C.M., CSC Docket No. 2025-1313

BackgroundThe appeal of C.M, a Morgue Assistant with Gloucester County, Office of the Medical Examiner, of his removal, effective September 23, 2024, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Allison Friedman (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on December 10, 2025. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appointing authority, and a reply was filed on behalf of the appellant.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the attached ALJ’s initial decision, including a thorough review of the exceptions and reply, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on February 25, 2026, did not adopt the ALJ’s recommendation to modify the removal to a six-month suspension. Rather, the Commission upheld the appellant’s removal.

Upon its de novo review of the ALJ’s initial decision and the parties’ exceptions and reply, the Commission agrees with the ALJ’s determinations regarding the charges. However, it does not agree with the ALJ’s determination regarding the proper penalty. The ALJ found that the appellant, despite having signed a non- disclosure agreement, provided confidential information to his friend group. This information included decedents’ names, dates of birth, and addresses, as well as a first responder’s personal cell phone number. Although the appellant neither posted the information to social media nor intended to have it posted to social media, someone in the friend group posted this information on social media. Due to the celebrity status of the victims, the social media post resulted in both the officer and the State Police receiving several phone calls from the media. Further, the breach disrespected the deceased and violated their rights. However, the ALJ found that the appellant had not been insubordinate and had not failed to perform his duties. The ALJ also found that the appellant had not violated the social media policy as he had not posted nor instructed his friend to post the confidential personal information. Nonetheless, the ALJ determined that the appellant’s actions damaged the first responders’ and the public’s view of the quality of work of the Office of the Medical Examiner, as well as the confidence they had in the office. Thus, the ALJ concluded that the appellant’s actions were unbecoming a public employee. Moreover, the ALJ concluded that the appellant neglected his duty when he breached the non-disclosure agreement he had signed.

Furthermore, in determining the proper penalty, the ALJ indicated that the appellant had no prior disciplinary history in his 14 years of employment with the appointing authority. The ALJ also considered that the appellant had not posted the information on social media and that he had released confidential information to his friends due to his emotional state and their common connection to the victims. Additionally, the appellant immediately took accountability for his mistake and tried to mitigate the damage as much as he could. The ALJ indicated that these actions, coupled with no prior discipline and positive recommendations from his coworker and his supervisor demonstrated that the appellant was an individual who learned from this mistake and would not make one like it again. Therefore, the ALJ determined that the appellant’s disciplinary violations were serious and warranted a serious consequence and concluded that a suspension of six months was appropriate.

In its exceptions, the appointing authority argues that the ALJ gave disproportionate weight to largely irrelevant facts, such as the appellant immediately taking accountability and attempting to mitigate the damage caused. In this regard, it contended that any attempts the appellant took to mitigate were irrelevant because no effort to mitigate could undo the harm his actions caused. Further, the ALJ afforded excess weight to the fact that the appellant had not posted the information on social media nor directed anyone to do it while finding that he had violated the non-disclosure agreement. The ALJ’s focus on the appellant’s mitigation ignored the irreversible damage his actions had caused. Moreover, the appointing authority maintains that the appellant’s actions were egregious enough to warrant removal despite a Jack of any prior discipline.

In his reply, the appellant argues that the appointing authority's exceptions lack any merit as the initial decision shows the ALJ carefully reviewed the record, made credibility determinations, weighed the evidence in the record and concluded that while he had committed a serious violation, a six-month suspension was the appropriate penalty.

Upon its de novo review of the record, the Commission does not agree with the ALJ’s recommendation to modify the removal to a six-month suspension. In determining the proper penalty, in addition to considering the seriousness of the underlying incident in determining the proper penalty, the Commission utilizes, when appropriate, the concept of progressive discipline. West New York v. Bock, 38 N.J. 500 (1962). Although the Commission applies the concept of progressive discipline in determining the Jevel and propriety of penalties, an individual’s prior disciplinary history may be outweighed if the infraction at issue is of a serious nature. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.-/. 571, 580 (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). In the instant matter, the appellant’s prior disciplinary history does not serve as a mitigating factor due to the severity of the appellant’s actions. The appellant’s offense in the instant matter constituted a serious breach of the standard of conduct expected from all public employees who have access to confidential personal information. As the ALJ found, the appellant’s actions led to a breach of confidential information that disrespected the deceased and violated their rights. Further, his actions damaged the first responders’ and the public’s view of the quality of work of the Office of the Medical Examiner, as well as the confidence they had in the office. In light of the seriousness and egregious nature of the appellant’s conduct, the fact that he had been emotional, took responsibility for his actions, and tried to limit the damage, does not serve as mitigation in the instant matter. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the egregiousness of the appellant’s conduct warrants a penalty of removal.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in removing the appellant was justified. The Commission, therefore, affirms that action and dismisses the appeal of C.M.

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