RICKEY DOOLEY, CSC Docket No. 2021-1372

BackgroundThe appeal of Rickie Dooley, Senior Correctional Police Officer, Southern State Correctional Facility, Department of Corrections, removal, effective February 25, 2021, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Judith Lieberman (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on December 8, 2023. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appointing authority and a reply to exceptions was filed on behalf of the appellant.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, including a thorough review of the exceptions and reply, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on January 17, 2024, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions but did not adopt her recommendation to modify the removal to a six-month suspension. Rather, the Commission upheld the removal.

The only issue in this matter 1s the proper penalty to be imposed. Upon its de novo review of the ALJ’s determination in that regard, including the exceptions and reply filed by the parties, which do not require extensive comment, the Commission does not agree with the ALJ’s determination that the removal should be modified to a six-month suspension. The Commission makes 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 NJ 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 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, such as a Senior Correctional Police 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).

Administrative Law JudgeIn this matter, the ALJ performed an analysis of the penalty to be imposed. In that regard, the ALJ ultimately stated:

Mitigating factors include the length of appellant’s service, twenty-one years; his voluntary participation in alcohol and mental health treatment; his drinking occurred while he was off-duty and did not adversely affect his job performance; and his sincere remorse and understanding of the gravity of his condition. Importantly, appellant's disciplinary history reveals that, while he was disciplined for failure to submit medical documentation for sick leave and for job attendance, the Department has never imposed major discipline. Also, he has no prior “C11” offenses and his next most recent offense for which he was disciplined occurred five years prior to the 2019 DUI.

AnalysisRemoval could be the appropriate penalty had the 2019 DUI occurred while appellant was on duty; appellant had not acknowledged the seriousness of his offense and his condition; or he had not sought treatment. However, here, the mitigating factors and aggravating factors are either in equipoise, at worst, or the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors... Nonetheless, appellant’s offense is very serious and the maximum period of suspension should apply. I am constrained by the regulation that limits the maximum suspensions to six months without pay. N.dJ.A.C. 4A:2-2.4. Accordingly, 1 CONCLUDE that a six-month penalty is appropriate here.

While some of the above factors may be considered mitigating, the Commission does not agree that the fact that the infraction tock place off duty lessens the severity of the offense. Moreover, while the appellant may have voluntarily participated in alcohol and mental health treatment, there is also information in the record that he did not undertake such treatment consistently prior to his removal from employment, and even afterward was “not attending any form of group therapy or meeting” at the time of his appearance at the Office of Administrative Law. The Commission also notes that the appellant acknowledged a long history of struggling with alcohol and had even had prior inpatient treatments after a prior DUI, which, based on the matter at hand, proved ultimately unsuccessful. While the Commission acknowledges and commends the appellant on his current realization as to the nature of his issues and the impact that it has had, it does not find that as a basis to return the appellant to work. Clearly, his infraction is egregious, especially for a Senior Correctional Police Officer, who, as stated above, is held to a higher standard than other non-law enforcement public employees. Even the ALJ showed her trepidation in lessening the penalty, as evidenced by her imposition of the additional conditions that the appellant was to have competed even before he was to be reinstated. As such, the Commission finds the penalty of removal neither disproportionate to the offense 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 upholds that action and dismisses the appeal of Rickie Dooley.

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