Abdur-Rahim Ali, CSC Docket No. 2024-418

BackgroundThe appeal of Abdur-Rahim Ali, Custodial Worker, Newark School District, removal, effective July 28, 2023, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Thomas R. Betancourt (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on July 22, 2025. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant and a reply was filed on behalf of the appointing authority.

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, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on September 10, 2025, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and his recommendation to uphold the removal.

Administrative Law JudgeThe ALJ’s decision in this matter is based significantly on his assessment 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 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. 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).

In this matter, the ALJ made such determinations, albeit in some cases in a conclusory manner without extensive justification. Regardless, the Commission does not have significant concern with most of those credibility determination. However, the appellant’s exceptions contend that the ALJ made credibility determinations regarding the appellant’s testimony in reliance on improper factual findings. Even if true, it is clear that the ALJ otherwise found the appointing authority’s witnesses’ testimony credibility as to the appellant’s actions and statements. Moreover, the appellant does not refute that he made most of the statements attributed to him. Rather, he attempts to explain or justify them, As such, the Commission finds that the credible testimony of the appointing authority’s witnesses as well as the appellant’s admissions more than establishes that the appellant committed the misconduct alleged.

AnalysisRegarding the penalty, similar to its assessment of the charges, the Commission’s review of the penalty is de novo. 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 N.J.A.R. 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 v. 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.” Rather, it is recognized that some disciplinary infractions are so serious that removal is appropriate notwithstanding a largely unblemished prior record. See Carter v. Bordentown, 191 N.J. 474 (2007).

The appellant’s conduct and statements in this matter are significantly egregious and warrant removal regardless of his prior insignificant disciplinary history. Clearly, the appellant’s actions are inimical to what is expected of a public employee and the removal in neither disproportionate to the offense nor shocking to the conscious.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in removing the appellant was justified. The Commission therefore upholds that action and dismisses the appeal of Abdur-Rahim Ali.

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