Muhammad Gonzalez, CSC Docket No. 2022-2931

BackgroundThe appeal of Muhammad Gonzalez, Hospital Attendant, Hudson County, Department of Health and Human Services, removal, effective April 26, 2022, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Kelly J. Kirk (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on November 24, 2023. Exceptions 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, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on January 17, 2024, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions and her recommendation to uphold the removal.

Upon its de novo review of the ALJ’s thorough and well-reasoned 95-page initial decision as well as the entire record, including the exceptions filed by the appellant, the Commission agrees with the ALJ’s determinations regarding the charges, which were substantially based on her assessment of the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses, as well as other documentary and video evidence. In this regard, 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.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.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c); Cavalieri u. Public Employees Retirement System, 368 N.J. 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. In this regard, the ALJ made detailed credibility determinations and corresponding findings based on those determinations. Upon its review, the Commission finds nothing in the record or the appellant’s exceptions to question those determinations or the findings and conclusions made therefrom.

Similar to its assessment of the charges, the Commission’s review of the penalty is also de novo. In addition to its consideration of the seriousness of the underlying incident in determining the proper penalty, the Commission also utilizes, when appropriate, the concept of progressive discipline. West New York v. Bock, 38 N.J. 500 (1962). In determining the propriety of the penalty, several factors must be considered, including the nature of the appellant’s offense, the concept of progressive discipline, and the employee’s prior record. George v. North Princeton Developmental Center, 96 N.J.A.R. 2d (CSV) 463. Regarding the penalty, by the ALJ stated:

Gonzalez has been employed by MPH since 2015 and his disciplinary history reflects that he was suspended for two days in 2017 for neglect of duty; suspended for forty-five days in 2019 for conduct unbecoming a public employee; and suspended for three months in 2020 for insubordination. (J-3.) Notwithstanding the already considerable disciplinary history, Gonzalez’s conduct in February 2022 and March

2022 violated hospital policies, and was insubordinate and unbecoming a public employee. As credibly testified to by multiple witnesses, his behavior is of significant concern given that Gonzalez works with vulnerable psychiatric patients at MPH, and his failure to appear for an

Administrative Law JudgeFFD exam—the rationale for which was clearly established—is indefensible. Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that Gonzalez’s conduct in

AnalysisFebruary 2022 and March 2022 unfortunately rendered him unsuitable for continuation in the position of psychiatric hospital attendant and warranted his termination.

The Commission wholeheartedly agrees that the appellant’s actions in this matter fall well short of what is expected of a public employee and given the appellant’s substantial history of major discipline, and in accordance with the tenets of progressive discipline, are more than deserving of removal from employment. As such, the Commission finds the penalty of removal neither disproportionate to the offense nor shocking to the conscious.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in removing the appellant was justified. The Commission therefore upholds that action and dismisses the appeal of Muhammad Gonzalez.

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