Curtis Dike, CSC Docket No. 2023-88

BackgroundThe appeal of Curtis Dike, Institutional Attendant, Union County, Department of Human Services, removal, effective June 22, 2022, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Kimberly A. Moss (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on September 28, 2023. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant.

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 November 1, 2023, adopted the AlLJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions and her recommendation to uphold the removal.

As indicated above, the Commission has thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed in this matter and makes the following comments. Most of the ALJ’s thorough and well-reasoned findings in this matter are based on her assessment of the credibility 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.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.d. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004). In this matter, the exceptions filed by the appellant do not persuasively demonstrate that the ALJ’s credibility determinations, or her findings and conclusions based on those determinations, were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.

Noteworthy in this regard, in his exceptions, the appellant argues that the ALJ erred in ignoring his claims that he was disciplined improperly based on his workplace injury, and that the appointing authority was in violation of his workplace accommodation. Specifically, the appellant argues that the appointing authority violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and the Americans With Disabihties Act. The Commission rejects these claims. The reason the ALJ did not entertain these claims is merely since she did not find any credible evidence in the record that the appellant had any type of documented accommodation to be violated. Rather, the ALJ found that the appointing authority's witnesses credibly testified that no such actual accommodation existed. In doing so, the ALJ, after a thorough review, rejected the appellant’s testimony in that regard, ultimately succinctly concluding “Dike stated that he had accommodation, but Cornerstone did not have any record of accommodation and Dike did not produce any evidence that he was given an accommodation.” In its de novo review, and as mentioned above, the Commission finds nothing in the record or the exceptions that demonstrate that the ALJ’s determinations were improper or not based on the credible testimony and evidence in the record.

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 Curtis Dike.

This is the fina] administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in a judicial forum.