Jerome Morgan, CSC Docket No. 2020-1245

BackgroundThe appeal of Jerome Morgan, Senior Administrative Analyst, Newark, Department of Administration, removal, effective October 27, 2019, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge John P. Scollo (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on July 8, 2024. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant and a reply was filed on behalf of the appointing authority.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the attached 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 August 14, 2024, affirmed the ALJ’s initial decision, which granted the appointing authority’s motion to enforce the settlement.

The Commission makes the following comments. The policy of the judicial system strongly favors settlement. See Nolan v. Lee Ho, 120 N.J. 465 (1990); Honeywell v. Bubb, 130 N.J. Super. 180 (App. Div. 1974); Jannarone v. W.T. Co., 65 N.J. Super. 472 (App. Div. 1961), cert. denied, 35 N.J. 61 (1961). This policy is equally applicable in the administrative area. A settlement will be set aside only where there is fraud or other compelling circumstances. Upon review of the settlement placed on the record before the ALJ, the Commission finds that it complies with Civil Service law and rules. As such, the Commission finds that the ALJ’s determination to enforce that settlement was appropriate.

In this regard, any argument that the settlement was not agreed to or misunderstood by the appellant as he had apparent issues with some of its terms is unavailing. In addressing this contention, the ALJ stated:

All terms that went into the settlement agreement were thoroughly discussed by both sides and the Tribunal. The parties had plenty of opportunities and time to discuss the ongoing negotiations with their respective attorneys in private throughout the settlement conference. The parties agreed that upon his resumption of work duties, after the City Council’s approval of the settlement agreement, Morgan would be a Senior Administrative Analyst Step Two. At the inception of this matter, Morgan demanded “back pay.” Throughout the settlement negotiations the main and most time-consuming topic was the amount of “back pay” that Morgan would receive. The parties used the term

“back pay” in its ordinary sense, namely that amount of compensation that Morgan would have received had he not been suspended or terminated. The parties never expressed any desire to vary from the ordinary use of the term “back pay.” “Back pay” contemplates the payment of wages from which applicable deductions for withholding of payroll taxes, Social Security, payment of health insurance premiums, union dues (if applicable) pension contributions, etcetera be taken. At no time was it discussed that any of the aforementioned mandatory and aforementioned usual and customary deductions would not apply in

Morgan’s case. At no time was it discussed that the Respondent-City was expected to pay any amount in addition to the amount of

$150,000. Both sides had the benefit of legal counsel, ample time to raise questions, and ample time and opportunity to thoroughly discuss all demands and proposals. The two sides reached the settlement agreement fully aware of all its terms. Nothing was left unaddressed. Upon reaching the settlement, this judge queried the two sides to ensure that there was no misunderstanding or ambiguities. Having no reason to believe that there were any outstanding items, this judge ended the proceedings. The settlement agreement's terms were simply and clearly set forth in this judge’s

February 2, 2024 email to the parties.

Administrative Law JudgeThe ALJ clearly indicated that the term used for the $150,000 payment was back pay. While the appellant, in his exceptions argues he did not understand the implications that back pay would include deductions for items such as social security taxes and pension contributions, if he had any doubts about this, he should have questioned his attorney or the judge at the time the matter was placed on the record.! As such, his apparent understanding that he would receive $150,000 from the appointing authority “free and clear” of any obligations is not considered sufficient to set aside the settlement. Moreover, the ALJ indicated that that the parties agreed to the essential terms of the agreement. The Commission agrees. The essential terms are that the removal would be rescinded, the appellant would be reinstated to his position, and he would receive, among other things, back pay. To reject the settlement under such circumstances would not be appropriate. See e.g., In the Matter of Thomas Valente, Docket No. A-3180-21 (App. Div. October 14, 2022).

Analysis1 Indeed, the Commission notes that under N./.A.C. 4A:2-2.10(d), back pay shall include, among other things, unpaid salary and under N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10(d)2 “shall be reduced by the amount of taxes, social security payments, dues, pension payments, and any other sums normally withheld.”

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission affirms the ALdJ’s order to enforce the settlement in this matter.

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