Maurice Jackson Central Reception and Assignment ; Facility, CSC Docket No. 2020-834

BackgroundThe appeal of Maurice Jackson, Correctional Police Sergeant, Central Reception and Assignment Facility, Department of Corrections, removal, effective September 12, 2019, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Dean J. Buono, who rendered his initial decision on March 29, 2023. Exceptions were filed by and on behalf of the appellant and replies were filed on behalf of the appointing authority.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the Administrative Law Judge’s initial decision, and having made a thorough and independent evaluation of the record, including the exceptions and replies, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on May 3, 2023, accepted and adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusion as contained in the attached Administrative Law Judge’s initial decision and his recommendation to uphold the removal.

As indicated above, in its de novo review of the record, the Commission reviewed the exceptions filed by the appellant and finds them unpersuasive. The Commission makes the following comments.

Administrative Law JudgeIn his initial decision, regarding the penalty, the ALJ stated:

Here the appellant has been employed as a correction officer since

Analysis2001. The mitigating factors are nonexistent. The aggravating factors, however, are significant. Appellant has a disciplinary history that consists of two prior suspensions. (reference omitted). Here he used his position as a corrections officer in order to gain favor with the Ewing

Township police, cursed at the officers and used a homophobic slur to refer to one of the officers, in addition to kicking holes in the bathroom walls of the Ewing Township police station. Appellant does not dispute these facts.

Administrative Law JudgeHaving weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors and the proofs presented, I CONCLUDE that appellant’s misconduct was so egregious as to warrant removal, and respondent’s action of removing the appellant from his position is appropriate. Appellant failed to adhere to the code of conduct, which applies while on and off duty. Appellant violated these rules of conduct and also failed to conduct himself in a manner required for the special position of trust he holds as a correction officer with police powers.

AnalysisThe Commission wholeheartedly agrees.

In this regard, similar to its assessment of the charges, the Commission’s review of the penalty 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 determining the propriety of the penalty, several factors must be considered, including the nature of the appellant's offense, the concept of progressive discipline, and the employee’s prior record. George vu. North Princeton Developmental Center, 96 N.J.A.R. 2d (CSV) 463. However, it is well established that where the underlying conduct is of an egregious nature, the mmposition 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.dJ. 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). Even when a law enforcement officer does not possess a prior disciplinary record after many unblemished years of employment, the seriousness of an offense may nevertheless warrant the penalty of removal where it is likely to undermine the public trust. In this regard, the Commission emphasizes that a law enforcement officer is held to a higher standard than a civilian public employee. 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). This is especially true for supervisory law enforcement personnel.

Clearly, the appellant’s egregious misconduct in this matter warrants removal from employment. While the appellant had been employed for a lengthy period of time, his actions in this matter fall well short of what is expected of a supervisory- level law enforcement employee and certainly are likely to undermine the public trust. As such, the Commission finds the penalty of removal neither disproportionate to the offenses nor shocking to the conscious.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in removing the appellant was justified. The Commission therefore affirms that action and dismisses the appeal of Maurice Jackson.

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