SHREEK CRAWFORD, CSC Docket No. 2020-1824
NJ Civil Service Commission decision of June 28, 2023, CSC Docket No. 2020-1824: discipline, penalty modified. Shreekk Crawford, County Correctional Lieutenant, Essex County, Department of Corrections, 30 working day suspension, on charges of insubordination.
Commission decisions · Meeting of June 28, 2023
Shreekk Crawford, County Correctional Lieutenant, Essex County, Department of Corrections, 30 working day suspension, on charges of insubordination.
- Matter
- Discipline
- Decided
- June 28, 2023, item A-2
- Outcome
- Penalty modified
- ALJ's recommendation
- Modify the 30 working day suspension to a four working day suspension.
- What the Commission did with it
- Adopted the ALJ's recommendation
- Penalty appealed
- 30 working day suspension
- Penalty after the decision
- 4 working day suspension
- Employer
- Essex County
- Chair at the time
- Allison Chris Myers, Acting Chairperson
- Official decision
- CSC's PDF
Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission affirmed the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge.
The decision
BackgroundThe appeal of Shreekk Crawford, County Correctional Lieutenant, 1 Essex County, Department of Corrections, 30 working day suspension, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Andrew M. Baron (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on May 26, 2023. Exceptions were filed on behalf of both parties and a reply to exceptions was filed on behalf of the appellant.
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 filed by the parties, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on June 28, 2023, adopted the ALJ's Findings of Fact and Conclusions and his recommendation to modify the 30 working day suspension to a four working day suspension.
As mentioned above, the Commission has thoroughly reviewed the exceptions and reply filed in this matter, and finds them unpersuasive in all respects. Notably, the ALJ's decision was based on his assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. 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
1 At the time of the incident, the appellant was a County Correctional Sergeant.
Decisions this one cites
- Matter of J. W.D. 149 N.J. 108
- In re Taylor 158 N.J. 644
- State v. Locurto 157 N.J. 463, 474
About this page
Not an official copy. The decision of record is CSC's PDF. The text above was extracted from it and may differ in layout or, rarely, in a character.
Names appear as the Commission published them in its public minutes and decisions, initials where it used initials. This site does not offer a search by a person's name.
The labels are ours. The kind of matter and the outcome are our reading of the minutes; the ACTION text the Commission recorded is quoted verbatim above. A decision applies the rules to its own facts and is not a prediction for any other matter, and nothing here is legal advice.
To report an error on this page, use the contact form.