Lasheta Montigue, CSC Docket No. 2025-1242

BackgroundThe appeal of Lasheta Montigue, Senior Correctional Police Officer, South Woods State Prison, Department of Corrections, 90 working day suspension, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Carl V. Buck, III (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on July 24, 2026. Exceptions and replies were filed on behalf of both parties.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent, de novo evaluation of the record, including a thorough review of the exceptions and replies, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on September 2, 2026, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions but did not adopt the ALJ’s recommendation to modify the 90 working day suspension to a 75 working day suspension. Rather, the Commission upheld the 90 working day suspension.

Regarding the charges, the Commission finds that the ALJ’s findings and conclusions were appropriate and based on the credible evidence in the record. Accordingly, the Commission finds the appellant’s exceptions challenging any of those findings unpersuasive. In this regard, the appellant’s arguments pertaining to the ALJ’s wording of and succinct assessment of the credibility of the witnesses is unavailing. While the ALJ was quite brief in making such assessments, there is nothing in the record to evidence that such findings were not based on his direct assessment and observation of the witnesses. 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 appellant’s exceptions or the record to demonstrate that the ALJ’s determinations in that regard was in error.

The main issue in this matter is the penalty, which, similar to the charges, is reviewed by the Commission de novo. The Commission need not recite the appointing authority’s arguments supporting its proposition that the 90 working day suspension is appropriate, or the appellant’s exceptions calling for an even further reduced penalty. 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.” Moreover, the Commission emphasizes that a Senior Correctional Police Officer, like a municipal Police Officer, is held to a higher standard than a civilian public employee. See Moorestown v. Armstrong, 89 N.J. Super. 560 (App. Div. 1965), cert. denied, 47 N.J. 80 (1966). See also, In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567 (1990).

Administrative Law JudgeIn his initial decision, the ALJ stated:

She has prior discipline from 2018, which is discounted due to time, but also has discipline imposed in 2021 and 2023 – both resulting in an official reprimand. She also has a more substantial disciplinary action from 2024, which ultimately resulted in a ten-working-day suspension1.

Analysis1 Official records indicate that the appellant actually received a 60 working day suspension and agreed to its disposition as follows: 10 working days served and 50 working days “on the record.” In this regard, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.4(e) states: “An appointing authority may impose a suspension on the record when the appointing authority and the employee, or, where the employee is covered by a collective negotiations agreement, the employee's majority representative, agree in writing that, for purposes of progressive discipline, the employee will receive a suspension on the record and that it will have the same force and effect for purposes of future disciplinary actions as a suspension actually served by the employee (emphasis added).

Administrative Law JudgeIn applying progressive discipline, I weigh appellant’s time with the NJDOC with one major of discipline and others that contained no substantial penalty. Considering appellant’s time spent working for the

NJDOC, presumed experience, and knowledge of rules and policies in the workplace, there can be no excuse nor any equivocation about the charges resulting in this action. I do find a mitigating factor in that the appellant has not received discipline greater than a ten day working suspension – notwithstanding all instances stand on their own.

AnalysisIn this regard, the Commission disagrees with the ALJ’s reasoning for reducing the penalty. At the time of the incident, the appellant had been employed with the Department of Corrections for approximately 10 years and had amassed four prior disciplinary actions, most notably, a recent major discipline in 2024, less than one year before to the current matter. Moreover, the incident in question had the potential to seriously compromise the safety and security of the facility. Accordingly, given the nature and circumstances of the incident, the Commission does not find the appellant’s years of service or prior disciplinary history mitigate the originally imposed suspension, especially given the higher standard applied to law enforcement employees. Therefore, the Commission finds the 90 working day suspension appropriate and should serve as sufficient warning to the appellant that any future misconduct may lead to more severe disciplinary penalties.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending the appellant was justified. Accordingly, the Commission affirms the 90 working day suspension and dismisses the appeal of Lasheta Montigue.

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