Nasheeda Singleton, CSC Docket No. 2021-179

BackgroundThe appeal of Nasheeda Singleton, Correctional Police Sergeant, Northern State Prison, Department of Corrections, removal, effective May 7, 2020, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Jude-Anthony Tiscornia (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on August 25, 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 and finds most do not merit extended discussion. Nevertheless, the Commission notes that the ALJ’s findings and conclusions in upholding the charges and the penalty imposed was based on his thorough assessment of the record and were not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. In this regard, 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 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 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 his 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.

Additionally, the Commission agrees with the ALJ that, pursuant to the settlement agreement entered into by the appellant and appointing authority, the uncovered infractions warrant removal from employment as to find otherwise would be to ignore the agreement of the parties as well as the fact that the appellant was found to have committed the identified transgressions.

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 Nasheeda Singleton.

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