Denise DeLeon, CSC Docket No. 2021-1509

BackgroundThe appeal of Denise DeLeon, Human Services Specialist 2, Bilingual in Spanish/English, Middlesex County, Board of Social Services, demotion to Human Services Aide, Bilingual in Spanish/English, effective April 12, 2021, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sarah H. Surgent (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on June 23, 2025. No exceptions were filed.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on July 23, 2025, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and his recommendation to uphold the demotion.

The Commission makes the following comments. In her thorough initial decision, the ALJ outlines the voluminous evidence of the appellant’s deficient work performance. Upon its de novo review, the Commission agrees with the AL.J’s determination that the appointing authority has sustained its burden of proof regarding all of the proffered charges.

Regarding the 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.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 NJ. 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).

The Commission agrees with the ALJ that the two-level demotion was wholly appropriate in this matter. In that regard, the ALJ stated:

In this case, without even needing to consider principles of progressive discipline, DeLeon’s two-level demotion from HSS2 to HSA is more than justified. DeLeon demonstrated that she was unsuitable for continuation in the position of HSS2 or HSS1 due to her prolonged and repeated failure to perform her duties as expected and required. Further, given the substantial impact of her errors on the Board’s vulnerable clients, her colleagues, and the Board as a whole, her continuation in such role would be contrary to the public interest.

Despite repeated opportunities and training to fulfill the function of an HSS2, DeLeon has demonstrated that she is unsuitable for continuation in that position or any other position which requires exercise of judgment and discretion. A single level demotion to HSS1 would be inappropriate because DeLeon is incapable of doing the work of an HSS2 or an HSS1, which is the functional equivalent...

Although the Board imposed a two-level demotion in this case, it would have been more than justified to seek removal in this matter but instead took a more measured approach in imposing the two-level demotion. Principles of progressive discipline only lend further support to the appropriateness of the discipline imposed. DeLeon is an employee who has already been subject to significant major discipline including the three-month suspension and the imposition of a six-month leave of absence without pay for incompetency, inefficiency, or failure to perform duties related to “a persistent, pervasive, and deceptive pattern of abuse and theft of time and failure to provide essential services to the Agency's clients” imposed against her in 2016. (R-22). Even after facing such significant discipline only a few years ago, DeLeon has not demonstrated an adequate performance of her duties.

Clearly, even without regard to progressive discipline, the appellant’s abject inability to properly perform the duties of her position over a prolonged period of time supports the demotion imposed. When factoring in that the appellant had previous major discipline, the Commission agrees with the ALJ that, indeed, she is fortunate that the appointing authority did not seek the ultimate penalty of removal from employment.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in demoting the appellant was justified. The Commission therefore upholds that action and dismisses the appeal of Denise DeLeon.

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