Dawn Harrison, CSC Docket No. 2023-2725

BackgroundThe appeal of Dawn Harrison, Clerk 4, Essex County, Department of Health and Rehabilitation, removal, effective June 2, 2023, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Nanci G. Stokes (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on December 18, 2024. Exceptions were filed by the appellant, pro se, and a reply was 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 which do not merit extended discussion, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on January 15, 2025, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and her recommendation to uphold the removal.

The Commission makes the following comment. The ALJ’s initial decision was thorough and comprehensive regarding both the charges and the penalty imposed. In this regard, the Commission agrees with the AL.J’s determinations regarding the charges, including those that were not sustained. The Commission notes that the ALJ based these determinations on her assessment 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 credibility and veracity of the witnesses. See Matter 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.d. 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 ALJ’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.d. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004). The Commission finds no persuasive evidence in the record to demonstrate that the ALJ’s findings and conclusions based on her assessment of the credible evidence in the record, were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.

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 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 uv. 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).

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 substantial history of disciplinary action, including some for similar misconduct. Moreover, her record included three major disciplinary actions, with the most recent being a 50 working day suspension in 2022. Given this history and in light of the misconduct presented in this matter, the application of progressive discipline supports the appellant’s removal from employment.

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 Dawn Harrison.

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