Thomas Schreffler, CSC Docket No. 2019-1259

BackgroundThe Department of Corrections (DOC) requests reconsideration of the attached final decision, rendered on May 2, 2018, which upheld the removal of Thomas Schreffler’s name from the Correctional Police Lieutenant (PS9465I), DOC eligible list on the basis of an adverse employment history.

By way of background, Schreffler’s name was certified to the appointing authority on May 3, 2017. The appointing authority requested the removal of Schreffler’s name from the eligible lst due to an adverse employment history. Specifically, the appointing authority cited a January 11, 2016 official written reprimand on charges of conduct unbecoming a public employee; other sufficient cause; violation of the DOC’s policy prohibiting discrimination, harassment or hostile environments in the workplace; and violation of DOC Human Resource Bulletin 84-17, as amended, after the DOC’s Equal Employment Division (EED) found evidence that on multiple occasions during and prior to November 2015, the appellant made offensive remarks about Muslims.’ In its prior decision, the Civil Service Commission (Commission) found that the foregoing provided the appointing authority with a sufficient basis to remove Schreffler from the subject eligible list.

Subsequently, the Division of Agency Services approved an extension of the subject eligible list from its original expiration date of September 9, 2018? to

| The appellant appealed his official written reprimand, which was upheld by the Civil Service Commission. See In the Matter of Thomas Schreffler (CSC, decided December 7, 2016).

? The original decision incorrectly noted the expiration date as September 10, 2018.

January 17, 2019, when the new list Correctional Police Lieutenant (PS6183]), DOC promulgated.

In its November 2, 2018 request for reconsideration, the appointing authority asserts that the disciplinary charges which led to Schreffler’s removal from the PS9465] list had “fallen off’ of his work history as of November 1, 2018. Therefore, he became a suitable candidate for appointment to the title of Correctional Police Lieutenant. As such, it contends that this event, coupled with the PS94G65I list remaining active after November 1, 2018, provides a sufficient basis to restore Schreffler’s name to the PS9465I eligible list. Finally, it notes that as the PS59465I list has now expired, it should be revived to allow Schreffler to be considered for an appointment at the time of the next certification.

Appellant's argumentSchreffler also requests that the Commission reconsider its prior decision and restore his name to the PS9465]I list, arguing that because his disciplinary action “cleared” on November 1, 2018 and the PS9465I list was subsequently extended, his name should be restored to that list. In this regard, he argues that a decision not to restore him to the eligible list would “continue the minor discipline” at issue beyond three years.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.6(a) provides that within 45 days of a receipt of a decision, a party to the appeal may petition the Commission for reconsideration. The prior decision in the instant matter was issued on May 2, 2018, but a request for reconsideration was not filed until November 2, 2018, six months after the prior decision was issued. Therefore, the request for reconsideration is clearly untimely.

AnalysisSimilarly, there is not a basis in this particular case to extend or to relax the time for appeal. See N.J.A.C. 4A:1-1.2(c) (the Commission has discretionary authority to relax rules for good cause). In this regard, it is appropriate to consider whether the appointing authority’s delay in asserting its right to appeal was reasonable and excusable. Appeal of Syby, 66 N.J. Super. 460, 464 (App. Div. 1961) (construing “good cause” in appellate court rules governing the time for appeal); Atlantic City v. Civil Service Com’n, 3 N.J. Super. 57, 60 (App. Div. 1949) (describing the circumstances under which delay in asserting rights may be excusable). Among the factors to be considered are the length of delay and the reasons for the delay. Lavin v. Hackensack Bd. of Educ., 90 N.J. 145 (1982). See e.g., Matter of Allen, 262 N.J. Super. 438 (App. Div. 1993) (allowing relaxation of the Commission’s appeal rules where police officer repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, sought clarification of his employment status). In this case, the appointing authority states that the circumstances surrounding the delay in the issuance of the PS61831 eligible list created a reason to excuse its delay in requesting reconsideration. However, the Commission does not find this argument persuasive, particularly as this new list is now active and it contains Schreffler’s name.

Finally, the Commission notes that because Schreffler’s name appears on the PS61831 eligible list, if he is reachable at any point prior to its expiration, the appointing authority will have an opportunity to consider his current suitability for the subject title.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this request for reconsideration be dismissed as untimely.

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