Robert Wargocki, CSC Docket No. 2024-390

BackgroundThe appeal of Robert Wargocki, Police Captain, Carteret, Police Department, 60 working day suspension and demotion, effective August 7, 2023, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sarah G. Crowley, who rendered her initial decision on June 11, 2025. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appointing authority and a reply was filed on behalf of the appellant.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, including a thorough review of the exceptions, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting of July 23, 2025, accepted and adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as contained in the attached ALJ’s initial decision and her recommendation to reverse 60 working day suspension and demotion.

As indicated above, the Commission has thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed by the appointing authority in this matter and finds them unpersuasive. In this regard, the ALJ’s determinations are predominantly based on her assessment of the credible evidence in the record. In this regard, the ALJ made explicit credibility determinations. Specifically, the ALJ

Having had an opportunity to carefully observe the demeanor of the witnesses, it is my view that the testimony of Officer Dammann,

Officer Kelly and former Chief McFadden were not credible, and their testimony was inconsistent with the facts and the documentation in this matter. All of the testimony had significant inconsistencies and none of the witnesses could identify any rules and regulations that were violated or identify any emergency that the appellant failed to respond to. The significant lapse in time in bringing any charges against the appellant or any charges against the other officer guilty of the exact same conduct, without any plausible explanation by any of the witnesses, leaves the undersigned wondering what the impetus for bringing these charges over one year later were, much less imposing a sixty-day suspension and a demotion. The testimony from all three officers of the Department was not credible and did not support any of the charges brought against the appellant for failing to report to an emergency. Similarly, there was no evidence to support the allegations that appellant was untruthful in any interviews or was negligent in any reporting.

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 cr 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). In this matter, the exceptions filed are not persuasive in demonstrating that the ALJ’s credibility determinations, or her findings and conclusions based on _ those determinations, were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. As such, the Commission has no reason to question those determinations, or the findings and conclusions made therefrom.

Since the demotion has been reversed, the appellant is entitled to be immediately reinstated to Police Captain. Additionally, as the Final Notice of Disciplinary Action indicates that the imposition of the 60 working day suspension was held pending any appeal, while he is entitled to have that action removed from his record, he is not entitled to back pay for that period of time. Further, he is entitled to unmitigated differential back pay from August 7, 2023, the effective date of his demotion, to the date of his reinstatement to Police Captain. Moreover, as the appellant has prevailed, he is entitled to reasonable counsel fees pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12.

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 or counsel fees are finally resolved. In the interim, if it has not already done so, upon receipt of this decision, the appointing authority shall immediately reinstate the appellant to his Police Captain position.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending and demoting the appellant was not justified. The Commission therefore reverses those actions and grants the appeal of Robert Wargocki.

The Commission orders that the appellant be reinstated to his position of Police Captain and receive unmitigated differential back pay from August 7, 2023, the effective date of his demotion, to the date of his reinstatement to Police Captain.

Additionally, the Commission orders that counsel fees be awarded to the attorney for the appellant pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12. An affidavit of services in support of reasonable counsel fees 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 and N.J.A.C. 4A:2.12, the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to the amount of back pay and counsel fees. However, under no circumstances should the appellant’s reinstatement to Police Captain be delayed pending resolution of any potential back pay or counsel fee dispute.

The parties must inform the Commission, in writing, if there is any dispute as to back pay or counsel fees 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.