Christian Colon, CSC Docket No. 2024-2101

BackgroundThe appeal of Christian Colon, County Correctional Police Officer, Passaic County, Sheriff's Office, removal, effective April 10, 2024, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Patrice E. Hobbs (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on January 13, 2025. 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 and reply, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on February 26, 2025, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and her recommendation to uphold the removal.

As indicated above, the Commission has thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed in this matter and finds them unpersuasive. The appellant’s contentions in his exceptions all essentially boil down to his disagreement with the ALJ’s findings, which ultimately turn on her assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.

Initially, the Commission notes that the ALJ did not present explicit credibility determinations as to each witness. While the appellant, in his exceptions, argues that the ALJ’s determinations “ignored” certain testimony, and thus, the appointing authority did not sustain its burden of proof, the Commission is not persuaded. 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 Nid. 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 ALwJ’s decision if it is not supported by sufficient credible evidence or was otherwise arbitrary. See N.JS.A. 52:14B-10(c); Cavalieri u. Public Employees Retirement System, 368 N.d. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004). The Commission finds no persuasive evidence in the appellant’s exceptions or the record to demonstrate that the ALJ’s detailed findings and conclusions were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Here, while the ALJ did not “explicitly enunciate” her credibility determination as to each witness, her findings and conclusions based on her assessment of the record makes those findings clear. As such, the Commission finds those determinations worthy of due deference and ascertains no basis in the record or the appellant’s exceptions to find otherwise.

Regarding the penalty, 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 uv. 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 likely to undermine the public trust. In this regard, the Commission emphasizes that a law enforcement 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).

Administrative Law JudgeIn her initial decision, the ALJ found:

Colon is not an ordinary citizen. He volunteered to be trained as a corrections officer and serve the public. He agreed to the rules and regulations of Passaic County. His conduct was egregious enough to warrant his removal. While under the influence of alcohol, he had a fight with his then-girlfriend, who was also the mother of his child. All three resided at the same residence. The argument escalated to a physica] altercation where he not only placed his hands on her arms but also around her neck in a pinching manner. He placed his arms on her person with sufficient force to leave red markings. After he placed his hands on her, Quinones felt unsafe, locked herself in the bathroom and called the police. Colon cannot therefore continue to serve as a CPO if even the mother of his child felt unsafe in his presence. Colon further failed to report the incident to Passaic County until two weeks after the charges. Not only did he fail to report the incident, but he was also not forthcoming about the incident itself. I therefore CONCLUDE that

AnalysisColon must be terminated from his position as a correctional police officer because of his physical altercation with his girlfriend and his lack of candor with Passaic County.

In this matter, the Commission agrees with the ALJ and finds that the appellant's infractions are egregious and inimical to what the public expects from a law enforcement officer, who is held to a higher standard. Clearly, the appellant’s conduct, and especially his subsequent lack of veracity is significantly problematic and cannot be countenanced in any public employee and especially not a law enforcement officer. As such, a penalty less than removal would serve to undermine the public trust. Accordingly, the Commission finds the penalty of removal neither disproportionate to the offense nor shocking to the conscious.

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 Christian Colon.

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