IN THE MATTER OF LILLIAN FOSTER, RIGHT OF WAY NEGOTIATOR (S6736F) et al. v.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6347-05T56347-05T5

IN THE MATTER OF LILLIAN FOSTER,

RIGHT OF WAY NEGOTIATOR (S6736F)

and RIGHT OF WAY NEGOTIATOR TRAINEE

(S6737F), DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

________________________________________

 

Argued May 15, 2007 - Decided May 30, 2007

Before Judges Holston, Jr. and Grall.

On appeal from a Final Administrative

Action of the Merit System Board,

DOP Docket No. 2006-2185.

Lillian Foster, appellant, argued the

cause pro se.

Pamela N. Ullman, Deputy Attorney General,

argued the cause for respondent (Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney; Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of

counsel; Ms. Ullman, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Lillian Foster appeals from final decisions of the Merit System Review Board dated October 20, 2005 and July 19, 2006. On October 25, 2005, the Board upheld the removal of her name from eligible lists for the positions of Right of Way Negotiator and Right of Way Negotiator Trainee. On July 19, 2006, the Board denied her request for reconsideration of the October 25, 2005 decision.

Foster raises the following issues on appeal:

I. PAMELA N. ULLMAN, DAG INITIALLY

ACTED UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW,

WHEN SHE SUBMITTED THE STATEMENT OF ITEMS COMPRISING THE RECORD ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2006, BECAUSE SHE HAD PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE WAS A PRIOR APPEAL INVOLVING THIS CASE OR CONTROVERSY AND THEN SHE ACKNOWLEDGED THE PRIOR APPEAL BY FILING A CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2006.

II. THE MERIT SYSTEM BOARD ERRED IN

NOT ENFORCING ITS ORDER FOR INTERIM RELIEF DATED JULY 25, 2000 AGAINST THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

III. THE MERIT SYSTEM BOARD ERRED IN

NOT ABIDING BY THE UNITED STATES AND NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTIONS, CIVIL SERVICE ACT, NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION, TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AS AMENDED, AND ADA.

The arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, and we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the Board in its written decisions of October 20, 2005 and July 19, 2006. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

 

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-6347-05T5

May 30, 2007