Keeon Rodgers, CSC Docket No. 2021-1346

BackgroundThe appeal of Keeon Rodgers, a Truck Driver with Hudson County, Department of Parks, Engineering and Planning, of his 60 working day suspension on charges, effective December 14, 2020, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Ernest M. Bongiovanni (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on June 25, 2026. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the attached ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, including a thorough review of the exceptions filed by the appellant, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on July 22, 2026, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as contained in the ALJ’s initial decision, and recommendation to uphold the charges of insubordination and neglect of duty, and the recommendation to reverse the charge of conduct unbecoming an employee and other sufficient cause.

Regarding the charges, the Commission agrees with the ALJ’s determinations, which were substantially based on her assessment of the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses. In this regard, 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 N.J. 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 v. Public Employees Retirement System, 368 N.J. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004). The Commission finds no persuasive evidence in the record to demonstrate that the ALJ’s credibility determinations, or his findings and conclusions based on those determinations, were arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Accordingly, the Commission finds nothing in the record to question those determinations or the findings and conclusions made therefrom.

The Commission makes the following comments. As indicated above, the Commission thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed by the appellant in this matter. However, the Commission finds the exceptions unpersuasive, as the ALJ’s findings and conclusions in upholding the charges as noted above were based on his thorough assessment of the record and are not arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or legally incorrect. Concerning the appellant’s assertion that he presented corroborating testimony from an employee in support of his claims, which was ignored by the ALJ, the Commission is not persuaded. The ALJ found that:

[I] did not find this witness particularly credible. He gave confused and contradictory details about when and what happened and substituted at times speculation for observation.

With respect to the appellant’s arguments that the charges related to filming his supervisor and coworker should have been dismissed as protected union activity, the ALJ did not find the appellant’s testimony credible as to why he was filming, noting that:

I disbelieve Rodgers[’] story that he showed up at a worksite on his day off[,] November 13, 2020[,] because he was going to go to the office (or garage) to write up a complaint against another supervisor as that complaint stems from events allegedly that occurred months earlier, and the report he produced as his proof, the “write up” was dated November 6, a week earlier than the events of

November 13. Further, all the other men present signed

Matthews’ memo representing his version of what happened that day. Further still, Matthews’ claim that

Rodgers had once before filmed him while at work at

Lincoln Park rings true in explaining his interest in what

Rodgers was doing there that day. Finally, Rodgers’ claim that he was not in fact filming the man makes little sense in light of Rodgers[’] own claim was that he was watching the men because[,] as a union delegate[,] he was tracking safety violations.

Administrative Law JudgeFurther, the ALJ found that the testimony of the appointing authority’s witnesses was credible and consistent with the documentary evidence. 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 N.J. 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 v. Public Employees Retirement System, 368 N.J. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004). Therefore, the appointing authority satisfied its burden of proof with respect to the charges of insubordination, neglect of duty, the Commission agrees with the ALJ that the conduct unbecoming and other sufficient cause charges should be dismissed.

AnalysisRegarding the penalty, similar to its review of the underlying charges, the Commission’s review of the penalty is de novo. In addition to considering the seriousness of the underlying incident in determining the proper penalty, the Commission 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.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 may be appropriate notwithstanding a largely unblemished prior record. See Carter v. Bordentown, 191 N.J. 474 (2007).

In the instant matter, in recommending the 60 working day suspension in this matter, the ALJ noted that:

[T]here is more than sufficient evidence that the sixty-day working day suspension[,] while certainly a heavy penalty[,] was reasonable under the circumstances and not an abuse of discretion. After a review of Rodgers prior disciplinary history, the penalty is justified in serving the principle of incrementalism.

The Commission agrees. Accordingly, given the appellant’s behavior, the 60 working day suspension is clearly the appropriate penalty.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the appointing authority’s action of imposing the 60 working day suspension was justified. The Commission therefore affirms that action and dismisses the appeal of Keeon Rodgers.

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