JOSEPH PETTIT, CSC Docket No. 2022-1265
NJ Civil Service Commission decision of April 10, 2024, CSC Docket No. 2022-1265: discipline, settlement acknowledged. Joseph Pettit, Laborer 1, Dennis Township, Department of Public Works, removal, effective November 6, 2021, on charges of incompetency, inefficiency or failure to perform duties, in
Commission decisions · Meeting of April 10, 2024
Joseph Pettit, Laborer 1, Dennis Township, Department of Public Works, removal, effective November 6, 2021, on charges of incompetency, inefficiency or failure to perform duties, insubordination, conduct unbecoming a public employee, neglect of duty, and other sufficient cause.
- Matter
- Discipline
- Decided
- April 10, 2024, item A-6
- Outcome
- Settlement acknowledged
- ALJ's recommendation
- Modify the removal to a 100 working day suspension and mandatory anger management programming.
- Penalty appealed
- removal
- Title
- LABORER 1
- Employer
- Dennis Township
- Chair at the time
- Allison Chris Myers, Acting Chairperson
- Official decision
- CSC's PDF
Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission rejected the initial decision and acknowledged the settlement.
This docket at the Commission
- March 20, 2024, item A-6Held over to a later meetingThe Civil Service Commission directed that this matter be held over.
- April 10, 2024, item A-6Settlement acknowledgedThe Civil Service Commission rejected the initial decision and acknowledged the settlement.
The decision
CSC published this decision as a scanned image. The text below was recognized by OCR, read twice and checked against the meeting minutes, but OCR can misread a word. The official document is the record.
BackgroundThe appeal of Joseph Pettit, Laborer 1, Dennis Township, Department of Public Works, removal, effective November 6, 2021, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Elaine B. Frick (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on February 5, 2024. Exceptions were 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 10, 2024, rejected the recommendation contained in the AL.J’s initial decision and acknowledged the attached settlement, which provides for the appellant’s resignation in good standing effective November 6, 2021.
In this matter, the parties contacted the Commission subsequent to the issuance of the ALJ’s initial decision. Specifically, the parties indicated that they had settled the matter and forwarded the settlement to the Commission for review and acknowledgment. The policy of the judicial system strongly favors settlement. See
Nolan v. Lee Ho, 120 N.J. 465 (1990); Honeywell v. Bubb, 130 N.J. Super. 130 (App. Div. 1974); Jannarone v. W.T. Co., 65 N.J. Super. 472 (App. Div. 1961), cert. denied, 35 N.J. 61 (1961). This policy is equally applicable in the administrative area. A settlement will be set aside only where there is fraud or other compelling circumstances. Upon review of the settlement, the Commission finds that it complies with Civil Service law and rules. As such, the Commission rejects the initial decision and acknowledges the settlement.
ORDER
The Civil Service Commission rejects the initial decision and acknowledges the settlement.
ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.
Decisions this one cites
- Nolan v. Lee Ho 120 N.J. 465
- Honeywell v. Bubb 130 N.J. Super. 130
- Jannarone v. W.T. Co. 65 N.J. Super. 472
About this page
Not an official copy. The decision of record is CSC's PDF. The text above was extracted from it by OCR and may differ in layout or, rarely, in a character.
Names appear as the Commission published them in its public minutes and decisions, initials where it used initials. This site does not offer a search by a person's name.
The labels are ours. The kind of matter and the outcome are our reading of the minutes; the ACTION text the Commission recorded is quoted verbatim above. A decision applies the rules to its own facts and is not a prediction for any other matter, and nothing here is legal advice.
To report an error on this page, use the contact form.