John Marciante, CSC Docket No. 2023-265

BackgroundThe appeal of John Marciante, Police Officer, Pleasantville, Police Department, removal, effective July 22, 2022, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Elaine B. Frick (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on April 23, 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 May 21, 2025, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions but did not adopt her recommendation to modify the removal to a six-month suspension! with additional training. Rather. The Commission upheld the removal.

Administrative Law JudgeIn this matter, the ALJ found that the appellant was guilty of many of the infractions alleged. Upon its de novo review of the Al.J’s determinations in that regard, the Commission agrees with the ALJ’s findings and finds nothing in the record to demonstrate that the ALJ’s findings regarding the charges were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.

AnalysisIn its exceptions, the appointing authority argues that removal is the proper penalty in this matter. The Commission agrees. In this regard, 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.d. AR. 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 1s 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). 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. In this regard, the Commission emphasizes that a municipal Police 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).

1 The Commission assumes the AL.J’s indications of a “180 working day suspension” is a typographic error as the maximum suspension that can be imposed for administrative charges is a six-month suspension, which is approximately 120 working days.

Administrative Law JudgeIn this matter, the ALJ performed an analysis of the penalty to be imposed. In that regard, the ALJ stated:

Major discipline is warranted here, despite the meager prior disciplinary history. Marciante himself acknowledges that his comments and demeanor on November 5, 2021, require major discipline. Such comments and demeanor towards an EDP who was intoxicated were egregious. Marciante had to be redirected to de-escalate the situation. Instead of cooling off at the station, Marciante then chose to go outside and position himself in the path of J.L. as he was being escorted inside. Instead of stepping to the side or retreating to the station, Marciante shoulder checked J.L. as he was walked towards where Marciante stood. This has been found to be unnecessary force, yet recognized to be minimal. His neglect of duty for failing to write clear and accurate reports or to even complete his reports, though seemingly insignificant in comparison to the determinations, still requires the imposition of discipline.

Under the totality of the collective circumstances and findings, I CONCLUDE that major discipline of a 180-working day suspension is the appropriate penalty for the collective violations of N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3.

AnalysisI further CONCLUDE that Marciante shall be mandated to attend training of at least forty hours covering nuts and bolts basics for law enforcement officers... .

The Commission finds that removal is warranted on several grounds. First, the ALJ appeared to minimize the appellant’s misconduct during the incident in question and the extent of his inappropriate actions. The appellant’s actions in that incident were egregious and inimical to what the public expects from a Police Officer, who is held to a higher standing. Clearly, such actions would tend to undermine the public’s trust in law enforcement. Moreover, as Police Officers are required, on a daily basis, to interact with the public, the appellant’s misconduct strikes at the heart of the core duties of a law enforcement officer. While a suspension with further training may serve to ameliorate any future such transgressions, the Commission is not convinced, given that the appellant’s actions included both instigating and escalating the incident, and tends to demonstrate an inherent bias that training may not effectively erase. Finally, while the ALJ indicates that the appellant had only prior minor discipline, the Commission notes that the appellant did not have a long record of service, as at the time of the incident, he had only served as a Police Officer with the appointing authority for approximately three years. Given the above, the Commission finds the appellant’s removal from employment neither disproportionate to the offense nor shocking to the conscious.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in removing the appellant was justified. The Commission therefore upholds that action and dismisses the appeal of John Marciante.

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