Jean Lormine, CSC Docket No. 2024-457

BackgroundThe appeal of Jean Lormine, a Painter with the New Jersey Veterans Memorial Home-Menlo Park, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMAVA),1 of his removal, effective July 26, 2023, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Michael R. Stanzione (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on June 5, 2026. 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 filed by the parties, the Civil Service Commission (Commission) at its meeting of July 22, 2026, accepted and adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as contained in the ALJ’s initial decision and his recommendation to uphold the removal.

Regarding the charges, the Commission agrees with the ALJ’s determinations, which were substantially based on his assessment of the credibility of the testimony

1 On January 9, 2026, Public Law 2025, Chapter 139 took effect, creating the Department of Veterans

Affairs, and transferring certain functions, powers and duties previously held by the Department Military and Veterans Affairs, including, but not limited to, the authority to determine whether any person seeking to be considered a veteran or a disabled veteran under N.J.S.A. 11A:5-1 met the requirements. The remaining functions, powers and duties would stay in the newly named Department of Military Affairs.

of the witnesses. 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 v. Public Employees Retirement System, 368 N.J. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004). The Commission finds no persuasive evidence in the record to demonstrate that the ALJ’s credibility determinations, or his findings and conclusions based on those determinations, were arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Accordingly, the Commission finds nothing in the record to question those determinations or the findings and conclusions made therefrom.

The Commission adds the following comments regarding the appellant’s exceptions. 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 findings and conclusion or his recommendation to uphold the penalty should be reversed. The appellant contends, among other things, that his removal must be reversed on double penalty grounds. Specifically, he maintains that his removal is based on the same conduct for which his 30 working day suspension was imposed. See In the Matter of Jean Lormine (CSC, decided November 6, 2024). However, that is not the case, based on a review of the two relevant Final Notices of Disciplinary Action (FNDAs). In this regard, the FNDA imposing the 30 working day suspension contains the following specifications:

On or around February 7, 2023, as part of an investigation, you were instructed to submit a written statement. You refused. Despite being given multiple opportunities to submit said statement, you continuously refused to cooperate with the investigation.

On or around March 10, 2023, as part of a possible workplace violence investigation, you were instructed to submit a witness statement. You refused. Despite being given multiple opportunities to submit said statement, you continuously refused to cooperate with the investigation.

You were previously disciplined for failure to cooperate with a departmental investigation. Your actions are counter to the mission of

DMAVA and will not be tolerated.

The FNDA imposing the removal contains the following specifications:

On or around February 4-5, 2023, you were assigned a project and informed that you could take as much overtime as needed to complete the project. On February 4-5, 2023, you clocked in for 32 hours of overtime. During the 32 hours of overtime, you spent less than 14 hours working on the project. The remainder of the time, you were seen loafing, using your personal cell phone, and sitting in break areas. You failed to adequately complete the project. Your actions also constitute time theft.

On or around May 5, 2023, your supervisor informed that Management needed to account for your overtime. Thus, your supervisor instructed you to provide a status update on a project. You refused. Despite being given multiple opportunities to submit the information/statement, you continuously refused. You were previously disciplined for insubordination, neglect of duty, and violating the cell phone policy.

Your actions are counter to the mission of DMAVA and will not be tolerated.

In other words, the conduct charged is distinct as between the two FNDAs, and there is thus no double penalty concern. While it is true that the February 7, 2023 refusal to submit a written statement occurred after the February 4-5, 2023 overtime, the FNDA imposing removal also includes a May 2023 refusal to provide information. Thus, the 30 working day suspension was appropriately considered for purposes of applying progressive discipline.

Regarding the penalty, similar to its review of the underlying charges, the Commission’s review of the penalty is de novo. In addition to considering the seriousness of the underlying incident in determining the proper penalty, the Commission 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 may be appropriate notwithstanding a largely unblemished prior record. See Carter v. Bordentown, 191 N.J. 474 (2007). In recommending that the charges be sustained and that the penalty be upheld, the ALJ noted that the appellant’s disciplinary history showed previous 10 working day and 30 working day suspensions, and therefore, removal was appropriate pursuant to progressive discipline. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant’s misconduct was improper and worthy of the most severe disciplinary penalty. As such, the Commission finds the penalty of removal neither disproportionate nor a shock to the conscience.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the appointing authority’s action in removing the appellant was justified. The Commission, therefore, affirms that action and dismisses the appeal of Jean Lormine.

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