Lisa Sargent Township of West Milford, CSC Docket No. 2020-1984

eee

BackgroundThe appeal of Lisa Sargent, Records Support Technician 2, Township of West Milford, Police Department, 30 working day suspension, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Kimberly A. Moss, who rendered her initial decision on January 16, 2018. No exceptions were filed.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on March 24, 2021, accepted and adopted the Findings of Fact as contained in the attached Administrative Law Judge’s initial decision. However, the Commission did not adopt the recommendation to modify the 30 working day suspension to a 15 working day suspension. Rather, the Commission upheld the 30 working day suspension.

DISCUSSION

The appellant in this matter was charged with fraudulent misrepresentation for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining benefits. Specifically, it was alleged that the appellant misrepresented the extent of her physical activities while on vacation in an attempt to secure further Worker's Compensation benefits.

Administrative Law JudgeIn her initial decision, the ALJ found that the appellant, indeed, has purposely made such misrepresentations. Accordingly, she upheld the charges. However, in regard to the penalty, the ALJ found that suspension should be modified from a 30 working day suspension to a 15 working day suspension. In that regard, she stated the reductions was warranted since the appellant “did not obtain the benefit she had hoped to gain from misrepresenting the facts.”

AnalysisUpon its de novo review of the record, the Commission agrees with the ALJ regarding the charges. However, it disagrees that the penalty in this matter should be modified. Rather, it finds that the appropriate penalty is a 30 working day suspension.

In determining the proper penalty, the Commission’s review 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 assessing the penalty in relation to the employee’s conduct, it is important to emphasize that the nature of the offense must be balanced against mitigating circumstances, including any prior disciplinary history. 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).

The Commission rejects the ALJ’s rationale for modifying the penalty in this matter. The appellant deliberately lied about the extent of her workplace injury in a brazen attempt to attain further Worker’s Compensation benefits. The fact that she did not ultimately receive those benefits in now way mitigates the serious nature of the infraction. In essence, the appellant attempted to commit fraud but was unsuccessful in doing so. She should not be rewarded with a reduction to the reasonably imposed 30 working day suspension for her unsuccessful attempt. In fact, had she been successful and later found to have committed the fraud, it is assumed that the appointing authority would have sought her removal if she was not otherwise charged with a crime. To exacerbate this infraction, the Commission notes that the appellant works in the Police Department as a Records Support Technician 2, where she has access to sensitive and confidential records.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in disciplining the appellant was justified. The Commission therefore upholds the 30 working day suspension.

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