Jare Brooks Cumberland County, CSC Docket No. 2019-1830

Jare Brooks, County Correctional Police Officer, Cumberland County, Department of Corrections, removal, effective December 10, 2018, on charges, was before Administrative Law Elaine B. Frick (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on January 13, 2022. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the attached ALJ’s initial decision, including a thorough review of the exceptions filed in this matter, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on February 16, 2022, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law and her recommendation to uphold the removal.

DISCUSSION

As noted above, the Commission thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed in this matter. However, based on the ALJ’s thorough and_ well-reasoned determination, with which the Commission agrees, it finds no reason to specifically address any of those submissions. The Commission will only add the following. While the appointing authority may have settled a disciplinary case of another employee in this matter, or settled other similar past matters, the Commission finds nothing improper in the ALJ’s recommendation to uphold the removal in this matter. Initially, based on the facts presented and the ALJ’s findings, the appellant was the individual most responsible for the inmate’s escape. Moreover, the Commission will not review prior matters where parties have come to a mutually agreeable settlement so long as the terms comply with Civil Service law and rules. Moreover, it is solely up to the parties to a dispute as to whether to settle a matter.

As the Commission is not a party to such agreements, it will not impute any negative connotations to either party based on their decision to settle or not settle a matter. Nor will the Commission review the terms of a settlement of another individual to ascertain whether the penalty imposed in a separate matter before it is proper absent actual evidence that the penalty being imposed in the matter before it is unlawfully discriminatory. Such is not the case in this matter.! The Commission’s role, where disciplinary charges have been upheld, is to ascertain the proper penalty for that particular individual based on its assessment of the severity of the misconduct and any aggravating or mitigating factors. While it could be argued that the settlement referred to in this matter could be used as a mitigating factor, the Commission, as the ALJ, is not persuaded. As previously noted, the appellant, based on the credible evidence in the record, was found to be the most culpable participant regarding the inmate's escape.

Regarding the proper disciplinary penalty to be imposed, the Commission’s review 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./. 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 v. 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). Even when a County Correctional Police Officer does not possess a prior disciplinary record after many unblemished years of employment, the seriousness of an offense occurring in the environment of a correctional facility may, nevertheless warrant the penalty of removal where it compromises the safety and security of the institution, or has the potential to subvert prison order and discipline. See Henry, supra. In this regard, the Commission emphasizes that a County Correctional Police Officer is a law enforcement officer who, by the very nature of his job duties, is held to a higher standard of conduct than other public employees. See Moorestown v. Armstrong, 89 N.J. Super. 560 (App. Div. 1965), cert. denied, 47 N.J. 80 (1966). See also, In re Phillips, 117 N.eJ. 567 (1990).

In this case, it is clear that removal is the only appropriate penalty. Notwithstanding the allegations regarding the appellant’s training, or the culpability of others involved in the incident, he failed at the most fundamental function of a County Correctional Police Officer. That is, to ensure that an incarcerated individual under his custody and control does not escape that incarceration. Such an infraction touches at the heart of the safety and security of correctional facilities and the public. Given the facts of this matter, such an egregious violation clearly warrants the most severe disciplinary penalty without consideration of progressive discipline. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the penalty of removal is proper in this matter.

1 The Commission notes that the appellant does not claim that the settlement of the other employee or the failure of the appointing authority to impose a similar lesser penalty on him was unlawfully discriminatory under any applicable law or rule based on his membership in a protected class.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the appointing authority’s actions in removing the appellant was justified. Therefore, the Commission affirms that action and dismisses the appellant’s appeal.

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