Latoya Sowell, CSC Docket No. 2024-2125

BackgroundThe appeal of Latoya Sowell, Custodial Worker, Newark School District, removal, effective April 8, 2024, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Thomas R. Betancourt (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on July 24, 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, much of which do not require extensive comment, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on September 10, 2025, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and his recommendation to uphold the removal.

The Commission makes the following comments. The ALJ’s decision is based significantly on his assessment of the witnesses’ testimony. 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). Notably, regarding credibility, the ALJ found, in pertinent part:

Administrative Law JudgeBoth Mr. Badmus and Ms. Rufai testified in a straightforward and professional manner. Nothing about their appearance or demeanor suggested anything but veracity. I find them both credible.

Appellant’s testimony was problematic. She attempted to blame her tardiness in starting her shift on Mr. Valentine, who was responsible for opening the building. She claimed that he was late and therefore she could not clock in on time. This assertion was directly contradicted by a comparison of Mr. Valentine’s and appellant’s Kronos time records. On all days appellant is accused of being tardy Mr. Valentine punched in prior to her designated start time. Further, appellant’s explanation regarding her failure to properly punch out and then in for lunch made little sense. I find her not credible.

AnalysisUpon its review and notwithstanding the appellant’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 on predominantly of the above determinations were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.

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 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).

The Commission rejects the appellant’s arguments in her exceptions that the penalty of removal was too harsh or should be mitigated. The appellant has an extensive record of prior discipline. Most notable is the 60 working day suspension that the appellant received in June 2023, which included similar misconduct as the subject matter. Accordingly, given the misconduct and the appellant’s previous disciplinary history, in accordance with the tenets of progressive discipline, it is clear that the removal is the appropriate penalty.

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 Latoya Sowell.

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