Claudia Martinez, CSC Docket No. 2022-2510

BackgroundThe appeal of Claudia Martinez, Police Officer, Newark, Department of Public Safety, six working day suspension, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Joann LaSala Candido (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on May 11, 2023. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appointing authority and a reply was 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, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on June 28, 2023, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions and her recommendation to reverse the six working day suspension.

As indicated above, the Commission thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed in this matter. Upon that review, it does not find anything persuasive to overturn the ALJ’s recommendations regarding the reversal of the six working day suspension. The ALJ's initial decision was well-reasoned and his findings and conclusions were based mainly on her assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. 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.J. 644 (1999) (quoting State v. Locurio, 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. Jd. 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.d. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004). In this matter, the ALJ found that the appellant testified credibly about the incident. The ALJ further found that the appellant’s failure to engage at length with the officers at the scene did not rise to the level of unbecoming conduct. In its review of the exceptions filed by the appointing authority, the Commission is not persuaded 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.

Moreover, while the exceptions allege that the appellant was attempting to illegally evict a tenant, there is no indication that she was ever charged with any criminal violation for such alleged illegal activities, nor was it established that her actions were illegal. In this matter, as found by the ALJ based on the credible evidence in the record, the appellant’s actions in this matter were not in violation of what was outlined as the alleged misconduct in the specifications section of the Final Notice of Disciplinary Action.

Since the six working day suspension has been reversed, the appellant is entitled to six working days of back pay, benefits, and seniority pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A;:2-2.10. She is also entitled to reasonable counsel fees pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2- 2.12,

This decision resolves the merits of the dispute between the parties concerning the disciplinary charges and the penalty imposed by the appointing authority. However, in light of 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 counse! fees are finally resolved.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending the appellant was not justified and reverses that action. The Commission further orders that the appellant be granted six working days of back pay, benefits, and seniority. The amount of back pay awarded is to be reduced as provided for in N.d.A.C. 4A:2-2.10(d)3. The Commission also orders reasonable counsel fees pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12(a). Proof of income earned, and an affidavit 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.

Pursuant to N.J_A.C. 4A:2-2.12(b), the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to the amount of counsel fees.

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 shall be pursued in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.