Maurice Bullock, CSC Docket No. 2021-487

BackgroundThe appeals! of Maurice Bullock, Fire Captain, Newark, Department of Public Safety, 10 and 90 working day suspensions, on charges, were heard by Administrative Law Judge Patrice E. Hobbs (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on March 7, 2025. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant and a reply was filed on behalf of the appointing authority.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the attached ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on April 9, 2025, accepted and adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions and her recommendations to reverse the 10 working day suspension and uphold the 90 working day suspension.

DISCUSSION

10 Working Day Suspension

Administrative Law JudgeIn this matter, the ALJ found that the appointing authority had not sustained its burden of proof on the underlying charges. In its reply to exceptions, the appointing authority does not challenge the ALJ’s determinations in that regard.?

Analysis1 This matter was originally erroneously transmitted as solely an appeal of the 90 working day suspension. However, the record clearly reflects that the appellant appealed both the 10 and 90 working day suspensions. Thus, it was appropriate for the ALJ to proceed with the hearing on both matters.

2 Inexplicably, the appellant, in his exceptions, renews his argument that these charges should be dismissed based on alleged procedural violations at the departmental level. As properly indicated by

Upon its de novo review, the Commission finds nothing in the record to demonstrate that the ALJ’s findings and determinations in that regard were arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or otherwise not based on the credible evidence in the record. Accordingly, the Commission affirms the reversal of the 10 working day suspension.

Since the suspension has been reversed, the appellant is entitled to 10 days of back pay, benefits and seniority pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10(d)3. Further, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 2-2.12, the appellant’s attorney is entitled to reasonable counsel fees for this matter. However, as this matter involved the appeal of two suspensions, where only one has been reversed, the Commission finds that the appellant is only entitled to 50% of the total amount of counsel fees expended for both matters.

90 Working Day Suspension

Administrative Law JudgeIn the initial decision, the ALJ upheld the charges underlying the 90 working day suspension, finding that the appellant's entry into the Company Journal were improper. The Commission finds nothing in the appellant's exceptions that persuasively challenges those findings. As such, the Commission affirms the upholding of the underlying charges in that regard. In his exceptions, the appellant also argues that the 90 working day suspension imposed was excessive. Regarding the penalty, the ALJ found:

Here, the journal entries written by Bullock were not permissible or appropriate. The entry is two pages long, is personal to Bullock, and contains statements about other firemen in the department, statements of drug and alcchol use, and statements of racism. The Company Journal was established more than fifteen years before this incident, and

AnalysisBullock’s entry is the only one of its kind. His entries give the names of superior officers and could be interpreted to be critical of them. The entry goes above and beyond the scope of the purpose of the Company

Journal, Given such insubordination and improper use of the Company

Journal by a captain. [ CONCLUDE that Bullock’s actions warrant a suspension for ninety days.

The Commission agrees with the ALJ’s assessment. In this regard, 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, the ALJ, that argument is rendered moot by the decision reversing the charges on the merits. The Commission further notes that, regardless, any alleged procedural violations are generally deemed cured by the granting of a de novo hearing at the Office of Administrative Law. See Ensslin uv. Township of North Bergen, 275 N.f. Super. 352, 361 (App. Div. 1994), cert. denied, 142 N.J. 446 (1995): in re Darcy, 114 Nid. Super, 454 (App. Div. 1971).

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.d.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 vu. 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 matter, it is clear that a significant disciplinary penalty is warranted. The appellant, a superior officer, misused the Company Journal in an inappropriate manner. Such actions for a supervisory-level employee cannot be tolerated. As such, the 90 working day suspension, a weighty penalty, should serve to impress upon the appellant the gravity of his actions as well as serve as a clear warning that any further inappropriate conduct may lead to more severe disciplinary action, up to removal from employment.

ORDER

10 Working Day Suspension

The Civil Service Commission finds that the appointing authority’s action in suspending the appellant was not justified. Therefore, the Commission reverses that action and upholds the appeal of Maurice Bullock. The Commission further orders that the appellant receive 10 days of back pay, benefits and seniority. The amount of back pay awarded is to be reduced as provided for in N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10(d)3. The Commission further awards reasonable counsel fees as provided for in N.d.A.C. 4A:2- 2.12. However, as indicated above, this award is to be 50% of the total amount of counsel fees expended for both appealed matters.

Proof of income earned and an affidavit of services in support of reasonable counsel fees shall be submitted by or on behalf of the appellant to the appointing authority within 30 days of issuance of this decision. The Commission directs that the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to the amount of counsel fees.

This decision resolves the merits of the dispute between the parties concerning the 10 working day suspension imposed by the appointing authority. However, per the Appellate Division’s decision, Dolores Phillips v. Department of Corrections, Docket No, A-5581-01T2F (App. Div. February 26, 2003), the Commission’s decision will not become final until any outstanding issues concerning counsel fees are finally resolved.

The parties must inform the Commission, in writing, if there is any dispute as to counsel fees within 60 days of issuance of this decision. In the absence of such notice, the Commission will assume that all outstanding issues have been amicably resolved by the parties and this decision shall become a final administrative determination pursuant to R. 2:2-3(a)(2). After such time, any further review of this matter should be pursued in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

90 Working Day Suspension

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending the appellant for 90 working days was justified. The Civil Service Commission therefore upholds that action and dismisses the appeal of Murice Bullock.

This is the final administrative determination regarding the 90 working day suspension. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.