Daniel Glenn, CSC Docket No. 2022-27
NJ Civil Service Commission decision of July 20, 2022, CSC Docket No. 2022-27: discipline, dismissed. Daniel Glenn, Laborer 1, Irvington, Department of Public Works, removal, effective June 8, 2021, on charges of incompetence, inefficiency or failure to perform duties, insubordination, inability to
Commission decisions · Meeting of July 20, 2022
Daniel Glenn, Laborer 1, Irvington, Department of Public Works, removal, effective June 8, 2021, on charges of incompetence, inefficiency or failure to perform duties, insubordination, inability to perform duties and neglect of duty.
- Matter
- Discipline
- Decided
- July 20, 2022, item A-4
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- ALJ's recommendation
- Dismiss the appeal for failure to appear.
- What the Commission did with it
- Adopted the ALJ's recommendation
- Penalty appealed
- removal
- Title
- LABORER 1
- Employer
- Irvington
- Chair at the time
- Deirdre L. Webster Cobb, Chairperson
- Official decision
- Published by CSC in its monthly archive bundle (A004 GLENN DANIEL.pdf)
Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission affirmed the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge.
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 Daniel Glenn, Laborer 1, Irvington, Department of Public Works, removal, effective June 8, 2021, on charges, was before Administrative Law Judge Elissa Mizzone Testa (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on June 14, 2022. Exceptions were filed by the appellant, pre se.
AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting of June 29, 2022, accepted the recommendation as contained in the attached ALJ’s initial decision. The Commission makes the following comments.
In his exceptions, the appellant contends that he did not receive notice of the hearing that he failed to attend. The Commission is unpersuaded. The record indicates that the notice was emailed to the appellant at two separate email addresses. These email addresses had been used previously to contact the appellant by Office of Administrative Law staff. Further, the hearing notice was sent via regular mail to the address provided by the appellant.! The Commission acknowledges the presumption that mail correctly addressed, stamped and mailed is generally received by the party to whom it was addressed. See SSI Medical Services, Inc. v. State Department of Human Services, 146 N.J. 614 (1996); Szezesny v. Vasquez, 71 N.J. Super. 347, 354 (App. Div. 1962); In the Matter of Joseph Bahun, Docket No. A-1132-00T5F (App. Div. May 21, 2001). It also recognizes that on occasion, such mail never reaches its intended destination. However, in this case, where there were multiple methods of delivery, to several addresses, the Commission cannot credit the appellant’s assertion that he did not receive notice of the hearing.
1 The Commission also notes that the appellant apparently timely received the ALJ’s initial decision, which was also emailed and mailed to the addresses in the record, as he filed his exceptions within the regulatory timeframe.
ORDER
The Civil Service Commission dismisses the appeal of Daniel Glenn for failure to appear.
ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.
Decisions this one cites
- SSI Medical Services, Inc. v. State Department of Human Services 146 N.J. 614
- Szezesny v. Vasquez 71 N.J. Super. 347, 354
- In the Matter of Joseph Bahun Docket No. A-1132-00T5F (May 21, 2001)
About this page
Not an official copy. The decision of record is CSC's monthly archive. 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.