F.A., CSC Docket No. 2024-963

BackgroundThe appeal of F.A., a Sheriffs Officer Sergeant with Atlantic County Sheriffs Office, of his demotion to Sheriffs Officer, effective October 17, 2023, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Catherine A. Tuohy (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on January 22, 2026. No exceptions were filed.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the attached ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on February 25, 2026, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as contained in the ALJ’s initial decision and her recommendation to uphold the demotion.

The Commission makes the following comments. In her thorough initial decision, the ALJ outlines the voluminous evidence of the appellant engaged in conduct unbecoming of a public employee and violated department rules and regulations. Upon its de novo review, the Commission agrees with the ALJ’s determination that the appointing authority has sustained its burden of proof regarding all of the proffered charges.!

1 Although the ALJ referenced a charge of other sufficient cause, the charge was not listed on the Final Notice of Disicplinary Action. As such, the Commission sustains only the charges of conduct unbecoming a public employee and violations of departmental rules and regulations. In that regard, it is well established that the ALJ and the Commission only have jurisdiction to adjudicate disciplinary charges and specifications which were sustained at the departmental level hearing. See Hammond v.

Regarding the penalty, 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.J. 474 (2007).

The Commission agrees with the ALJ that the demotion was appropriate in this matter. A law enforcement officer, especially one in a supervisory position, must be held to higher standard. The appellant’s actions in this matter fell well short of what would be expected of a law enforcement officer and are worthy of significant sanction. Moreover, while the appellant was a longstanding employee, his actions call into question his judgment and integrity to be a supervisor. Finally, the Commission finds that the demotion imposed should impress upon the appellant the severity of his misconduct and serve as a reminder that any future misconduct may result in more severe disciplinary action, up to the removal from employment.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in demoting the appellant was justified. The Commission, therefore, affirms that action and dismisses the appeal of F.A.

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