Jean Lamothe, CSC Docket No. 2021-224

BackgroundThe appeal of Jean Lamothe, Senior Executive Service, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, removal, effective August 7, 2020, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Susan L. Olgiati (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on August 12, 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, 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 of August 24, 2022, accepted and adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusion as contained in the attached ALJ’s initial decision.

As indicated above, the Commission has thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed by the appellant and finds them unpersuasive and mostly unworthy of comment. However, the Commission notes the following. In determining the proper penalty, the Commission’s review 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 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).

In this case, removal is the proper penalty. In this regard, the appellant was a high-level employee who has been found guilty of significant misuse of both work and benefit time as well as violating the New Jersey Uniform Ethics Code. Such violations are egregious and cannot be tolerated in such a high-level employee, who in part, is to lead by example. The example the appellant set is clearly well below the standards expected of a public employee and worthy of removal.

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 Jean Lamothe.

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