Nadia Vega, CSC Docket No. 2024-729

BackgroundThe appeal of Nadia Vega, Family Service Worker 1, Bilingual in Spanish/English, removal, effective September 23, 2023, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Nanci G. Stokes (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on June 4, 2024. No exceptions were filed. No exceptions were filed.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting of July 3, 2024, accepted and adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions and her recommendation to uphold the removal.

Upon its de novo review of the ALd’s initial decision as well as the entire record, 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 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, there is nothing 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.

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.eJ. 474 (2007).

The Commission agrees with the ALJ that removal is the proper penalty in this matter. The infractions committed by the appellant are not so egregious to impose removal without applying the tenets of progressive discipline. In this regard, the appellant’s prior record includes two prior major disciplines, namely, 12 and 90- day suspensions for previous attendance-related infractions. As such, removal from employment for the current attendance-related infractions is 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 not in good standing was justified. The Commission therefore affirms that action and dismisses the appeal of Nadia Vega.

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