Mina Ekladious, CSC Docket No. 2020-1822

BackgroundThe appeal of Mina Ekladious, Fire Fighter, Jersey City, Department of Public Safety, removal, effective December 24, 2019, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Leslie Z. Celentano (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on July 22, 2022. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appointing authority and a reply to exceptions was filed on behalf of the appellant.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, including a thorough review of the exceptions and reply, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting of September 21, 2022, accepted and adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusion as contained in the attached AL.J’s initial decision and her recommendation to reverse the removal.

The Commission makes the following comments. As indicated above, the Commission thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed by the appointing authority in this matter. In that regard, the Commission finds them unpersuasive and mostly unworthy of comment as the ALJ’s findings and conclusions in upholding the charges and the penalty imposed based on her thorough assessment of the record are not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. In this regard, upon its de novo review of the record, 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 v. 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); Cavaliert u. Public Employees Retirement System, 368 N.J. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004). In this matter, the exceptions filed by the appointing authority are not persuasive in demonstrating that the ALJ’s credibility determinations, or her findings and conclusions based on those determinations, were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. As such, the Commission has no reason to question those determinations or the findings and conclusions made therefrom.

Since the removal has been modified, the appellant is entitled to be reinstated with mitigated back pay, benefits, and seniority pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10. However, the appellant is not entitled to receive back pay, benefits and seniority for the entire period from the date of his removal to the date of his reinstatement. In this regard, the Commission notes that the appellant was still in his working test period when he was removed. Specifically, he received a regular appointment effective October 7, 2019, and was removed effective November 1, 2019. Since it cannot be assumed that the appellant would have completed his working test period, he should only receive back pay from November 1, 2019 through October 6, 2020, which is the remainder of the working test period he did not complete. See In the Matter of Justin Miller (CSC, decided June 18, 2014); In the Matter of Terrell Twiggs (MSB, decided May 9, 2007), In the Matter of Jennifer Mortimer (MSB, decided April 26, 2006) and In the Matter of Rosalind Candelaria (MSB, decided November 10, 1998). Any time after October 6, 2020, until the appellant’s actual date of reinstatement shall be recorded as a leave of absence without pay. Further, upon his reinstatement, the appellant is required to complete the remainder of his working test period (approximately 10 months and three weeks) which shall include re- enrollment is the next available Fire Academy not under the auspices of Morris County. Moreover, as the removal has been reversed, the appellant is entitled to reasonable counsel fees pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12.

This decision resolves the merits of the dispute between the parties concerning the disciplinary charges and the penalty imposed by the appointing authority. However, in light of the Appellate Division’s decision, Dolores Phillips v. Department of Corrections, Docket No. A-5581-01T2F (App. Div. Feb. 26, 2003), the Commission’s decision will not become final until any outstanding issues concerning back pay or counsel fees are finally resolved. In the interim, as the court states in Phillips, supra, if it has not already done so, upon receipt of this decision, the appointing authority shall immediately reinstate the appellant to his position.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in removing the appellant was not justified. The Commission therefore reverses that action and grants the appeal of Mina Ekladious. The Commission further orders that the appellant be granted back pay, benefits, and seniority from November 1, 2019 through October 6, 2020. The amount of back pay awarded is to be reduced and mitigated as provided for in N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10. Proof of income earned, and an affidavit of mitigation shall be submitted by or on behalf of the appellant to the appointing authority within 30 days of issuance of this decision.

The Commission further orders that counsel fees be awarded to the attorney for the appellant pursuant to N.JA.C. 4A4:2-2.12. An affidavit of services in support of reasonable counsel fees shall be submitted by or on behalf of the appellant to the appointing authority within 30 days of issuance of this decision. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10 and N.J.A.C. 4A:2.12, the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to the amount of back pay and counsel fees. However, under no circumstances should the appellant’s reinstatement be delayed pending resolution of any potential back pay or counsel fee dispute.

The parties must inform the Commission, in writing, if there is any dispute as to back pay or counsel fees within 60 days of issuance of this decision. In the absence of such notice, the Commission will assume that all outstanding issues have been amicably resolved by the parties and this decision shall become a final administrative determination pursuant to R. 2:2-3(a)(2). After such time, any further review of this matter shall be pursued in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.