David Stattel, CSC Docket No. 2023-2165

BackgroundThe appeal of David Stattel, Police Officer, Marlboro Township, Police Department, removal, effective August 22, 2022, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sarah G. Crowley, who rendered her initial decision on March 4, 2024. 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 attached ALJ’s initial decision, including a thorough review of the exceptions and reply, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at 1ts meeting of April 10, 2024, accepted and adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as contained in the ALJ’s initial decision and the recommendation to uphold the removal.

As indicated above, the Commission thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed in this matter. The Commission makes the following comments. In his exceptions, the appellant argues that his requests for discovery of every other employee's disciplinary file with the appointing authority along with identifying every disciplinary action sought or imposed by the appointing authority for the prior 10 years was improperly denied by the ALJ. The Commission is not persuaded by the appellant’s arguments in this regard. Rather, the Commission agrees with the ALJ's determination in an Order on Motion to Compel Discovery, issued on August 1, 2023, denying the appellant’s request. The ALJ stated the following:

There has been no showing that this overly broad discovery request would lead to the discovery of any relevant documents. Accordingly, I

CONCLUDE that the appellant’s discovery requests at issue in this motion are overbroad and unduly burdensome and has not been shown as likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, I

CONCLUDE the requested information contains confidential information and has limited probative value to the within matter.

The appellant also argues that his texts were protected as free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Commission rejects this argument. The First Amendment limits the government’s ability to pass laws that lead to incarceration based on freedom of speech. It does not give employees the right to say whatever they want. See In the Matter of A.J-S. (CSC, decided June 12, 2019). See also, In the Matter of Earnest Farley, Docket No. A-0656-21 (App. Div. June 30, 2023) (Appellate Division affirmed the removal of a Correctional Police Lieutenant for making a harassing Facebook post. Additionally, the appellant’s argument that his speech was protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was rejected).

Further, the appellant contends that his actions did not warrant a penalty of removal. 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.J. 500 (1962). Further, 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 principle 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). In this regard, the Commission notes that even when a law enforcement officer does not possess a prior disciplinary record after many unblemished years of employment, the seriousness of an offense may nevertheless warrant the penalty of removal where it is likely to undermine the public trust. As set forth by the ALJ, the Commission emphasizes that a law enforcement officer is held to a higher standard than a civilian public employee. A Police Officer holds a highly visible and sensitive position within the community, whose primary duty is to enforce and uphold the law. The position represents law and order to the citizenry. A Police Officer also carries a service revolver and is constantly called upon to exercise tact, restraint and good judgment in relationship with the public. Thus, a Police Officer must present an image of personal integrity and dependability in order to have the respect of the public. 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.-/. 567 1990).

In the instant matter, the derogatory text messages sent by the appellant plainly disparaged minorities. Such actions should not be tolerated by a law enforcement officer who deals with minorities on a regular basis. The appellant relies on Karins v. City of Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532 (1998) and In the Matter of Betsy Ruggiero, Docket No. A-1498-20 (App. Div. June 8, 2022) in arguing that removal is too severe a penalty for using discriminatory language. However, the appellants in those cases were not Police Officers. As the ALJ explained, Police Officers are different from other employees in that they deal with minorities on a regular basis as well as needing to present as unbiased witnesses in the prosecution of minority defendants. The appellant’s actions clearly undermine the public trust and make it more difficult for other law enforcement officers to perform their duties. Accordingly, it is clear that removal is the appropriate penalty.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in removing the appellant was justified. The Commission therefore affirms that action and dismisses the appeal of David Stattel.

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