STEPHAN PITTS, CSC Docket No. 2024-476

BackgroundThe appeal of Stephan Pitts, Road Repairer 2, Camden County, Department of Public Works, 20 working day suspension, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Nicole T. Minutoli (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on September 18, 2024, Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant and a reply to exceptions 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 October 16, 2024 adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and her recommendation to uphold the 20 working day suspension.

As indicated above, the Commission has reviewed the appellant’s exceptions in this matter and finds them wholly unpersuasive. The Commission makes the following comment. The Commission agrees with the ALJ’s determinations regarding the charges, which were substantially based on her assessment of the credibility of the testimony 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 Maiter 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 NJ. 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 uz. 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 her 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.

Regarding the penalty, similar to its review of the underlying 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 uv. 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).

In this matter, the Commission agrees with the ALJ that, given the appellant’s misconduct and his prior disciplinary history, that the 20 working day suspension imposed by the appointing authority is appropriate.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending the appellant for 20 working days was justified. The Commission therefore upholds that action and dismisses the appeal of Stephan Pitts.

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