F.D., CSC Docket No. 2024-588

BackgroundThe appeal of F.D., II, Sheriff's Officer Lieutenant, appeal of the return to his previously held permanent title of Sheriff's Officer Sergeant at the end of the working test period (WTP), effective August 10, 2023, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Ernest M. Bongiovanni (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on February 11, 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 ALw’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 March 19, 2025, accepted and adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions and his recommendation to uphold the return to the appellant’s previously held permanent title of Sheriff's Officer Sergeant at the end of the WTP.

The Commission makes the following comments. The ALJ’s initial decision was thorough, comprehensive and legally correct. In this regard, the decision was substantially based on the ALd’s determination of the credibility or the witnesses, where he found the appellant’s testimony generally not credible. 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). The Commission finds no persuasive evidence in the record or the appellant’s exceptions to demonstrate that the ALJ’s credibility determinations, or his findings and conclusions based on those determinations, were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.

Regarding the ALJ’s finding that the appellant did not satisfy his burden of proof that the WTP was not effectuated in good faith, the ALJ stated:

Administrative Law JudgeIn this case, first, D[ ]’s excessive absenteeism was obviously personally observed by Captain Cederquist, and perhaps more significantly was felt by D[ }’s subordinates who noted it with Captain Cederquist. Furthermore, D[] admitted it although he felt absenteeism should have been overlooked considering his responsibilities toward his mother. Second, D{ ], admitted he gave what I believe to be bizarre gestures and held text messages up to the phone of his subordinates It is only logical to believe that his inconsistency of attendance and lack of verbalization caused the described “confusion” and “frazzled” conditions among the men. Further intentional or not, the reports to Cederquist were made in a timely fashion by the officers and included D[] assigning what I describe as demeaning mundane tasks of answering D| ]’s phone in the control room not because he wanted to or needed to delegate but because of his OCD which was observed by all, and at least the actions, if not the intention was again, admitted to by D[]. Finally, there is no evidence of ill motive being involved in the respondent’s actions. As stated infra, they without hesitation granted his request to have another man with him in the control room whenever he was there. D[] was given intense training in the control room which was the part of the job which D[ ] articulated was different from his prior one as sergeant. Finally, the fact that D[ ] admits his behaviors are causing complaints by his subordinates is final proof, if more was needed, that the performance reviews were based on actual observation and not based on any ill motive or bad faith. Although D[]’s OCD and the difficulties of doing his job with a sickly mother make him a sympathetic figure, that does not mean the professionals at the Union County Sheriff's Office acted with ill will and bad faith. Even though D[ ] for some reason he didn’t explain stopped seeing Cederquist in the final working test period, the worse thing that happened to him was that Cederquist once yelled at him, “I know how to write a report.” No doubt most reasonable workers would consider that fair treatment by a supervisor during a testing period, especially one that was protracted, and by D[ ]’s own doing. Finally, I agree with respondent, and as I questioned D[ ] during the hearing, that the lack of interaction with his subordinates, his use of with gestures and holding up text messages to their faces in lieu of conversing with them confused his charges, and making them do mundane tasks that D[ ] could have and should have done was demeaning to his subordinates and set a bad example.

AnalysisFinally, the County has known of D[ }’s OCD for years and has promoted him notwithstanding speaks to their fairness and lack of animus toward him[.]

The Commission agrees with the above assessment, and, finding nothing persuasive in the appellant’s exceptions, affirms the recommendation to deny the appellant’s challenge to his return to his previously held permanent title at the end of the WTP.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in returning the appellant to his previously held permanent title at the end of the working test period was justified. The Commission therefore affirms that action and dismisses the appeal of F.D., II.

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