Leah Boyer, CSC Docket No. 2023-2652

BackgroundThe appeal of Leah Boyer, a Principal Payroll Clerk with the City of Trenton, Department of Administration, of her removal effective March 20, 2023, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Nicole T. Minutoli (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on February 9, 2026. Exceptions were filed by the appellant.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the attached ALJ’s initial decision, including a thorough review of the exceptions, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on March 18, 2026, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and her recommendation to uphold the removal.

As indicated above, the Commission reviewed the appellant’s exceptions in this matter and finds them unpersuasive. The Commission makes the following comment. The appellant presents, in part, that “Officer Kulis testified that I was not a threat” and that “Officer Lopez was not even there during the altercation” but “the testimony the Judge chose to rely on was from . . . [Lopez] who was confused and not even present during the altercation and not the one from Officer Kulis who was present and testified on my behalf.” A review of the available record finds that neither of these individuals testified at the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) hearing. However, the ALJ noted that two other witnesses corroborated Lopez's statements which were included in the Internal Affairs report dated October 3, 2022.1 In that 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 credibility and veracity of the witnesses. 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, Inre Taylor, 158 N.J. 644 (1999) (quoting State v. Locurio, 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 ALJ’s decision if it is not supported by sufficient credible evidence or was otherwise arbitrary. See N.Jj.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 or in the appellant’s exceptions to demonstrate that the ALJ's credibility determinations of the witnesses who testified, or her findings and conclusions based on those determinations, were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Accordingly, the Commission affirms those determinations and 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 its consideration of the seriousness of the underlying incident in determining the proper penalty, the Commission also utilizes, when appropriate, the concept of progressive disciphne.

_ 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.-/. 474 (2007).

In this matter, the Commission agrees with the ALJ that removal is the only appropriate penalty. While the Commission notes that the appellant was a long-term employee at the time of her removal, it cannot be ignored that she had a previous history of similar misconduct. In this regard, the ALJ noted that from 2013 to 2022,

! Hearsay evidence is admissible before the OAL as long as some legally competent evidence exists to support each ultimate finding of fact to an extent sufficient to provide assurances of reliability and to avoid the fact or appearance of arbitrariness. See N.J.A.C. 1:1-15.5(b) (Also known as the Residuum Rule).

the appellant received two written warnings, a one-day suspension, and a five-day suspension? due to verbal altercations with other employees. In addition, in 2022, the appellant was referred to the Metro Employee Assistance program for conflict resolution and anger management. In the present matter, despite her participation in this program and prior discipline, the appellant was the aggressor and she had to be restrained by a fellow employee and two Police Officers. Given this history and in light of the egregious misconduct presented in this matter, the application of progressive discipline supports the appellant’s removal from employment. Accordingly, the charges as upheld by the ALJ are sustained, and the penalty of removal is not disproportionate to the offense.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the appointing authority’s action in removing the appellant was justified. The Commission, therefore, affirms that action and dismisses the appeal of Leah Boyer.

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