CARL CIDONI, CSC Docket No. 2022-3253

BackgroundThe appeal of Carl Cidoni, Graphic Artist 1, Middlesex County, Department of Purchasing, removal, effective June 14, 2022, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Kimberley M. Wilson (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on October 27, 2023. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant and a reply to exceptions 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 December 6, 2023, adopted the ALJ’s recommendation to uphold the removal.

Upon its de novo review of the ALJ’s thorough and well-reasoned 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 based on her assessment of the credible evidence in the record. The Commission finds nothing in the appellant’s exceptions which persuade it that the ALJ’s findings in that regard were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or otherwise not based on the credible evidence in the record. As such, the Commission upholds the disciplinary charges.

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.cJ. 474 (2007).

In his exceptions, the appellant argues that the removal should be modified since the ALJ relied on, in part, an erroneous finding that he was placed on a remote work schedule to separate him from his co-workers during most of the duration of the investigation. The Commission rejects this argument. Even if accurate, the upheld misconduct by the appellant is egregious and worthy of removal, regardless of how the appointing authority dealt with him at the time.

Administrative Law JudgeIn this matter, the ALJ stated:

When determining the appropriate penalty, Cidoni’s mitigating factors include Cidoni’s age, apology during the hearing (footnote omitted) and expression of remorse. He also has no prior discipline with the County. The aggravating factors are Cidoni’s comments during the three incidents, foul language and threats that offend publicly accepted standards of decency. Cidoni’s words negatively impacted the work environment, a readily-apparent outcome.

AnalysisIf the disciplinary charges against Cidoni did not include his threat to shoot his supervisor, perhaps a lesser penalty would be appropriate for the pedestrian incident and for calling his supervisor a bitch. That, however, is not the case here. Accordingly, CONCLUDE that Cidoni’s behavior was so egregious as to warrant his removal, without regard to progressive discipline because Cidoni’s misconduct was serious, offensive and disrupted the operations of the Office and the quality of life and morale of Cidoni’s colleagues in the Office.

The Commission wholeheartedly agrees that the appellant’s egregious actions in this matter fall well short of what is expected of a public employee. As such, the Commission finds the penalty of removal neither disproportionate to the offenses 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 appeals of Carl Cidoni.

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