Freddie Frazier, CSC Docket No. 2018-2332

Appellant's argumentFreddie Frazier, represented by Mario A. Iavicoli, Esq., requests unpaid back pay in the amount of $89,808.52 minus proper tax and other deductions.

BackgroundBy way of background, in In the Matter of Freddie Frazier (CSC, decided December 21, 2011), the Civil Service Commission (Commission) upheld the Department of Corrections’ (Corrections) removal of the appellant as a Senior Correction Officer at Northern State Prison. Additionally, it ordered that any award of mitigated back pay due to the appellant as a result of the Appellate Division’s April 20, 2011 decision be limited to the time period of six months from the date of his initial removal, June 13, 2001 to January 13, 2004.

In Frazier’s February 2018 request, he indicates that in a September 15, 2015 letter, he accepted Corrections’ determination that he was entitled to back pay in the amount of $187,018.68. Thereafter, without explanation, the State paid Frazier $97,201.16! instead of $187,018.68. He submits Corrections’ breakdown of the payroll deductions:

Gross Award Payment $97,210.16

Base Wages (subject to pension) $129,401.65

! Frazier’s submission indicates that he was paid $97,201.16. but the exhibit that the submission references is for a check in the amount of $34,794.97.

Pension Deduction $10,999.14

Cont. Ins. 0.00

Medicare $1,409.55

ULC. $136.00

T.D.I. $80.00

F.L.I. $28.80

F.I.C.A. $6,027.03

Misc. Deduction (Support) $19,460.03

Federal Income Tax $21,552.76

NJ State Income Tax $2,721.88

Total Deductions $62,415.19

Net Pay $34,794.97

Appellant's argumentFrazier states that he received the check? and the list of payroll deductions without any correspondence or explanation as to why the amount was reduced by almost $90,000. He also presents that he received no explanation as to how the agreed amount went from $187,018.68 to $97,210.16. Frazier states that he received no explanation as to why the $129,401.65 Base Wages (subject to pension) was reduced to $97,201.16 before deductions were taken out. Frazier requests to receive payment in the amount of $89,808.52 minus proper tax and other deductions.

Appointing authority's argumentIn response, Corrections states that back pay was limited to the time period from six months from the date of his initial removal, June 13, 2001 to January 13, 2004, as per the Commission’s January 11, 2012 decision.?

CONCLUSION

N.J.A.C. 44;:2-1,1 provides, unless a different time period is stated, an appeal must be filed within 20 days after either the appellant has notice or should reasonably have known of the decision, situation, or action being appealed.

N.JA.C. 4A:2-2.10(f provides that when the Commission awards back pay and benefits, determination of the actual amounts shall be settled by the parties whenever possible. N../.A.C. 4A:2-2.10(g) provides that if settlement on an amount 2 The check is dated October 13, 2015. 3 The Commission notes that the Division of Appeals and Regulatory Affairs (DARA) made attempts by letter, phone, and e-mail to receive a response from the Attorney General's Office in this matter, but none was received. Thereafter, DARA contacted Corrections directly and received the above response. There is no indication that this response was sent to Frazier's attorney. However, as this response did not address the substantive issues on how Corrections made its calculations, and is otherwise not germane give the Commission’s ultimate decision. it is included for informational purposes.

cannot be reached, either party may request, in writing, Commission review of the outstanding issue.

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.1(d) provides, in pertinent part, that a hearing is required where the Commission finds that a material and controlling dispute of fact exists that cannot be resolved by the written record.

AnalysisInitially, the Commission notes that Frazier received his last payment from the appointing authority, which was in the amount of $34,794.97, sometime after the date of the October 13, 2015 check. This appeal was filed in February 2018, which is over two years after 20 days from when he received notice that he was not being paid the full amount he believed he was entitled to receive. Further, Frazier has not provided any explanation as to why he did not file his appeal until more than two years after he received this payment. Therefore. the Commission finds that this appeal is untimely.

Additionally, even assuming, arguendo, that Frazier’s appeal was timely, the Commission could not make a reasoned determination based on the current record. Specifically, it appears that the parties agreed to back pay in the amount $187,018.68 less tax and other appropriate payroll deductions. The Commission notes that it appears that Frazier received one check for $34,794.97 based on a $97,210,16 award. However, the record is unclear as to how Corrections determined those amounts and whether they account for the correct amount due. Concerning the $34,794.97 payment, Corrections provided Frazier a payroll breakdown that indicated Gross Award Payment ($97,210.16), Base Wages (subject to pension) $129,401.65, various deductions ($62,415.19 in total), and Net Pay ($34,794.97). However, Corrections did not provide an explanation as to how it determined each line of the breakdown or why the initial amount is different from the apparent agreed upon amount. In his request, Frazier believes he is entitled to an additional $89,808.52 minus proper tax and other deductions; however, he does not indicate what the actual total amount should be after deductions. Further, although given numerous opportunities, neither the Attorney General’s Office nor Corrections provided an explanation as to how the award was determined.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this matter is dismissed as untimely.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.