Lisa Sanes, CSC Docket No. 2021-126

BackgroundThe appeal of Lisa Sanes, Keyboarding Clerk 2, Hoboken, Department of Administration, removal, effective June 29, 2020, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Margaret M. Monaco (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on August 23, 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 October 12, 2022, accepted and adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusion as contained in the attached ALJ’s initial decision.

The Commission makes the following comments. As indicated above, the Commission thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed by the appellant in this matter. The Commission notes that the ALJ’s findings and conclusions in upholding the charges and the penalty imposed was based on her thorough assessment of the record and were not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. In this regard, the ALJ specifically provided many reasons for her determination that the appellant’s testimony was not credible, ultimately indicating that:

Succinctly stated, I found appellant’s testimony to be riddled with inconsistencies, lacking internal consistency, inherently improbable, and not “hanging together” with, and discredited and overborne in significant respects by, other evidence in the record. A canvas of the totality of the evidence casts substantial doubt on the accuracy, reliability, and believability of appellant’s version of the events.

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 NJ. 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.J. 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); Cavalieri u. Public Employees Retirement System, 368 N.J. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004). In this matter, the exceptions filed by the appellant 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.

Further, the Commission notes that the infractions in this matter are clearly worthy or removal from employment. The appellant’s brazen actions had the potential to jeopardize the health and safety of others and cannot be minimized in any way. Suffice it to say, the Commission agrees with the ALJ, who stated that the:

Appellant’s irresponsible, reckless and inexcusable conduct in entering

City Hall after testing positive for COVID-19, and “while battling

COVID-19,” and knowing she was not permitted to enter the building without medical clearance, endangered the health and safety of others and cannot be countenanced. Appellant’s unauthorized actions were antithetical to the proper functioning of the City and the rules the City implemented to keep employees and the public safe. Appellant’s failure to acknowledge or appreciate the inappropriateness and severity of her misconduct serves as further support for the conclusion that appellant is unsuitable for her continued employment with the City.

Accordingly, the Commission finds that the removal imposed is neither disproportionate to the offense nor shocking to the conscience.

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 Lisa Sanes.

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