Quantara Ross, CSC Docket No. 2022-3250

BackgroundThe appeal of Quantara Ross, Communication Operator, Secured Facilities, Youth Justice Commission, removal, effective June 3, 2022, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge William T. Cooper (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on September 22, 2025. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant and a reply was filed on behalf of the appointing authority.

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 November 5, 2025, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and his recommendation to uphold the removal.

The appellant makes myriad arguments in her exceptions, many of which do not require extensive comment. In this regard, the appellant argued that the ALJ did not specifically consider the cross examination of the appointing authority’s witnesses. The ALJ’s decision is based significantly on his assessment of the witnesses’ testimony. 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.J. 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). Upon its review and notwithstanding the appellant’s arguments in the exceptions, the Commission finds no persuasive evidence in the record or the exceptions to demonstrate that the ALJ’s findings and conclusions based on his credibility determinations were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.

1 Previously the Juvenile Justice Commission.

Additionally, the appellant contends that the ALJ did not properly assess whether the appointing authority established that any requested accommodations presented an undue hardship. The Commission is not persuaded. The ALJ made a number of factual findings as to this issue. The ALJ specifically found the appellant’s exemption request was individually considered by a group that had both familiarity with her job functions and the impact of COVID-19 on the appointing authority’s operations. That information was provided to the individuals who ultimately decided to deny the request, after they independently reviewed the request. The ALJ also found that the credible evidence and testimony in the record as to the appellant’s job duties, location, limitations, and accommodation requests were all considered while evaluating her religious exemption request. Ultimately, the ALJ, determined that the appellant’s request was denied because no possible accommodation existed, and her unvaccinated status would have caused an undue hardship to appointing authority’s operations. Upon its review of the entire record as well as the exceptions, the Commission finds nothing to question that determination.

Regarding the penalty, similar to its assessment of the charges, the Commission’s review of the penalty is 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. However, it is well established that where the underlying conduct is of an egregious nature, the imposition of a penalty up to and including removal is appropriate, regardless of an individual’s disciplinary history. See Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (1980). It is settled that the theory of progressive discipline is not a “fixed and immutable rule to be followed without question.” Rather, it is recognized that some disciplinary infractions are so serious that removal is appropriate notwithstanding a largely unblemished prior record. See Carter v. Bordentown, 191 N.J. 474 (2007).

Significant in this regard, the Commission notes that the appellant had received several previous disciplinary actions in her short tenure with the appointing authority.2 Most significantly, the record reflects that the appellant received six minor disciplinary suspensions and a 15 working day suspension in 2021 for attendance-related matters that arose in 2020. This record of discipline in the appellant’s short tenure coupled with the appellant’s failure to comply with required provisions in this matter, supports her removal from employment. In this regard, the Commission finds removal to be 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 Quantara Ross.

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