Duncan Williams, CSC Docket No. 2020-1056

BackgroundThe appeal of Duncan Williams, Emergency Medical Technician (EMT), Lawrence Township, Department of Public Safety, removal effective September 23, 2019, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey N. Rabin (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on August 2, 2023. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant and a reply to exceptions was filed on behalf of the appointing authority.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, including a thorough review of the exceptions and reply, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on October 11, 2023, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions and his recommendation to uphold the removal.

Initially, it is noted that this matter was consolidated by the ALJ with the appellant’s appeal of the suspension of his EMT certification by the Department of Health, which was based on the appellant’s alleged underlying misconduct, In the ALJ’s initial decision, he upheld the suspension of that license. In the Department of Health’s Acting Commissioner’s September 12, 2023, final determination, the suspension of the appellant’s EMT license was affirmed. The matter is now presented to the Commission to determine whether the underlying disciplinary charges are sustained and, if so, whether the disciplinary penalty imposed is appropriate. In this regard, the ALJ recommended upholding both the charges and the removal.

Upon its de novo review of the ALJ’s thorough and well-reasoned initial decision as well as the entire record, including the exceptions filed by the appellant, the Commission agrees with the ALJ’s determinations regarding the charges, which were based on his assessment of the credible evidence in the record. The Commission finds nothing in the appellant’s exceptions which persuade it that the ALJ’s findings in that regard were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or otherwise not based on the credible evidence 1n the record. As such, the Commission upholds the disciplinary charges.

Similar to its assessment of the charges, the Commission’s review of the penalty is also 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 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).

In this matter, there can be no serious dispute that removal is the proper penalty. In this regard, the ALJ stated:

In the within matter, petitioner was involved in public safety and his failure to comply with the full-job requirements could have led to medical injury to a patient or even death, and thus an exception to progressive discipline would be applicable. Further, petitioner himself had admitted that he had previously been warned about a failure to complete a PCR. Per Exhibit R-47, petitioner had also been disciplined previously for failure to perform his duties in 2016.!

The Commission wholeheartedly agrees that the appellant’s egregious actions in this matter fall well short of what is expected of a public safety employee whose daily functions deal with potential life and death situations. As such, the Commission finds the penalty of removal neither disproportionate to the offenses nor shocking to the conscious.

1 The discipline in 2016 was a one working day suspension. Regardless, as indicated by the ALJ, the subject misconduct was egregious and supports the appellant's removal from employment independent of the tenets of progressive discipline.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in removing the appellant was justified. The Commission therefore upholds that action and dismisses the appeals of Duncan Williams.

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