Lynn Tyson, CSC Docket No. 2023-512

BackgroundThe appeal of Lynn Tyson, Senior Correctional Police Officer, Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center, Department of Corrections, 10 working day suspension, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sarah H. Surgent (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on July 25, 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 September 10, 2025, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions and her recommendation to reverse the 10 working day suspension.

As mentioned above, the Commission has thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed in this matter and finds them unpersuasive in all respects. In this regard, the appointing authority argues, in essence, that the appellant stipulated that she engaged in the misconduct alleged. The Commission rejects this assertion. While the appellant did apparently admit to the misconduct in a joint stipulation of facts, the ALJ reconciled this inconsistency based on the credible testimony in the record. Specifically, the ALJ found that Tyson testified on that issue. In this regard, the ALJ notes that:

On redirect, Tyson clarified that while she signed the Joint

Stipulation of Facts (J-2) indicating ‘The Petitioner stated she knew about the locker with the unauthorized lock and did not report it to her supervisor,’ prior to the investigation, she did not know that the lock was unauthorized. (T2-36.) Tyson also had not seen the lock itself at any time after the investigation began. (T2-37.) On recross, Tyson testified that at the ADTC, ‘you see a lock, you just see a lock. You don’t turn it around to say it’s personal or it shouldn’t have been there. . . . I’m taking it as it’s authorized because it’s a lock.’ (T2-38.)

Later, the ALJ specifically found all of Tyson’s testimony credible.

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.J. 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.J. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004). Upon its review and notwithstanding the appointing authority’s arguments in the exceptions, the Commission finds no persuasive evidence in the record or the exceptions to demonstrate that the ALJ’s findings and conclusions based predominantly on the above determinations were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.

Since the suspension has been reversed, the appellant is entitled to 10 working days of back pay, benefits, and seniority pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10. 1 Moreover, the appellant is entitled to reasonable counsel fees pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12.

This decision resolves the merits of the dispute between the parties concerning the disciplinary charges and the penalty imposed by the appointing authority. However, per the Appellate Division’s decision, Dolores Phillips v. Department of Corrections, Docket No. A-5581-01T2F (App. Div. Feb. 26, 2003), the Commission’s decision will not become final until any outstanding issues concerning counsel fees are finally resolved.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending the appellant was not justified and reverses that action. The Commission further orders that the appellant be granted 10 working days of back pay, benefits, and seniority. The amount of back pay awarded is to be reduced as provided for in N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10(d)3. The Commission also orders reasonable counsel fees pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12(a). Proof of income earned, and an affidavit in support of reasonable counsel fees shall be submitted by or on behalf of the appellant to the appointing authority within 30 days of issuance of this decision.

Administrative Law Judge1 The ALJ indicates that the appellant served only six of the 10 days of suspension. If true, the appellant would only be entitled to six days of back pay or its equivalent.

OrderPursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12(b), the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to the amount of counsel fees.

The parties must inform the Commission, in writing, if there is any dispute as to counsel fees within 60 days of issuance of this decision. In the absence of such notice, the Commission will assume that all outstanding issues have been amicably resolved by the parties and this decision shall become a final administrative determination pursuant to R. 2:2-3(a)(2). After such time, any further review of this matter shall be pursued in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.