ROBERT HINES, CSC Docket No. 2025-1505

BackgroundThe appeal of Robert Hines, a Juvenile Detention Officer with Middlesex County, Department of Adult Corrections, of his removal, effective November 22, 2024, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Mary Ann Bogan (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on April 10, 2026. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appointing authority.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the attached ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, including a thorough review of the exceptions filed by the appointing authority, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on May 20, 2026, did not adopt the recommendation of the ALJ to modify the removal to a 90 calendar day suspension. Rather, the Commission upheld the removal.

Administrative Law JudgeIn this matter, the ALJ found that the appellant was guilty of many of the infractions alleged and made the following findings with respect to the characterization of the appellant’s remarks:

The five witnesses who testified on behalf of [the appointing authority] testified credibility [sic] about the inappropriateness of the verbal exchanges they had with Officer Hines in the workplace and in the presence of juvenile inmates. While the evidence is clear that Officer

AnalysisHines failed to comport himself in an appropriate manner in the workplace, there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate that his behavior can be interpreted as an actual threat. Officer Hines did not dispute the claims with any specificity to demonstrate that his conduct was not inappropriate, although he did submit work performance records that demonstrated he was a valued employee just about ten months before the incidents.

In its exceptions, the appointing authority argues that the ALJ erred in dismissing the charge of other sufficient cause and in reducing the penalty of removal. In particular, it avers that contrary to the ALJ’s findings, the appellant’s remarks constituted actual threats and clearly demonstrated that he was unfit for continued employment as a Juvenile Detention Officer. Moreover, the appointing authority avers that the ALJ disregarded the discretion it is afforded to remove employees deemed unfit, as recognized by New Jersey Supreme Court precedent.

Upon its de novo review, the Commission agrees with the appointing authority that the appellant’s remarks to his fellow officers may be interpreted as threats. Other than this, the Commission finds no persuasive evidence in the record to demonstrate that the ALJ’s determinations regarding the charges, or her findings and conclusions based on those determinations, were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. The ALJ’s determination was based on her evaluation of the testimonial and documentary evidence in the record and her assessment of the credibility of that evidence. 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. 468, 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). Thus, while the appointing authority attempts to establish that the ALJ erred in dismissing the charge of other sufficient cause, it has not substantiated this claim sufficiently to convince the Commission that the due deference normally afforded to an ALJ’s Conclusions of Law as to the charges should be ignored. Accordingly, the Commission, upon its de novo review of the record, agrees with the ALJ’s assessment of the charges and affirms it.

. Regarding the penalty, similar to its review of the underlying charge, 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 uv. 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). In this case, the Commission finds that removal is the appropriate penalty.

In that regard, the Commission is mindful that a Juvenile Detention Officer is subject to a heightened standard of conduct based on the nature of the position. A Juvenile Detention Officer is employed in a paramilitary setting and is charged with maintaining discipline and order in a juvenile custodial facility. Moreover, given the vulnerability of the population for which a Juvenile Detention Officer is responsible, a Juvenile Detention Officer is expected to project an image of maturity and integrity and provide the juveniles in custody with a positive role model. See In the Matter of Victor Murphy (MSB, decided November 4, 2004). In addition, the job specification for a Juvenile Detention Officer provides, in relevant part, that a Juvenile Detention Officer “controls the general conduct and behavior of juvenile residents [and] the maintenance of discipline.” The appellant's threatening remarks, demeaning comments about a fellow officer’s ethnicity, and insubordinate behavior fell far short of the heightened standard of conduct required of a Juvenile Detention Officer. Moreover, compounding the appellant’s misconduct is the fact that he uttered some of these threatening remarks in the presence of a group of juvenile inmates who in turn were emboldened to taunt officers about the appellant’s comments. This troubling display, which raises safety and security concerns, was antithetical to the above-noted job responsibilities of Juvenile Detention Officers and the expectation that they serve as positive role models for the juveniles in their custody. Therefore, based on the foregoing, and the egregious extent of the appellant’s misconduct, removal from employment is appropriate, even without considering the appellant’s prior disciplinary history which is not unblemished.

Nevertheless, the appellant had two suspensions prior to his removal in the less than two years he had been employed.! Specifically, the appellant served a five working day suspension, effective August 11, 2023, for failing to stay for a mandatory overtime shift on August 10, 2023, and a 24 working day suspension, effective July 13, 2024, resulting from a settlement, on charges of insubordination, conduct unbecoming a public employee, and other sufficient cause based upon his failure to stay for two mandatory overtime shifts in July 2024, report to a meeting in the appointing authority's superintendent’s office, and provide documentation regarding a claimed “emergency.”2 As such, the Commission cannot ignore the fact that the appellant had two prior disciplinary infractions during his short tenure. As indicated above, Juvenile Detention Officers are held to a higher standard. The appellant’s misconduct in this matter is inimical to those high standards, and his actions and disciplinary record clearly impact the publics future trust. Accordingly, the Commission finds the penalty of removal in this matter neither disproportionate to the offense nor shocking to the conscience.

1 Agency records indicate that the appellant was appointed as a Juvenile Detention Officer, effective December 5, 2022, and his removal was effective November 22, 2024.

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 Robert Hines.

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