JORGE FLORES, CSC Docket No. 2024-645

BackgroundThe appeal of Jorge Flores, Sheriffs Officer, Camden County, Sheriffs Department, 30 working day suspension, on charges was heard by Administrative Law Judge Rebecca C. Lafferty (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on December 23, 2024. Exceptions and a reply 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 February 5, 2025, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions and her recommendation to uphold the 30 working day suspension and demotion.

In the appellant’s exceptions, he argues that based on his prior record as well as the sustained infractions, that a 30 working day suspension is too harsh a penalty. The Commission disagrees. In this regard, the Commission agrees that the originally imposed suspension is appropriate for the sustained infractions. In this regard, similar to its assessment of the charges, the Commission 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 uv. 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). Even when a law enforcement officer does not possess a prior disciplinary record after many unblemished years of employment, the seriousness of an offense may nevertheless warrant the penalty of removal where it is likely to undermine the public trust. In this regard, the Commission emphasizes that a Sheriffs Officer is held to a higher standard than a civilian public employee. See Moorestown v. Armstrong, 89 N.eJ. Super. 560 (App. Div. 1965), cert. denied, 47 N.J. 80 (1966). See also, In re Phillips, 117 N.eJ. 567 (1990).

Administrative Law JudgeIn this matter, in recommending upholding the 30 working day suspension, the ALJ stated:

The penalty sought by the respondent is a thirty working day suspension without pay. Turner testified that he recommended a thirty working day suspension based upon a number of factors, including, that an emergency situation did not exist at the time and that motor vehicle violations as well as violations of the Rules occurred. Turner believed that the penalty was warranted based on his review of the file. The appellant has only one prior minor disciplinary action consisting of written reprimand for the misuse of sick time. While the penalty of a thirty working day suspension is significant and is a jump for an officer with little disciplinary history, the appropriate focus must be given to the nature and seriousness of the appellant’s actions. The serious nature of appellant’s actions warrants imposition of major discipline.

AnalysisThe appellant was operating a department vehicle negligently or carelessly in violation of several motor vehicle laws and Rules and

General Orders and in such a way that it ultimately caused injuries to the public as well as significant property damage to both the department vehicle and the private citizen’s vehicle.

The Commission agrees with the ALJ’s penalty analysis. While the appellant was remorseful afterward, the upheld misconduct is extremely serious and worthy of a significant sanction, especially given the appellant’s status as a law enforcement officer. His improper actions caused both property damage and injuries. Accordingly, the 30 working day suspension imposed should serve as a clear message to the appellant as to the inappropriateness of his actions and signify that any future misconduct will result in more severe disciplinary action, up to removal from employment,

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending the appellant for 30 working days was justified. The Commission therefore upholds that action and dismisses the appeal of Jorge Flores.

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