Camilla O’Neal, CSC Docket No. 2020-2533

BackgroundThe appeal of Camilla O’Neal, Laboratory Technician, Water Analysis, Trenton, Department of Water and Sewer, removal, effective January 1, 2020, on charges, was before Administrative Law Judge Mary Ann Bogan (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on remand on April 25, 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, 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 June 15, 2022, accepted and adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusion as contained in the attached ALJ’s initial decision.

As indicated above, the Commission thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed by the appellant 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, the Commission makes the following comments. The ALJ’s determination in this matter is nearly entirely based on her assessment of the credibility of the witnesses’ testimony and her conclusions made therefrom. 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./. 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.dJ. 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 reversed, the appellant is entitled to be reinstated with mitigated back pay, benefits, and seniority pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10. The appellant is also 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 permanent 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 Camilla O’Neal. The Commission further orders that the appellant be granted back pay, benefits, and seniority from the first date of separation to the actual date of reinstatement. The amount of back pay awarded is to be reduced and mitigated as provided for in N.d/.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.J.A.C. 4A: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.Jd.A.C. 4A:2-2.10 and N.J.A.C. 44:2-2.12, the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to the amount of back pay or 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.