Kurtis Warner, CSC Docket No. 2022-3248

BackgroundThe appeals of Kurtis Warner, Timothy Jillson, John Jester, Douglas Weedon and Alberto Campos, Senior Correctional Police Officers, Juvenile Justice, and Quantara Ross, Communications Officer, Secured Facilities, Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC), removals on various dates, on charges, were before Administrative Law Judge William T. Cooper, III (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision granting the appointing authority's motion for summary decision, on December 9, 2022. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellants and a reply to exceptions was filed on behalf of the appointing authority.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, including a thorough review of the exceptions and reply, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting of February 1, 2023, remanded the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for further proceedings.

The Commission finds that the ALJ’s granting the appointing authority's motion for summary decision was not warranted in this matter. In this regard, under Executive Orders 283 and 290, “covered high-risk congregate settings must maintain a policy that requires covered workers to provide adequate proof that they are up to date with their COVID-19 vaccinations.” However, “[t]he policies adopted by covered settings ... must provide appropriate accommodations, to the extent required by federal and/or state law, for employees who request and receive an exemption from vaccination because ofa... sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance.”

Here, the appellants requested religious accommodations to the requirement of receiving the vaccine. They were denied and nevertheless still refused to get vaccinated and were thus subjected to discipline. However, in issuing the summary decision opinion in favor of the JJC, the ALJ made no finding as to whether the accommodations requested were validly denied. In other words, there was no finding as to whether granting the requested accommodations would have amounted to an undue hardship to the JJC. Rather, the ALJ framed the matters as being concerned only with whether the appellants violated the JJC’s vaccination policy. The appellants, however, forcefully argued that they were wrongfully disciplined because the JJC should not have denied their accommodations. In this regard, it is worth noting that in their accommodation requests, the appellants offered to get regularly tested, wear masks, and socially distance. Whether those measures would amount to an undue hardship to the JJC is unclear, as the ALJ did not engage in any fact- finding as to that issue. Further, the Commission rejects the JJC’s attempts to argue that the OAL is not the proper forum to raise such arguments. As the appellants arguments are, in essence, their defense to the charges imposed, they could raise any such arguments and present any appropriate evidence in their disciplinary matters before the OAL.! As such, the Commission remands the matter to the OAL for a hearing to establish facts as to the appropriateness of the accommodation denials for each appellant and how or if those facts impact any determination as to the appellants’ guilt regarding the charges.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission remands this matter to the Office of Administrative Law for further proceedings as outlined above.