Charles Williams Garden State Youth Correctional Facility, CSC Docket No. 2020-905

BackgroundThe appeal of Charles Williams, Senior Correctional Police Officer, Garden State Youth Correctional Facility, Department of Corrections, 45 working day suspension, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey N. Rabin (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on March 20, 2023. Exceptions 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, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on May 3, 2023, did not accept the ALJ’s recommendation to modify the 45 working day suspension to a 25 working day suspension and demotion to the title of County Police Officer. Rather, the Commission upheld the 45 working day suspension.

There is no question that the appellant’s misconduct in this matter was very serious and concerning. In this regard, in his initial decision, the ALJ found the following:

The facts indicated that appellant stood outside Dr, O’Shea’s office while she and Ms. Sweeney were dealing with an inmate-patient who had not taken his mental health medications that day and had arrived at her office in an agitated mood. Both women were of relatively diminutive size and older age. A.M., a man larger in size than O’Shea and Sweeney, became aggressive and ripped off his shirt, and began yelling. A.M.

removing his shirt was a warning that violence might ensue, as inmates often take off their shirts to ensure that no blood evidence would appear on thereon. Appellant was standing at the doorway of the office and saw

A.M. take off his shirt. The removing of the shirt was enough for A.M.

(sic) to see that there was a problem in the office, and appellant should have opened the door and secured the room or removed the inmate or called for help. He did none of those things. His lack of action made it so that the two elderly women had to walk around the desk, and walk past the irate inmate, in order to escape from the office. Appellant’s imaction put both Dr. O’Shea and Ms. Sweeney at risk of physical harm. It was

Officer Yuhas, not appellant, who removed the inmate from the office, and only after Dr. O’Shea had to call out to Yuhas to help them. It was a fortunate result that nobody was injured as a result of the incident.

Based on the above, the ALJ upheld the charges of incompetency, inefficiency or failure to perform duties and neglect of duty. However, he did not find the appellant guilty of conduct unbecoming a public employee, stating that the appellant’s actions did not rise to the level found in the standards to sustain that charge.

In its de novo review, the Commission agrees with the ALJ regarding the charges of incompetency, inefficiency or failure to perform duties and neglect of duty, but disagrees that the appellant was not guilty of conduct unbecoming a public employee. Generally, the standard to establish conduct unbecoming a public employee is that the conduct adversely effects the morale or efficiency of a governmental unit or has the tendency to destroy public respect in the delivery of government services. Karins v. City of Atlantic City, 152 N.d. 532, 554 (A998); see In re Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136, 140 (App. Div. 1960). Here, the ALJ specifically found that the appellant failed to act/neglected his duty which put civilian employees of a State correctional facility in danger. Clearly, such inaction could tend to adversely effect the morale or efficiency of a governmental unit of have the tendency to destroy public respect in the delivery of government services. In this regard, surely the public would have a negative perception of a Senior Correctional Police Officer who did not adequately perform his duties regarding an inmate, which led to a dangerous situation for civilian employees. Such a perception, would, at least, erode its confidence in the correctional facility.

Administrative Law JudgeRegarding the penalty, the ALJ recommended reducing the suspension, stating, in part, while the appellants “behavior might have placed the civilian employees and inmate in jeopardy, nothing was submitted to prove that appellant’s violations jeopardized the integrity of the GSYCF or brought dishonor to the NJDOC.” The Commission disagrees with the proposed reduction in penalty. Similar to its assessment of the charges, the Commission’s review of the penalty 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.d. 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 v. 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 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). 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.eJ. 567 (1990).

AnalysisThe appellant’s misconduct in this matter cannot be minimized. Moreover, the Commission has additionally found the appellant guilty of conduct unbecoming a public employee. Regardless, even without the inclusion of that charge, the appellant’s infractions are worthy of the originally imposed 45 working day suspension. Where a Senior Correctional Police Officer neglects his duties in such a manner as to create a situation that may result in injury or worse, a serious penalty must be imposed to impress upon the employee the inappropriateness of that conduct. As such, the Commission finds no reason to modify the suspension and finds that the 45 working day suspension originally imposed is neither disproportionate to the offenses nor shocking to the conscious.!

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending the appellant for 45 working days was justified. The Commission therefore affirms that action and dismisses the appeal of Charles Williams.

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

1 The Commission also notes that the ALJ ignored the appellant’s “substantial” previous disciplinary history as it was based on dissimilar misconduct. Regardless, the Commission finds that the 45 working day suspension is the proper penalty without regard to progressive discipline.