Robertha Addison, CSC Docket No. 2022-1174

— a ee

BackgroundThe appeal of Robertha Addison, County Correctional Police Officer, Burlington County, Department of Corrections, removal, effective November 3, 2021, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Judith Lieberman (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on September 8, 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. The Commission notes that the ALJ’s findings and conclusions in upholding the charges and the penalty imposed was based on her 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.dl. 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.dl. 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 her 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 notes that much of the appellant’s arguments regarding the alleged procedural violations relating to the drug testing were appropriately addressed in the ALJ’s initial decision. Regardless, it is clear that any identified procedural violations in this case do not provide a basis to nullify the results of the drug test. See In the Matter of Mario Lalama, 343 N.J. Super. 560 (App. Div. 2001); In the Matter of Bruce Norman, Docket No. A-5633-03T1 (App. Div. January 26, 2006), cert. denied, 186 N.J. 603 (2006) (Deviations from drug testing that do not amount to violations of the appellant’s right to due process or call into question the validity of the positive test result, do not mandate voiding the test result).

Finally, the Commission notes that the infraction in this matter is clearly worthy or removal from employment for a County Correctional Police Officer. In this regard, the Commission emphasizes that a Correction Officer is a law enforcement officer who, by the very nature of her 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), cert. denied, 47 N.J. 80 (1966). See also, In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567 (1990). Moreover, even when a Correction 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.

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 Robertha Addison.

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

| This is not the case in this matter as the appellant's prior record includes several disciplinary actions, including major discipline.