Keystone Dufrene, CSC Docket No. 2023-2128

BackgroundThe appeal of Keystone Dufrene, Senior Correctional Police Officer, East Jersey State Prison, Department of Corrections, 30 working day suspension, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Jude-Anthony Tiscornia (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on August 29, 2024. Exceptions were 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, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on September 25, 2024, did not adopt the ALJ’s recommendation to modify the 30 working day suspension to a 10 working day suspension. Rather, the Commission upheld the 30 working day suspension.

Administrative Law JudgeRegarding the charges, the ALJ found:

Respondent’s witnesses credibly testified, and I CONCLUDE that appellant’s conduct in failing to keep the cell doors properly secured constituted a violation of applicable procedures and regulations which, in turn, compromised the safety and security of the inmates and staff of the facility. I further, CONCLUDE that the verbal interaction between

AnalysisDufrene and Iglesias while on the wing on at the time of the incident was hostile and mutually disrespectful, but does not rise to a cause for discipline.

Upon its de novo review, the Commission agrees that the appellant’s failure to secure cell doors compromised the safety and security of the inmates and staff. It also agrees that the verbal interaction between the appellant and his supervisor was “hostile” and “disrespectful.” However, the Commission disagrees with the ALJ that the interaction was not worthy of discipline.

In this regard, the underlying charges specifically included violation of a policy prohibiting “disrespectful or use of insulting or abusive language to supervisor.” Clearly, the appellant viclated this policy. While the ALJ seems to conclude that since the interaction was “mutually” hostile and disrespectful, the appellant is somehow absolved or responsibility. The Commission disagrees. The appellant's supervisor, a Correctional Police Sergeant, initiated the interaction based on the appellant's failure to properly secure cells. The appellant’s disrespectful response in that regard to his supervisor is certainly worthy of discipline.

Regarding the penalty, similar to its review of the underlying charges, the Commission's review of the penalty is de nove. 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).

Administrative Law JudgeIn this matter, the ALJ apparently placed significant weight in his recommendation to reduce the penalty on his conclusion that the appellant should not have been penalized for his inappropriate interaction with his supervisor. As the Commission does not agree with the ALJ in that regard, it similarly does not agree with the recommendation to modify the suspension. The ALJ’s minimization of the overall incident in question is concerning. As he stated, the initial infraction of not properly securing the cells, “compromised the safety and security of the inmates and staff of the facility.” This infraction alone is worthy of significant sanction. The appellant thereafter compounded that infraction by being disrespectful to his supervisor. Accordingly, the Commission finds no basis to impose a penalty lesser than the 30 working day suspension originally imposed.! This suspension should

Analysis1 The Commission notes that the appellant's disciplinary history, in his five years of service prior to the current infraction, included a five-working day suspension in 2020. This prior discipline also would support the imposition of a progressively higher penalty for the current infractions. Regardless, based serve to sufficiently warn the appellant that any future misconduct will lead to progressively higher disciplinary penalties.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending the appellant was justified. The Commission therefore upholds the 30 working day suspension.

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