Dariusz Szczesny, CSC Docket No. 2023-1025

BackgroundThe appeal of Dariusz Szczesny, Sheriff's Officer Sergeant, Middlesex County, Sheriffs Department, demotion to Sheriffs Officer, effective November 3, 2022, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Joan M. Burke (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on April 30, 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, de novo evaluation of the record, including a thorough review of the exceptions and reply, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on June 11, 2025, adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusions and the ALJ’s recommendation to uphold the demotion to Sheriffs Officer.

In his exceptions, the appellant makes several arguments all maintaining that the appointing authority did not sustain its burden of proof. The Commission disagrees. In this regard, the ALJ’s findings were based on her credibility determinations of the testimony of the witnesses as well as her assessment of the video of the incident in question. 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). Regarding the appellant’s credibility, the ALJ stated:

(T]he appellant testified that he did not take lunch but was consuming food, and it can be consumed anywhere. However, when Szczesny was asked by Captain Einhorn about being with Girgis, he reported that he had lunch and was sitting across from Girgis. As a result of being across from Girgis for some time during lunch, he had contracted COVID.

Administrative Law JudgeAccordingly, I do not find the appellant to be a credible witness.

AnalysisUpon its de novo review, the Commission finds no persuasive evidence in the record or the appellant's exceptions to demonstrate that the Ald’s credibility determinations, or her findings and conclusions based on those determinations, were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. As such, the Commission affirms the ALd’s findings regarding the charges in this matter.

The Commission further finds that the penalty imposed is appropriate. Similar to its review of the underlying 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.” Moreover, the Commission emphasizes that a law enforcement officer is held to a higher standard than a civilian public employee. See Moorestown v. Armstrong, 89 N.J. Super. 560 (App. Div. 1965), cert. denied, 47 N.J. 80 (1966). See also, In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567 (1990). Regarding the penalty, the ALJ stated:

Appellant’s lengthy tenure with the County and his unblemished record mitigate in his favor. But his continued insistence that he did not take lunch; that his post is the entire building; and that taking lunch means consumption of food, and that can be done anywhere, is unacceptable. Up to and including the plenary hearing in this case, appellant has remained openly defiant. At no time did he give any indication that he was prepared to admit that he did have lunch. In fact, his very statement, that if they were to have come to him and said something, he would have taken back the overtime he put in for lunch, reeks of his disdain for MCSO’s rules and regulations. As a law enforcement officer, he is held to a higher standard, and should diligently follow the rules and regulations. The appellant's abject refusal to accept that premise demonstrates his unfitness to continue in a supervisory capacity. Accordingly, I have no choice but to SUSTAIN his demotion.

The Commission wholly agrees with the ALJ’s assessment of the penalty. A law enforcement officer, especially one in a supervisory position, must be held to a higher standard. The appellant’s actions in this matter fell well short of what would be expected of a law enforcement officer and are worthy of significant sanction. Moreover, while the appellant was a longstanding employee with no significant disciplinary history, his actions and disregard and apparent defiance regarding rules and regulations makes his continued status as a supervisor untenable. Finally, the Commission finds that the demotion imposed should impress upon the appellant the severity of his misconduct and serve as a reminder that any future misconduct may result in more severe disciplinary action, up to removal from employment.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in demoting the appellant was justified. The Commission therefore affirms that action and dismisses the appeal of Dariusz Szczesny.

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