Gina Lewis, CSC Docket No. 2024-2622

BackgroundThe appeal of Gina Lewis, a County Correctional Police Officer with Union County, Sheriffs Department, of her layoff, effective June 30, 2024, for reasons of economy or efficiency, was before Administrative Law Judge William Courtney (ALJ), who rendered his initial summary decision on March 5, 2026, granting the appointing authority's motion to uphold the layoff. Exceptions were filed by the appellant, and a reply was filed on behalf of the appointing authority.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the attached 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 April 8, 2026, affirmed the ALJ’s determination granting summary decision.

As indicated above, the Commission thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed in this matter. Upon that review, it finds that the exceptions do not persuade the Commission that the ALJ’s determination granting summary decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The ALJ correctly applied the appropriate standard for summary decision, namely that there be no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. See N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). The ALJ found that the stated reasons for the elimination of the third shift were for economy and efficiency due to the low census of inmates during that shift, resulting in new savings of between $1,050,000 and $2,360,000 annually for the elimination of the nine County Correctional Police Officer positions subject to the instant layoff. In opposition, the appellant did not challenge the claims of economy or efficiency, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that the third shift continued. Moreover, mere allegations that the appellant was laid off based on protected characteristics such as race, gender, and age are insufficient.

In her exceptions, the appellant continues to rely on the appointing authority’s denial of her participation in the GAP Program. However, that argument was well addressed by the ALJ:

[The appellant] also makes allegations suggesting that the Department acted in bad faith by denying her access to the State’s GAP Program under N.J.S.A. 52:17B-68.3. However, this argument is a red herring as [the appellant] fails to establish how her denial of the program contributes to the Department’s bad faith. In 2021, the New Jersey

Legislature established the GAP Program, requiring the Police Training

Commission to revise the basic training program for county correctional police officers to “provide the additional training necessary for an eligible county correctional police officer to be certified as detective or investigator in the county prosecutor’s office or a county or municipal police officer.” N.J.S.A. 52:17B-68.3a. Any allegations that stem from her denial of this program as it relates to her layoff is not a matter of bad faith, but rather a matter of layoff rights. As stated above, layoff rights appeals are reviewed on [the] written record by the Commission, and as such this matter is not at issue in this good faith appeal. Even so, the Commission has held in another matter regarding the GAP

Program that, “{t]he Commission discerns nothing in the statute that would authorize it to mandate that the Sheriffs Office GAP train employees.” In the Matters of Jordan Zorrer, et. al., Union County (CSC, decided January 18, 2023).

Notably, the ALJ made specific factual findings that the appellant had filed a complaint with Union County alleging that the appointing authority discriminated against her based on age, race, or gender by not transferring her to a Sheriff's Officer position under the GAP Program and that Union County subsequently informed the appellant after investigation that her allegations were unfounded. Similarly, in this matter, the appellant stated that, “I am the only Black female officer who was laid off, and I believe this, along with my age and job title, played a role, as Sheriff Corvelli mentioned these factors in our first meeting.” However, the ALJ noted that the appellant has not provided any factual evidence to support this inference of bad faith beyond her own allegations. In her exceptions, the appellant states that she was informed during discussions regarding potential transfer opportunities that the appointing authority could not allow existing County Correctional Police Officers to transition into Sheriffs Officer positions because commitments had already been made to incoming recruits. The Commission does not find such argument to rise to the level of creating a genuine issue on the good faith of the layoff. Further, as the appointing authority aptly notes in its reply, the appellant offered no evidence that she was wrongly denied access to the GAP Program or a Sherrif’s Officer position over another individual. Merely because individuals who were eligible to become Sheriffs Officers were hired for other roles is irrelevant as the appellant was a County Correctional Police Officer, not a Sheriff's Officer. Additionally, while the appellant expresses concerns with the structure of the GAP Program, dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Legislature chose to structure the program in the statute is not appropriately raised in this forum.

Therefore, the Commission finds nothing in the record or the exceptions demonstrating that the ALJ’s determination granting summary decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Accordingly, the Commission dismisses the appellant’s appeal.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in laying off the appellant was justified. The Commission therefore upholds that action and dismisses the appeal of Gina Lewis.

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