DESIREE JONES, CSC Docket No. 2023-94

BackgroundThe appeal of Desiree Jones, Keyboarding Clerk 1, Union County, Department of Human Services, 20 working day suspension, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge William Courtney (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on August 14, 2024. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appointing authority and a reply was filed on behalf of the appellant.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ's initial decision, and having made an independent, de novo evaluation of the record, including a thorough review of the exceptions and reply, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on September 25, 2024, adopted the Finds of Fact and Conclusion of Law as found in the initial decision. However, it did not adopt the ALJ's recommendation to modify the 20 working day suspension to a five working day suspension. Rather, the Commission upheld the 20 working day suspension.

In its exceptions, the appointing authority argues that the ALJ, despite upholding all of the charges, erred in reducing the suspension, especially given the appellant's prior disciplinary history. The Commission agrees.

Administrative Law JudgeIn his initial decision, in recommending reducing the 20 working day suspension to a five working day suspension, the ALJ stated:

Because I have concluded that the charges the County brought against

Jones were appropriate, and because Ms. Jones's exaggerated narrative of the incident resulted in an investigation that diverted time and resources away from the County, it is reasonable for Ms. Jones to be suspended for five working days. Her conduct, while serious, did not present a risk of harm to anyone. For these reasons, I FIND that at 20- working days suspension is excessive.

AnalysisRegarding 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 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).

In this matter, the Commission does not agree with the ALJ's recommendation to modify the penalty to a lesser suspension. The ALJ's minimization of the incident in question is concerning. While there was no actual "harm," the appellant made a false accusation of workplace violence against a co-worker. Such misconduct is worthy of a stern sanction. While perhaps, the ALJ's recommended reduction would be warranted for an employee with a clean disciplinary history, such is not the case here. Rather, the record indicates that the appellant has several prior disciplines, including two major disciplines. As such, a progressive penalty is warranted in this matter. Therefore, the originally imposed 20 working day suspension is appropriate and should serve to sufficiently warn the appellant that any future misconduct will lead to progressively higher disciplinary penalties.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending the appellant was justified. The Commission therefore upholds the 20 working day suspension.

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