John Fano, CSC Docket No. 2024-2593

BackgroundThe appeal of John Fano, a Police Sergeant Human Services with the Department of Human Services, of his 10-working day suspension, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Gauri Shirali Shah (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on December 31, 2025.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the attached AL.J’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on February 4, 2026, adopted the ALJ's recommendation to acknowledge the settlement agreement entered into by the parties.

The appointing authority charged the appellant with conduct unbecoming a public employee, other sufficient cause, and violations of departmental procedures, policies, rules, and regulations. After a departmental hearing, the charges were upheld, and the appointing authority imposed a 10 working day suspension. The appellant appealed the suspension to the Commission, which referred it to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing. On July 1, 2025, the appellant was involved in a separate unrelated incident that gave rise to the issuance of disciplinary charges on August 5, 2025, in which the appointing authority sought his removal. With respect to his appeal of the 10 working day suspension that was before the ALJ, on August 1, 2025, the parties settled the matter on the record to a three working day suspension, backpay for seven days, and no counsel fees. The appellant testified under oath that he understood the settlement and the terms were acceptable, he discussed the terms with his attorney and participated in settlement discussions, he had no additional questions about the settlement, and he entered the settlement voluntarily and freely.

On August 6, 2025, the appointing authority’s counsel sent the settlement agreement to the appellant encompassing the terms discussed on the record and the appellant refused to execute the settlement agreement. The appellant argued that the settlement should not stand because he was misled by the appointing authority since it drafted the August 5, 2025 charges against him at the same time he was entering the settlement. The ALJ found that there were no compelling circumstances or fraud present as the settlement was placed on the record before the court, the appellant voluntarily accepted the terms, and he conferred with his counsel about the terms of the settlement. Therefore, the ALJ concluded that the appellant’s refusal to execute the settlement did not invalidate the agreement and the settlement was fully dispositive of all the issues in controversy between the parties in this case.

Upon its de novo review of the matter, the Commission agrees with the ALJ that the settlement agreement represents a valid agreement to be acknowledged. Initially, it is emphasized that the policy of the judicial system strongly favors settlement. See Nolan v. Lee Ho, 120 N.-J. 465 (1990); Honeywell v. Bubb, 130 N.d. Super. 130 (App. Div. 1974); Jannarone v. W.T. Co., 65 N.J. Super. 472 (App. Div. 1961), cert. denied, 35 N.J. 61 (1961). This policy is equally applicable in the administrative area. A settlement will be set aside only where there is fraud or other compelling circumstances. See Nolan, supra. Such circumstances are not present in this matter. Rather, the Commission finds that the terms of the settlement on the record do not contravene Civil Service law or rules.

Moreover, a settlement agreement should be enforced where a party has competent representation of his or her choosing and entered into the agreement knowingly and voluntarily. See e.g., In the Matter of Barbara Knier (MSB, decided January 12, 1999) and In the Matter of William Munoz (MSB, decided June 16, 1998). In addition, settlements have been. acknowledged where the appellant voluntarily agreed to a settlement and was represented by an attorney of his or her choosing; however, the settlement was not reduced to writing. See In the Matter of Nicholas Vamvakidis (MSB, decided February 26, 2003) (Reduction to writing was found to be a formality that was not necessary and did not impede the enforceability of the agreement where the appellant voluntarily agreed to the settlement, he was represented by an attorney of his choosing, and the terms of the settlement on the record did not contravene Merit System rules); In the Matter of Johnny Walcott (MSB, decided September 10, 2002) (Unexecuted settlement acknowledged where the settlement was entered into the record and the ALJ was satisfied the affected parties understood the agreement as worked out by their counsel); In the Matter of Edgar Medina (MSB, decided May 23, 2000) (Settlement acknowledged where settlement was placed on the record but the appellant did not sign written memorialization of agreement). In the present case, the appellant was represented by counsel and entered into the agreement knowingly and voluntarily. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the settlement agreement between the parties should be acknowledged.

ORDER

The Commission acknowledges the settlement agreement in this matter.

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