Mack Ragsdale, CSC Docket No. 2022-171

BackgroundThe appeal of Mack Ragsdale, Electronic Systems Technician 2, Atlantic City, Department of Municipal Utilities Authority, removal, effective July 6, 2021, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Elaine B. Frick (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on September 6, 2024. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appointing authority and replies were filed on behalf of the appellant.

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 on October 16, 2024 adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts in the initial decision. However, it did not agree with his recommendation to modify the removal to a 10 working day suspension. Rather, the Commission dismissed all charges and reversed the removal.

Upon its de novo review of the ALJ’s thorough and well-reasoned initial decision as well as the entire record, including the exceptions and replies filed by the parties, which do not require extensive comment, the Commission agrees with the ALJ’s findings as they are reasonable and based on her credibility determinations which were clearly defined. In this regard, the Commission acknowledges that the ALJ, who has the benefit of hearing and seeing the witnesses, 1s generally in a better position to determine the credibility and veracity of the witnesses. See Matter of J.W.D., 149 NJ. 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.eJ. 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.dJ.S.A. 52:14B-10(c); Cavalieri u. Public Employees Retirement System, 368 N.J. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004).

Administrative Law JudgeIn her initial decision, the ALJ found all of the witnesses credible. However, the ALJ noted that most of the testimony of the appointing authority's witnesses was their “understanding” of events and information, based mainly upon hearsay statements made to them or what they gathered in terms of hearing others speak about circumstances. The ALJ also noted that the appointing authority failed to present any evidence to support its claim that the appellant’s actions caused extensive damage and/or costs. Therefore, the ALJ dismissed all but one of the charges. The ALJ’s explanation as to her determinations were well thought out and clearly supported by the testimony she included in the initial decision. Despite finding that the appellant had requested blueprints or schematics of the wiring in the building; and he had expressed reservations about his ability to cut the requested wires with the information provided, to Claude Smith, who assigned the work; the ALJ upheld the charge of neglect of duty, as the appellant had acknowledged that he accidentally cut both wires. Moreover, the ALJ noted that no witness for the appointing authority could identify who had allegedly told the appellant not to cut the wire and both the appellant and his assistant denied that he was told not to cut any wire. Based on the ALJ’s findings, there is no indication that the appellant neglected his duties. Rather, the ALJ explicitly found that the appellant took steps to mitigate any accidental damage, by requesting schematics, which were not provided, and indicating to his superiors that he was uncomfortable with the assignment. Therefore, the Commission finds that the appointing authority has also fallen short of its burden to sustain this charge as well.

AnalysisIn its exceptions, the appointing authority argues that the Commission did not have the jurisdiction to accept the appellant’s appeal.' Specifically, it argued that the timing of events committed by the appellant occurred during the time the Commission’s authority was not in effect for Atlantic City employees pursuant to the

' The appointing authority had requested summary decision on the issue of jurisdiction and the Last Chance Agreement (LCA) controlling this matter. However, the ALJ had found that there were issues of fact concerning whether the LCA was still valid and controlling, as the former Executive Director asserting his recollection that the LCA had been vacated by the President of the Board of Directors at some point after 2017. The ALJ also deemed a disputed fact the appointing authority's contention that it afforded the appellant a hearing simply as a courtesy and Civil Service protections should not be considered since the events in question occurred during the time the Commission’s authority was not in effect for Atlantic City employees. In that regard, when the appointing authority issued, in pertinent part, the major disciplinary notice to the appellant in December 2020, it noted that the discipline was pending a hearing, for which he would be notified of the date and time. The appointing authority had doubts and concerns about conducting such a hearing at a time that might occur after Civil Service protections resumed for Atlantic City employees. Additionally, the ALJ noted that the appellant disputed the facts underlying the alleged behavior that caused the appointing authority to pursue discipline. Therefore, the ALJ denied the motion for summary decision. The appointing authority’s request for interlocutory review to the Commission was not accepted for review.

Municipal Stabilization and Recovery Act (MSRA). The appointing authority notes that the MSRA returned jurisdiction of it back to the Commission on June 24, 2021, one day before the appellant’s “name-clearing hearing.” The appointing authority argues that since the appellant had been disciplined and entered into an LCA, and been disciplined again, prior to that date, the Commission does not have jurisdiction, and instead, the LCA should control. The appointing authority argues that if not for its “courtesy” in providing the appellant with a “name-clearing hearing,” the Commission would not have had jurisdiction as it would have all occurred prior to June 24, 2021. The Commission disagrees. Pursuant to the June 24, 2021 amendment to the MSRA, Civil Service protections became applicable to actions taken after that date. Since the appellant’s termination letter provided that his removal was effective July 6, 2021, the MSRA presents no jurisdictional bar.

Finally, with regard to the appointing authority's arguments concerning the LCA, the Commission finds no need to address those arguments, as all charges against the appellant have been dismissed and the removal reversed.

Since the removal has been reversed, the appellant is entitled to be reinstated with mitigated back pay, benefits, and seniority pursuant to N.e/.A.C. 4A:2-2.10 from the first date of separation without pay until the date of reinstatement.’

This decision resolves the merits of the dispute between the parties concerning the disciplinary charges and the penalty 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. Feb. 26, 2003), the Commission’s decision will not become final until any outstanding issues concerning back pay are finally resolved. In the interim, as the court states in Phillips, supra, if it has not already done so, upon receipt of this decision, the appointing authority shall immediately reinstate the appellant to his position.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in removing the appellant was not justified. The Commission therefore reverses that action and grants the appeal of Mack Ragsdale. The Commission further orders that the appellant be granted back pay, benefits, and seniority from the first date of separation without pay until the date of reinstatement. The amount of back pay awarded is to be reduced and mitigated as provided for in N.dJ.A.C. 4A:2-2.10. Proof of income earned, and an affidavit of mitigation shall be submitted by or on behalf of the appellant to the appointing authority within 30 days of issuance of this decision.

Administrative Law Judge2 The ALJ ordered that the charges in the “minor disciplinary memo of December 16, 2020,” be dismissed. Although the Commission does not normally have jurisdiction over minor disciplinary matters, the discipline imposed was an “indefinite suspension,” which subsequently led to his removal, and as such is not considered minor discipline pursuant to N.d.A.C. 4A:2-3.1.

OrderPursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10, the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to the amount of back pay. However, under no circumstances should the appellant’s reinstatement be delayed pending resolution of any potential back pay dispute.

The parties must inform the Commission, in writing, if there is any dispute as to back pay 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 shall be pursued in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.