IN THE MATTER OF DELINDA HOLMES, PATERSON HOUSING AUTHORITY(CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION), A-5699-14T2

Delinda Holmes worked for Paterson Housing Authority since 1994 and served permanently as assistant purchasing agent from 2004; she claimed she performed purchasing agent duties beginning in 2006 (and SLO found since 2002).
SLO (later CPM) ordered respondent to treat Holmes as purchasing agent provisionally for earlier periods; the Commission affirmed those classification findings in January 2011 but did not address salary.
Holmes repeatedly sought enforcement and retroactive pay; the Commission and its divisions repeatedly told her they lacked jurisdiction to adjust local salaries unless the employee’s base pay was outside an established minimum-maximum range for the title.
Holmes waited until December 2014 to request retroactive compensation and only later learned/respondent disclosed it had not set salary ranges; respondent later established a principal buyer range ($37,500–$60,000).
The Commission denied Holmes’s retroactive-pay request as untimely and declined to relax the 45‑day reconsideration rule; Holmes appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Holmes’s claim for retroactive compensation was timely	Holmes: claim timely because Commission’s earlier decisions didn’t address pay and she only learned of missing salary ranges later	Commission: Holmes failed to seek reconsideration within 45 days of controlling agency decisions; therefore untimely	Affirmed: claim time‑barred for failure to seek reconsideration within regulatory deadline
Whether Commission should have relaxed the 45‑day limit for good cause	Holmes: good cause because she didn’t learn respondent lacked salary guides until Jan 2015	Commission: no obligation to investigate; Holmes had multiple opportunities to raise/pay-range issue earlier	Affirmed: no good cause shown to excuse delay; Commission properly declined to relax rule
Whether respondent’s later-established salary range for principal buyer was arbitrary	Holmes: $37,500–$60,000 is improper/arbitrary	Respondent: not at issue before the Commission; proper administrative action	Not reached on merits by court (declined to consider new-range challenge)
Whether respondent’s refusal to reimburse training credits was retaliatory	Holmes: stopping past reimbursements was retaliation tied to her appeals	Respondent/Commission: no legal duty to reimburse; matter moot when she attended; no prima facie retaliation shown	Affirmed: no unlawful retaliation shown; denial not arbitrary or unreasonable

In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474 (discussing scope of appellate review of agency decisions)
City of Newark v. Nat. Res. Council in Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 82 N.J. 530 (presumption of reasonableness for agencies)
In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182 (standard: reverse only if agency action arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by substantial credible evidence)
Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (same standard for reviewing agency factfinding)
In re Appeal of Syby, 66 N.J. Super. 460 (explaining ‘‘good cause’’ requires excuse for delay and showing of appeal’s merit)