Tara Dramis F Southern State Correctional Facility, CSC Docket No. 2020-545

BackgroundThe appeal of Tara Dramis, Senior Correctional Police Officer, Southern State Correctional Facility, Department of Corrections, removal effective August 6, 2019, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Elaine B. Frick, who rendered her initial decision on October 18, 2021. 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 Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) 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 December 15, 2021, accepted and adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusion as contained in the attached ALJ’s initial decision. However, the Commission did not adopt the recommendation to modify the removal to a six-month suspension. Rather, the Commission imposed a 30 calendar day suspension.

DISCUSSION

The Commission has no issue with the AL.J’s findings regarding the charges in this matter. Her dismissal of several of the charges was appropriate based on the credible evidence in the record. The Commission also agrees with the ALJ’s finding that the appellant was guilty of other sufficient cause for violating the appointing authority’s policies regarding contraband and safety and security.! However, the

1 As the Commission only disagrees with the ALJ regarding the penalty, the appointing authority's exceptions, which challenged the ALJ’s determinations on the merits, and which were reviewed and

Commission does not agree that the removal should be modified to a six-month suspension.

In determining the proper penalty, the Commission’s review is 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).

In this case, the appellant’s actions are clearly serious, especially in a correctional setting. In this regard, even when a Senior Correctional Police Officer does not possess a prior disciplinary record after many unblemished years of employment, the seriousness of an offense occurring in the environment of a correctional facility may, nevertheless warrant the penalty of removal where it compromises the safety and security of the institution, or has the potential to subvert prison order and discipline. See Henry, supra, 81 N.J. at 579-80. In this regard, the Commission emphasizes that a Senior Correctional Police Officer is a law enforcement officer who, by the very nature of his job duties, is held to a higher standard of conduct than other public employees. See Moorestown v. Armstrong, 89 N.J. Super. 560 (App. Div. 1965), cert. denied, 47 N.J. 80 (1966). See also, In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567 (1990). While the appellant has been found guilty of infractions that touch on the safety and security of correctional facilities, the Commission finds that the circumstances warrant a penalty less than removal. With that said, the Commission is in no way minimizing the appellant’s improper conduct. Certainly, any form of contraband in a correctional facility is cause for concern. Nevertheless, the Commission cannot ignore that most of the charges against the appellant have not been sustained. Moreover, and most importantly, the record indicates that the appellant has no prior discipline in her nearly 15-year career. Accordingly, the Commission finds that a 30 calendar day suspension is the proper penalty. This penalty should serve as a warning to the appellant that any future infractions could lead to a more severe disciplinary sanction, including removal from employment.

As the appellant’s removal has been modified, she is entitled to mitigated considered by the Commission, but ultimately found to be unpersuasive, will not be addressed in detail.

back pay, seniority and benefits 30 calendar days from her separation from employment until her actual reinstatement. See N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10. However, she is not entitled to counsel fees. N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12(a) provides for the award of counsel fees only where an employee has prevailed on all or substantially all of the primary issues in an appeal of a major disciplinary action. The primary issue in the disciplinary appeal is the merits of the charges. See Johnny Walcoti v. City of Plainfield, 282 N.J. Super. 121,128 (App. Div. 1995): In the Matter of Robert Dean (MSB, decided January 12, 1993); In the Matter of Ralph Cozzino (MSB, decided September 21, 1989). In the case at hand, although the penalty was modified by the Commission, charges were sustained, and major discipline was imposed. Consequently, as the appellant has failed to meet the standard set forth at N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12, counsel fees must be denied.

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. Depariment of Corrections, unpublished, 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 are finally resolved. However, under no circumstances should the appellant’s reinstatement be delayed due to any back pay dispute.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in removing the appellant was not justified. The Commission therefore modified the removal to a 30 calendar day suspension. The appellant is entitled to backpay, benefits and seniority as provided for in N..J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10. The amount of back pay awarded is to be reduced and mitigated to the extent of any income earned, or could have been earned, by the appellant during this period. 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.

Counsel fees are denied pursuant to N.d.A.C, 4A:2-2.12.

The parties must inform the Commission, in writing, if there is any dispute as to back pay 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.