Lonzell Neal, CSC Docket No. 2024-226

BackgroundThe appeal of Lonzell Neal, County Correctional Police Officer, Ocean County, Department of Corrections, 90 calendar day suspension, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Deirdre Hartman-Zohlman (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on February 3, 2025. 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 February 26, 2025, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and her recommendation to uphold the 90 calendar day suspension.

As indicated above, the Commission has thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed in this matter and finds them unpersuasive. The main contention in the appellant's exceptions is that the ALJ should not have found him untruthful as he did not believe he was in a secure area.! In this regard, the ALJ found:

1 In this matter, as in what is essentially a companion case, In the Matter of Michael Gramaglia (CSC, decided February 26, 2025), the appellant argued to the ALJ that the charges should have been dismissed pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147, the “45-day rule.” In both matters, the ALJ procedurally rejected that argument finding that the appellants did not raise it until after the hearings. Regardless, she addressed the merits of the claims, finding in both cases that there was no violation since the appointing authority was entitled to perform investigations into the alleged misconduct, and thereafter, brought the charges well within 45 days of the conclusion of the investigations. She also properly noted that the underlying charges lodged under Title 4A would not be subject to dismissal under the statute. In the exceptions filed in Gramaglia, Gramaglia, represented by the same attorney as in this matter, argued that the ALJ's procedural dismissal of that claim was improper. In Gramaglia, the Commission found that it did not need to make a finding regarding that procedural dismissal, since the ALJ properly found no violation based on the facts in the record. Even though not

As the fact finder, I had the opportunity to hear the testimony of the witnesses and review the documentary evidence. Neal testified that he did not think center control was inside the security perimeter of the jail. (footnote omitted). Neal’s testimony was self-serving and not believable based upon his over-ten-year employment in the jail.

Moreover, it contradicts the warden’s testimony that it is common knowledge that center control is inside the security perimeter of the jail, and it contradicts the sign on the doors to center control that states in large, all capital and bold print, “NO WEAPONS OR ELECTRONIC

DEVICES BEYOND THIS POINT.” (R-10.)

Clearly, the ALJ indicates that she found the appellant’s testimony on the issue “self-serving and not believable.” 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 Matier 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.dJ. 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. Jd. 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.dJ.S.A. 52:14B-10(c); Cavalieri u. Public Employees Retirement System, 368 N.J. 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 credibility determinations of her findings and conclusions made therefrom were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.

Administrative Law JudgeRegarding the penalty, in her initial decision, the ALJ stated:

The facts herein are clear: Neal possessed a cell phone in the secure area of the jail while on duty—a clear violation of jail policy. One of the central purposes of the policy for the prohibition of unsanctioned phones in the jail is that they create a potentially life-threatening danger if they were to end up in the hands of an inmate. Although Neal asserts that he was unaware he was in a secure area of the jail, I find this testimony not credible, and the potential consequences of his actions demonstrate a complete disregard for the potential dangers that the presence of unsanctioned cell phones creates. Lastly, Neal was aware of the policy and signed an acknowledgment of it on July 14, 2021.

Analysisraised in the exceptions filed in this matter, as in Gramaglia, the Commission finds the ALJ’s findings on the merits of that argument proper.

Although Neal does not have any prior major disciplinary history, his position involves public safety, and his actions had the potential to cause great risk of harm. Grievous harm has previously occurred when a phone was used by an inmate at this jail. Respondent has addressed the serious concerns of unsanctioned cell phones and has explicitly included in the policy a disciplinary schedule for violations of this policy, a progressive disciplinary schedule—starting with 90 days for the first infraction, 180 days for a second infraction, and removal for a third infraction.

Administrative Law JudgeI CONCLUDE that considering principles of progressive discipline, the imposition of a ninety-day suspension without pay is appropriate for the sustained charges...

AnalysisIn its de novo review, the Commission initially notes that it is not bound by the appointing authority's penalty schedule in determining the proper penalty. See In the Matter of Gregory McDaniel, Docket No. A-5583-02T2 (App. Div. May 24, 2004); In the Matter of Leonard Wilson (MSB, decided April 6, 2005); In the Matter of Patricia Everingham (MSB, decided March 13, 2003); In the Matter of George Roskilly (MSB, decided November 20, 2002). Nevertheless, it agrees with both the appointing authority and the ALJ that a 90 calendar day suspension is warranted.

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 Nd AR. 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 vu. 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.” 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 Nid. Super. 560 (App. Div. 1965), cert. denied, 47 N.J. 80 (1966). See also, In re Phillips, 117 NJ. 567 (1990).

In this matter, the Commission agrees with the ALJ who cogently detailed the serious potential consequences for the appellant’s misconduct. Thus, a significant disciplinary penalty is justified as both the safety and security of the facility, its employees and the inmates were potentially imperiled. Moreover, the appellant, as a law enforcement officer, is held to a higher standard. Accordingly, the imposition of a 90 calendar day suspension will serve as sufficient reminder to the appellant as to the significance of his misconduct and that any future infractions may lead to more severe disciplinary penalties. Accordingly, the Commission finds the 90 calendar day suspension imposed neither disproportionate to the offense nor shocking to the conscious,

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending the appellant was justified. The Commission therefore upholds the 90 calendar day suspension and dismisses the appeal of Lonzell Neal.

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