STEVEN ALLEN, CSC Docket No. 2021-1765

BackgroundThe appeal of Steven Allen, Sheriffs Officer, Gloucester County Sheriffs Office, of his removal effective May 12, 2021, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey N. Rabin, who rendered his initial decision on January 25, 2028. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, including a thorough review of the exceptions, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting of February 22, 2023, 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 filings do not persuade the Commission that the ALJ’s findings and conclusions, or his recommendation to uphold the removal 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.J.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.dJ. 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). In this regard, the Commission emphasizes that a Sheriffs Officer is a law enforcement officer who, by the very nature of his 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), ceri. denied, 47 N.eJ. 80 (1966). See also, In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567 (1990). Moreover, even when a Sheriffs 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.

While the appellant contends that he was taking marijuana due to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) suffered on the job and that the appointing authority had “unclean hands” in this matter, the ALJ found that the evidence failed to show that the appellant’s drug use resulted from any actions taken by the appointing authority. Moreover, the ALJ determined that the evidence failed to show that the appellant ever advised the appointing authority about his mental health issues and failed to establish that he suffered PTSD. The Commission agrees with the ALJ’s findings in this matter and that such findings do not mitigate against removal. In this regard, the ALJ stated:

The within matter is not one of progressive discipline, as no past disciplinary issues regarding appellant were raised at the hearing.

Appellant cited to several cases where LEQOs [law enforcement officers] were not terminated from their positions for illegal drug use.

But those cases involved an accidental ingestion of a prohibited drug or where a LEO failed to disclose a prescription before submitting to drug testing. Those cases carried no weight in the within scenario; here, appellant intentionally sought the prohibited drug, fully aware that using marijuana without a medical marijuana card was illegal and constituted violations of State and departmental rules and regulations.

There was no element of error or inadvertent action on the part of the officer.

Regarding the within appellant, not only did he violate State and

County guidelines regarding illegal drug use, his use of marijuana for months before being caught, and failing a drug test while he was on duty, certainly encompassed conduct that would adversely affect the morale or efficiency of a governmental unit or that had a tendency to destroy public respect in the delivery of governmental services .. . The uncertainty of how appellant was obtaining a then-illegal and unregulated intoxicating drug, and uncertainty as to how long he had been using marijuana, and the fact that he tested positive for marijuana while on duty, all went to the heart of the officer’s ability to be trusted to function appropriately in his position, and fall within the guidelines and caselaw that call for dismissal.

The Commission wholeheartedly agrees with the above assessment and finds that removal from employment is neither disproportionate to the offenses 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 affirms that action and dismisses the appeals of Steven Allen.

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