee did not act in good faith when offering or accepting the appointment, the delegated appointing power must submit a request to the SPB Executive Officer to void the unlawful appointment. As a best practice, departments should use the templates provided in the Resources section.

Any request to the SPB Executive Officer must include the following:

The Intent to Void Notice;
Any responses received from the affected employee(s);
A statement setting forth all applicable facts and reasons supporting their determination that the appointment was unlawful and not made and/or accepted in good faith.

A copy of the request and all supporting documents must also be provided to the affected employee(s).

Board's Final Decision on CalHR's or Delegated Appointing Power's Request

Once the request is reviewed, the SPB or Executive Officer shall issue a final decision concerning the voided appointment.

When SPB or the Executive Officer’s final decision orders CalHR or an appointing power to void an appointment, SPB must notify CalHR, the appointing power and affected employee(s) of the decision. The appointing power or CalHR, if necessary, shall be required to take steps to void the appointment within five working days of the issuance of the final decision.

SPB or the Executive Officer may conduct additional investigations or hearings when deemed necessary to reach a decision concerning the voided appointment.

The affected employee(s) shall have no further right of appeal or response unless they wish to file an appeal to contest the amount of reimbursement, if any. Any such appeal for a reimbursement hearing shall be filed within one year of the effective date of the voided appointment.

The Board's Determination to Void an Unlawful Appointment

When the SPB or Executive Officer determines, as part of its own independent investigation or hearing, that an appointment is unlawful and must be voided, prior to taking any action, the SPB or Executive Officer must do the following:

Provide CalHR, the appointing power and the affected employee(s) an Intent to Void Notice.
Provide CalHR, the appointing power and the affected employees(s) the right to respond within 15-calendar days from the Intent to Void Notice.

The 15-calendar day response period may be extended an additional 15 calendar days upon a showing of good cause.

The Intent to Void Notice must inform CalHR, the appointing power and affected employee(s) of the facts and reasons supporting the SPB or Executive Officer’s determination.

After receiving and considering all responses from CalHR, the appointing power and/or the affected employee(s), the SPB or Executive Officer must issue a final decision concerning the matter.

If the SPB or Executive Officer’s final decision orders the employee’s appointment to be voided, SPB or the Executive Officer must notify CalHR, the appointing power, and the employee of the decision, and the appointing power must void the appointment within five working days of the issuance of the final decision.

CalHR, the appointing power and/or the affected employee(s) shall have no further right of appeal or response unless they wish to file an appeal to contest the amount of reimbursement. Any such appeal for a reimbursement hearing shall be filed within one year of the effective date of the voided appointment.

Compensation or Reimbursement Following Voided Appointments

An employee whose appointment has been determined to be unlawful, but who acted in good faith, is entitled to retain their earned compensation. Compensation, as defined in California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 9, includes, among other things: salary, vacation, sick leave, health benefits, retirement benefits, salary step advancement, and service towards vacation accrual rates.

Compensation does not include tenure in a position, seniority credits, permissive reinstatement, eligibility, mandatory reinstatement rights, eligibility to take promotional examinations, career credits, permanent or probationary status and service toward completion of the probationary period, nor continuity of service when used to determine the employee's right to or eligibility for any of the foregoing.

Reimbursement Requirement

If it is determined that the employee did not act in good faith when accepting the unlawful appointment, the employee is required to reimburse all compensation resulting from the appointment. As outlined in the “Notice and Employee’s Right to Respond” section above, the estimated amount of reimbursement must be included in the Final Determination of Voided Appointment notice. The employee has a right to appeal the reimbursement amount to SPB.

Reimbursement Hearing

In the event the employee and appointing power are unable to agree on the amount of reimbursement owed by the employee, the employee and/or the appointing power may file a written appeal for reimbursement hearing with the SPB Appeals Division. The appeal for a reimbursement hearing must be filed within one year of the effective date of the voided appointment.

Right to Reconsideration

When the SPB or Executive Officer issues a decision ordering the void of an unlawful appointment, the impacted employee and/or appointing power are permitted to file a Petition for Reconsideration with the Board concerning the decision. The petition must be filed with the Board within 30 days of receipt of the SPB or Executive Officer’s final decision.

Remedial Measures

An employee whose appointment has been determined to be unlawful and subsequently voided, but who acted in good faith, shall be afforded the following:

The opportunity to compete in a deferred examination, provided the employee meets the minimum qualifications, when the appointing power determines the employee would have likely competed for the examination had they not accepted the unlawful appointment, provided that the examination is in progress or the eligible list for the examination is still valid; and,
Placement back on the eligible list from which the employee was unlawfully appointed, provided the employee meets the minimum qualifications, and the eligible list is still valid.

When applicable, it is the appointing authority’s responsibility to ensure that the eligible employee is afforded the opportunity to compete in a deferred exam or placed back on the eligible list.

Additionally, an employee whose appointment has been voided, but who acted in good faith and is returned to their former position, which, as defined in Government Code section 18522, is their last permanent, probationary, or career executive position, shall:

Be credited experience in their former position’s classification (as if they had never left) to satisfy the minimum qualifications of promotional job opportunities.
For example, if an employee previously served as a permanent Staff Services Analyst (SSA) and was unlawfully appointed to an Associate Governmental Program Analyst (AGPA) and the appointment was subsequently voided, then any time served in the voided AGPA position shall be counted as time served in the SSA position.
Receive any merit salary adjustment, alternate range change, or seniority points that would have been earned had the impacted employee never left their former position’s classification.

Resignation During the Investigatory Phase

When an employee resigns prior to the conclusion and resolution of the unlawful appointment investigation, it is imperative that the appointing power continue the full investigation and provide the employee with the required Final Determination of Voided Appointment or Lawful Appointment Determination Notice and right to respond. If it is determined that the appointment is unlawful, the appointing power must work with the SCO to correct the employment history from a resignation to an unlawful appointment.

Authorities

Resources

FAQs

Delegation Project: Delegation Project: Frequently Asked Questions

Forms

Final Determination to Void Notice Template_over 1 year: Final Determination to Void Notice Template_over 1 year
Final Determination to Void Notice Template_within 1 year: Final Determination to Void Notice Template_within 1 year
Intent to Void Notice Template_over 1 year: Intent to Void Notice Template_over 1 year
Intent to Void Notice Template_within 1 year: Intent to Void Notice Template_within 1 year
Request to Void Appointment with SPB_Template: Request to Void Appointment with SPB_Template
Sample Contingent Offer Letter: Sample Contingent Offer Letter
Sample Formal Offer Letter: Sample Formal Offer Letter
State Personnel Board's Appeal/Complaint Form: State Personnel Board's Appeal/Complaint Form

Web Pages

Probationary Periods: SPB Probationary Periods Memo
Unlawful Appointment: Unlawful Appointment Investigation Delegation Page / Notice of Voided Appointment Templates
Unlawful Appointments: SPB Timely Voiding of an Unlawful Appointment Memo

Authorized By

Michelle La Grandeur
Chief, Policy Division, State Personnel Board

Melissa Russell
Chief, Personnel Management Division

Contact Person

Personnel Management Division Personnel Management Division
Personnel Management Consultant, , Personnel Management Division
Phone: 916-909-3709
Fax: 916-327-1886
Email: pmd@calhr.ca.gov

Superseded Policies

Not Applicable.

Human Resources Manual