Talaya Woods and ; Shauna Ingram, CSC Docket No. 2018-3116, 2018-3226

BackgroundThe appeals of Talaya Woods and Shauna Ingram, Public Safety Telecommunicators, Trenton, Police Department, removals, effective April 10, 2018, on charges, were heard by Administrative Law Judge Dean J. Buono (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on July 24, 2024. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellants.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the AlwJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, including a thorough review of the exceptions, the Civil Service Commission, at its meeting of September 4, 2024, accepted the Findings of Fact and Conclusions and his recommendation to uphold the removals.

Upon its de novo review of the ALJ’s initial decision as well as the entire record, including the exceptions filed by the appellant, the Commission agrees with the ALd’s determinations regarding the charges, which were substantially based on his assessment of the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses. In this regard, the Commission acknowledges that the ALJ, who has the benefit of hearing and seeing the witnesses, is generally in a better position to determine the credibility and veracity of the witnesses. See Matter of J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108 (1997). “[T]rial courts’ credibility findings . .. are often influenced by matters such as observations of the character and demeanor of the witnesses and common human experience that are not transmitted by the record.” See also, In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644 (1999) (quoting State uv. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999)). Additionally, such credibility findings need not be explicitly enunciated if the record as a whole makes the findings clear. Id. at 659 (citing Locurto, supra). The Commission appropriately gives due deference to such determinations. However, in its de novo review of the record, the Commission has the authority to reverse or modify an ALJ’s decision if it is not supported by sufficient credible evidence or was otherwise arbitrary. See N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c); Cavalieri u. Public Employees Rettrement System, 368 N.J. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004).

Administrative Law JudgeIn this regard, the ALJ found:

Conversely, both appellants’ testimony was not credible at all and in fact assisted the respondent in proving the facts of the case by a preponderance of the evidence. Though the record is replete with the fact that they should have handled it differently, it is equally devoid of them expressing any remorse for their actions. That allows me to believe that they fail to understand the gravity of their action, or more appropriate, inaction, for not complying with the rules. They further detracted from any degree of credibility when each attempted to deflect blame, which further showed that they failed to grasp the gravity of their actions.

After hearing the testimony and reviewing the evidence, I FIND, by a preponderance of credible evidence, that the Messina rule prevented public safety telecommunicators from leaving the communications building for lunch or any other reason which would require being away for an extended period of time. (R-13.) I FURTHER

AnalysisFIND that at no time was the Messina Order rescinded. I FURTHER

FIND that both appellants left the communications center for extended periods of time without permission. I FURTHER FIND that upon occasions when both appellants left the communications center for extended periods of time without permission, 911 calls went unanswered or were diverted to other municipalities.

Upon its review, the Commission finds nothing in the record or the appellant’s exceptions to demonstrate that the ALJ’s credibility determinations, or his findings and conclusions based on those determinations, were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.

The appellants also cite to In the Matter of Simonne Ali (CSC, decided December 7, 2022), aff'd by, In the Matter of Simonne Ali, Docket No. A-001585-22 (App. Div. August 15, 2024) in support of their assertions that they should not be disciplined due to the “equivocal and contradictory nature” of the appointing authority’s policy. The Commission disagrees. Initially, the ALJ’s found, based on the credible evidence in the record, that the policy was, in fact, in effect and clear to all involved, and violated by the appellants. Moreover, Ali, supra, while somewhat factually similar, is unpersuasive. Ali was faced with a “catch-22” scenario where she had multiple duties that were to be performed concurrently and the evidence showed that the appointing authority had conflicting “policy” as to what was required of her in that situation. In that matter, the ALJ found that the credible evidence in the record supported the “equivocal and contradictory nature” of the “policy” such that, Ali did not, in fact, neglect her duties but rather acted in accordance with her training. In this matter, the appellants were clearly not faced with such a work scenario, and the ALJ found their professed ignorance of the validity or their misinterpretation of the “Messina Order” was not credible.

Regarding the penalty, similar to its review of the underlying charges, the Commission's review of the penalty is de novo. In addition to its consideration of the seriousness of the underlying incident in determining the proper penalty, the Commission also utilizes, when appropriate, the concept of progressive discipline. West New York v. Bock, 38 N.J. 500 (1962). In determining the propriety of the penalty, several factors must be considered, including the nature of the appellant’s offense, the concept of progressive discipline, and the employee’s prior record. George uv. North Princeton Developmental Center, 96 N.J.A.R. 2d (CSV) 463. However, it is well established that where the underlying conduct is of an egregious nature, the imposition of a penalty up to and including removal is appropriate, regardless of an individual’s disciplinary history. See Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (1980). It is settled that the theory of progressive discipline is not a “fixed and immutable rule to be followed without question.” Rather, it is recognized that some disciplinary infractions are so serious that removal is appropriate notwithstanding a largely unblemished prior record. See Carter v. Bordentown, 191 N.J. 474 (2007).

In this matter, the Commission agrees with the ALJ that removal is the only appropriate penalty. While the appellants are not law enforcement officers, they worked for a law enforcement agency and their positions dealt specifically with the public’s safety and welfare. The seemingly abject indifference the appellants demonstrated in this matter via their actions seriously jeopardized the public safety and placed the appointing authority in an exceedingly vulnerable situation. While the actual misconduct may appear benign, to countenance such action with anything less than removal from employment would be wholly inappropriate. As indicated by the ALJ, “[i]t is difficult to contemplate a more basic example of conduct that could destroy public respect in the delivery of governmental services than the image of public safety telecommunicators walking around the city for more than an hour on their shift. On 166 occasions, 911 calls went unanswered or were diverted to other municipalities. This type of behavior is intolerable and unacceptable.” The Commission agrees that such egregious misconduct is inimical to what the public expects, and indeed, should demand from public employees. As such, the Commission finds the penalty of removal for the appellants’ actions neither disproportionate to the offense nor shocking to the conscious.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in removing the appellants was justified. The Commission therefore upholds that action and dismisses the appeals of Talaya Woods and Shauna Ingram.

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