Vanessa Howard, CSC Docket No. 2023-2131

BackgroundThe appeal of Vanessa Howard, then a County Correctional Police Sergeant, with Monmouth County, Department of Corrections and Youth Services, of her 45 working day suspension, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge William T. Cooper III (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on January 9, 2026. Exceptions and replies were filed by the appellant, and replies were filed on behalf of the appointing authority.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the attached ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, including a thorough review of the exceptions and replies filed by the parties, the Civil Service Commission (Commission) at its meeting of April 8, 2026, accepted and adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as contained in the ALJ’s initial decision and his recommendation to uphold the 45 working day suspension.

As indicated above, the Commission has reviewed the appellant’s exceptions and replies in this matter and finds them unconvincing. The Commission makes the following comment. The Commission agrees with the ALdJ’s determinations regarding the charges, which were substantially based on his assessment of the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses. 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 creditability and veracity of the witness. See Matier 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 ALu’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). The Commission finds no persuasive evidence in the record to demonstrate that the ALJ’s credibility determinations, or his findings and conclusions based on those determinations, were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Accordingly, the Commission finds nothing in the record to question those determinations or the findings and conclusions made therefrom.

Regarding the penalty, similar to its review of the underlying charges, the Commission’s review of the penalty is de novo. In addition to considering the seriousness of the underlying incident in determining the proper penalty, the Commission utilizes, when appropriate, the concept of progressive discipline. West New York v. Bock, 38 N.-F. 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). Moreover, the Commission emphasizes that a County Correctional Police Sergeant, as 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).

In recommending that the charges be sustained and that the 45 working day suspension be upheld, the ALJ stated the following:

The medical staff had determined that they needed assistance from the

[County Correctional Police Officers]; the medical staff was exhausted after performing CPR on the [inmate] for an extended period, and the

[inmate] was a large male who would be heavy to carry down the flight of stairs. A true life-and-death struggle was occurring, and instead of providing the necessary assistance as requested, appellant chose to deny it. This denial occurred at a critical point when time was of the essence.

The aggravating factor here is that appellant’s actions violated her basic responsibility to protect and preserve the health and safety of the inmates lodged at the Monmouth County Correctional Institution.

Further, appellant's decision to deny the medical staffs request. for assistance was a direct violation of the policy to assist medical personnel when necessary. More troubling is the fact that this failure occurred after appellant had been counseled not to overrule medical decisions.

Finally, appellant’s actions on April 17, 2022, exhibited a lack of understanding of the rules and regulations and also an inability to properly assess circumstances in an emergent situation.

Here, it is clear that as a superior-level law enforcement officer, who, per above, is held to a higher standard, the appellant’s misconduct was improper and worthy of a significant disciplinary penalty. As such, the Commission finds the penalty of a 45 working day suspension neither disproportionate to the offense nor a shock to the conscience.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending the appellant was justified. The Commission, therefore, affirms that action and dismisses the appeal of Vanessa Howard.

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