Idesha Howard, CSC Docket No. 2023-2840

BackgroundThe appeals of Idesha Howard, County Correctional Police Officer, Essex County, Department of Corrections, removal, effective September 1, 2022, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Daniel J. Brown (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on February 1, 2024. No exceptions were filed.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on February 28, 2024, adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusion as found in the initial decision and the recommendation to uphold the removal.

The Commission makes only the following comments. In his initial decision, the ALJ provided scant analysis regarding the penalty to be imposed.! Specifically, the ALJ found:

Falsification of a report by a corrections officer has been deemed to be very serious in the context of the prison setting, where order and discipline are necessary for safety and security. Even one instance of falsification of a report by a corrections officer has been determined to be so serious that it can disrupt and destroy order and discipline in a prison. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (1980); In re Warren,

117 N.e. 295, 299 (1989).

Administrative Law JudgeBased upon the reasons set forth above, I CONCLUDE that respondent has met its burden on these major disciplinary charges and that the disciplinary charges against appellant must be upheld. Based upon the serious nature of appellant’s falsification of the close custody observation report, 1 CONCLUDE that based on the serious nation of appellant’s falsification of the close custody observation report, removal is the appropriate penalty.

Analysis1 In this regard, the Commission prefers an ALJ to indicate, for example: an appellant’s previous disciplinary history, if any; whether the recommended penalty is based on an application of progressive discipline; and a description of any aggravating or mitigating factors that were considered, if any.

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.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). 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 hkely to undermine the public trust. In this regard, the Commission emphasizes that a law enforcement officer, such as a County Correctional 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).

While the ALJ’s penalty discussion was brief, the Commission agrees that removal is the proper penalty in this matter. The infractions that the appellant committed are egregious and pose a serious safety and security risk in a secured facility. Moreover, the appellant’s submission of false reports indicating work that was not actually performed is of great concern. The appellant is a law enforcement officer, who is held to a higher standard, where such serious misconduct cannot be tolerated. Accordingly, the Commission agrees with the ALJ that the appellant’s conduct was egregious and wholly inappropriate for a law enforcement officer and worthy of removal without regard to progressive discipline.2_ The appellant’s actions would clearly tend to undermine the public trust and as such, the Commission finds the penalty of removal neither disproportionate to the offense nor shocking to the conscious.

* For the sake of completeness, in its review of official personnel records, the Commission could find no prior disciplinary actions not related to the current matter in the appellant’s work history with the appointing authority, which spanned approximately 12 years.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending and removing the appellant was justified. The Commission therefore upholds that action and dismisses the appeals of Idesha Howard.

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