Chinwe Ugorji, CSC Docket No. 2023-1653

BackgroundThe appeal of Chinwe Ugorji, Security Guard, Newark School District, removal, effective January 17, 2023, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Susana E. Guerrero (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on June 16, 2025. Exceptions were 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, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on July 23, 2025, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and her recommendation to modify the removal] to a six-month suspension.

The Commission makes the following comments. There is no serious dispute as to the misconduct alleged. The only issue to be resolved is the proper penalty to be imposed. In her initial decision, the ALJ found the following:

Administrative Law JudgeHere, the District seeks to bypass progressive discipline and terminate Ugoryji for the events of November 18, 2022. While I agree that the offenses here are significant in that Ugorji failed to perform his basic duties as a security guard and that this resulted in the theft of one of the District’s vehicles, I am not persuaded that the misconduct here is sufficiently severe to warrant termination, particularly considering the fact that Ugorji had been employed by the District for nearly twenty- five years without any prior discipline. Consequently, | CONCLUDE that the penalty of termination proposed by the District is excessive, and that a long-term suspension is a more appropriate penalty. There is no evidence that Ugorji knowingly permitted the intruder access to the lot or truck, and his lengthy service to the District without any prior discipline whatsoever is also a significant consideration in determining an appropriate penalty. Given these considerations, together with the nature of the sustained charges, the absence of any reasonable explanation for failing to perform his duties, and Ugoriji’s refusal to take any responsibility for these failures, I CONCLUDE that a more appropriate penalty is a six-month suspension.

AnalysisRegarding 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.dJ. 474 (2007).

The appointing authority argues in its exceptions that the ALJ’s recommended reduction in penalty is inappropriate given the egregious misconduct demonstrated by the appellant. While the Commission agrees that the appellant’s misconduct was wholly inappropriate, as indicated above by the ALJ, the appellant was a near 25- year employee with no previous discipline. While his misconduct was seriously negligent, given his prior record of service, application of progressive discipline and a six-month suspension, the longest suspension permitted under Civil Service law and rules, should serve to sufficiently penalize the appellant as well as remind him that any future misconduct will likely result in his removal from employment. In making this determination, the Commission notes that it is not minimizing the appellant’s seriously negligent dereliction of his primary duties. However, given his record, the Commission cannot find that dereliction so serious to bypass progressive discipline in this matter. Accordingly, it finds that the six-month suspension recommended by the ALJ is appropriate.

Since the removal has been modified, the appellant is entitled to be reinstated to his position with mitigated back pay, benefits, and seniority pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10 from six-months after the first date of disciplinary separation without pay until the date he is reinstated.

However, the appellant is not entitled to counsel fees. N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12(a) provides for the award of counsel fees only where an employee has prevailed on all or substantially all of the primary issues in an appeal of a major disciplinary action. The primary issue in a disciplinary appeal is the merits of the charges. See Johnny

Walcott v. City of Plainfield, 282 N.J. Super. 121,128 (App. Div. 1995): In the Matter of Robert Dean (MSB, decided January 12, 1993); In the Matter of Ralph Cozzino (MSB, decided September 21, 1989). Thus, where, as here, a penalty is modified but charges are sustained and major discipline is imposed, counsel fees must be denied since the appellant has failed to meet the standard set forth at N.d.A.C. 4A:2-2.12.

This decision resolves the merits of the dispute between the parties concerning the disciplinary charges and the penalty imposed by the appointing authority. However, per the Appellate Division’s decision, Dolores Phillips v. Department of Corrections, Docket No. A-5581-01T2F (App. Div. Feb. 26, 2003), the Commission’s decision will not become final until any outstanding issues concerning back pay are finally resolved. In the interim, as the court states in Phillips, supra, if it has not already done so, upon receipt of this decision, the appointing authority shall immediately reinstate the appellant to his permanent position.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in removing the appellant was not justified. The Commission therefore modifies that action to a six-month suspension.

Additionally, the Commission orders that the appellant be granted back pay, benefits, and seniority from six-months after the first date of disciplinary separation without pay to the date he is reinstated. The amount of back pay awarded is to be reduced and mitigated as provided for in N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10. Proof of income earned, and an affidavit of mitigation shall be submitted by or on behalf of the appellant to the appointing authority within 30 days of issuance of this decision. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10, the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to the amount of back pay. However, under no circumstances should the appellant’s reinstatement be delayed pending resolution of any potential back pay dispute.

Counsel fees are denied pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12.

The parties must inform the Commission, in writing, if there is any dispute as to back pay within 60 days of issuance of this decision. In the absence of such notice, the Commission will assume that all outstanding issues have been amicably resolved by the parties and this decision shall become a final administrative determination pursuant to R. 2:2-3(a)(2). After such time, any further review of this matter shall be pursued in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.