Andrew Gales, CSC Docket No. 2020-980, 2020-1951

BackgroundThe appeals of Andrew Gales, Senior Correctional Police Officer, Edna Mahan Correctional Facility, Department of Corrections, removals, effective October 17, 2019, on charges, were heard by Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey N. Rabin, who rendered his initial decision on October 5, 2022. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant and a reply to exceptions was filed on behalf of the appointing authority.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, including a thorough review of the exceptions and reply, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting of November 2, 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 in this matter. Upon that review, it finds no reason to extensively comment as those filmmgs do not persuade the Commission that the ALJ’s findings and conclusions, or his recommendation to uphold the removals were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Accordingly, it upholds those actions for the reasons expressed by the ALJ. It makes only the following comments.

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 v. North Princeton Developmental Center, 96 N.d. AR. 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 uv. 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 public safety employee 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. In this regard, the Commission emphasizes that a Senior Correctional Police Officer is a law enforcement officer who, by the very nature of her 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.2J. 80 (1966). See also, In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567 (1990). Moreover, even when a Correction Officer does not possess a prior disciplinary record after many unblemished years of employment, the seriousness of an offense such as in this matter may, nevertheless, warrant the penalty of removal. In this matter, notwithstanding the appellant’s minor disciplinary history, the Commission agrees with the ALJ that removal is appropriate. Jn this regard, the ALJ stated:

Appellant took a nearly three-hour meal break on the date in question. During that time, he hung out in a television room, chatting with a fellow officer and allowing himself to shut his eyes for a while. He failed to conduct his inmate counts, yet he falsely wrote in his logbook that he had. Appellant’s neglect and failure to perform his duties gave opportunity to an inmate to escape out a second-floor window and remain on the loose for approximately two hours before she was caught. The inmate was injured during her attempted escape. Appellant’s failure to conduct his official duties left a wing of a correctional facility unsecured. Further, appellant falsified his timesheets and logbook entries, then lied about his entries during the official investigation. Finally, in an apparent reaction to other officers talking about his failures leading to an escape attempt, appellant made threats of physical violence against his fellow officers.

The public good would be affected by returning an officer to a position where he previously failed to perform his official duties then falsified records to cover up his violations. Appellant Gales was assigned the job of monitoring the security of a wing of a correctional institution. He allowed an escape attempt to take place on his watch. Although thwarted, an escaped convict would pose a security threat to other inmates, other prison officials, and the public at large. Prison safety was of paramount concern, and the failure to follow official protocols was an egregious offense. Appellant Gales was held to a higher standard of conduct than other State employees, and was expected to act in a responsible manner, with honesty, integrity, and good faith. He failed to meet these standards. Appellant was expected to follow designed protocols to ensure safety, and his failure to do so presented the public with the image of an undependable officer. There was a reason that strict discipline was important in settings such as police departments and correctional facilities, and why the failure to obey orders could not be tolerated: failure to adhere to guidelines and protocols could cause a direct threat of harm to the general public.

The Commission wholeheartedly agrees with the above assessment and finds that removal from employment is neither disproportionate to the offenses or 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 appeals of Andrew Gales.

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