Michael Kopie, CSC Docket No. 2024-2529

BackgroundThe appeal of Michael Kopie, Electrical Mechanic, Department of Transportation, 35 working day suspension, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Kimberley M. Wilson (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on May 30, 2025. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appointing authority and a reply was filed by 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 and reply filed by the parties, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on July 2, 2025, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions and her recommendation to reverse the 35 working day suspension.

As mentioned above, the Commission has thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed in this matter and finds them unpersuasive. The Commission makes the following comments. The Commission finds nothing in the record or exceptions to establish that the ALJ’s finding that the appellant followed the policy in question, such as it was, was improper, and most noteworthy, had reasonable bases for his failure to work the assigned overtime. Accordingly, such, the Commission agrees with the AL.J’s assessment, that based on the evidence in the record, the appointing authority did not present sufficient credible evidence to sustain its burden of proof regarding the proffered charges.

The Commission further notes that the ALJ’s determinations were based on her assessment of the credibility 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 uv. 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). The Commission finds no persuasive evidence in the record or the appointing authority’s exceptions to demonstrate that the ALJ’s findings and conclusions based on those determinations were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. In this regard, while the ALJ found all of the witnesses generally credible, she specifically indicated her rationale based on the testimony and evidence in the record for finding in each of the three alleged instances that the appellant refused to work overtime, as to why the credible evidence in the record demonstrated otherwise.

Since the suspension has been reversed, the appellant is entitled to 35 working days of mitigated back pay, benefits, and seniority pursuant to N.d.A.C. 4A:2-2.10.

This decision resolves the merits of the dispute between the parties concerning the disciplinary charges and the penalty imposed by the appointing authority. However, per the Appellate Division’s decision, Dolores Phillips v. Department of Corrections, Docket No. A-5581-01T2F (App. Div. Feb. 26, 2003), the Commission's decision will not become final until any outstanding issues concerning back pay are finally resolved.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending the appellant was not justified. The Commission therefore reverses that action and grants the appeal of Michael Kopie. The Commission further orders that the appellant be granted 35 working days of back pay, benefits, and seniority. The amount of back pay awarded is to be reduced and mitigated as provided for in N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10. Proof of income earned, and an affidavit of mitigation shall be submitted by or on behalf of the appellant to the appointing authority within 30 days of issuance of this decision. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10, the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to the amount of back pay and counsel fees.

The parties must inform the Commission, in writing, if there is any dispute as to back pay within 60 days of issuance of this decision. In the absence of such notice, the Commission will assume that all outstanding issues have been amicably resolved by the parties and this decision shall become a final administrative determination pursuant to R. 2:2-3(a)(2). After such time, any further review of this matter shall be pursued in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.