Quarri Anderson, CSC Docket No. 2024-1871

BackgroundThe appeal of Quarri Anderson, Laborer 1, Hillside, Department of Public Works, 60 working day suspension, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Patrice E. Hobbs (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on October 10, 2024. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant 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, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting of November 27, 2024, accepted the ALd’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions and her recommendation to uphold the 60 working day suspension.

In his exceptions, the appellant argues that the penalty was too severe and not in line with the tenets of progressive discipline. The Commission disagrees. 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.d.A.R. 2d (CSV) 463. However, it is weil 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.eJ. 474 (2007).

In this matter, the Commission agrees with the ALJ that the 60 working day suspension is appropriate. In this regard, the ALJ acknowledged that Anderson had no previous disciplinary history, however, she found:

Anderson failed to listen to his supervisor on four separate occasions and therefore Anderson was clearly insubordinate. His animated language, tone, and defiance toward his supervisors was clearly conduct unbecoming a public employee ... Anderson’s work performance was clearly substandard and demonstrated complete disrespect for his job, his supervisors, DPW and the Township of Hillside... .

Anderson argues that a suspension for sixty days, when he has no prior discipline, and for such minor misconduct, is excessive. However, here, there was damage to the sprayer, the possibility that others could have been injured by the improperly secured sprayer, and the horrendous paint job that was not acceptable to even Anderson himself.

Such insubordinate, insolent, and careless conduct with blatant disregard for public property is sufficient to warrant at least a sixty-day suspension.

The Commission finds the ALJ’s assessment of the extent of the misconduct to be an accurate representation of the facts. Moreover, given the extent of the misconduct, and especially given that there was the potential for injury to others, a severe sanction is warranted, notwithstanding the appellant’s lack of a prior disciplinary history. As such, the Commission finds that the 60 working day suspension is neither disproportionate to the offenses nor shock to the conscious and should serve as sufficient warning to the appellant that any future misconduct may lead to more severe disciplinary action up to removal from employment.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending the appellant was justified. The Commission therefore upholds the 60 working day suspension and dismisses the appeal of Quarri Anderson.

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