Dane Bath, CSC Docket No. 2025-1529, 2025-1916

BackgroundThe appeal of Dane Bath, a former Public Safety Telecommunicator Trainee with Morris County, of his eight working day suspension, effective November 25, 2024, on charges, and release at the end of the working test period, effective December 9, 2024, was heard by Administrative Law Patrice E. Hobbs (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on January 5, 2026. Exceptions were filed by the appellant, and a reply was filed on behalf of the appointing authority.

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 of February 4, 2026, accepted and adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as contained in the ALJ’s initial decision and her recommendation to uphold the eight working day suspension and release at the end of the working test period.

As indicated above, the Commission has thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed by the appellant in this matter and finds them unpersuasive. With respect to the eight working day suspension, the ALJ determined that it was warranted as the credible evidence, which included witness testimony and a video, demonstrated that the appellant was asleep on the job on two occasions. The ALJ also found that the appellant was tardy 10 times in 30 days and inappropriately texted a female trainee after hours. The Commission notes that while sleeping on the job as a Public Safety Telecommunicator Trainee warrants major discipline, of which eight days is somewhat lenient, the specifications of the suspension as set forth in the Final Notice of Discipline did not include charges relating to tardiness or text messages. These findings, however, support the appellant’s release at the end of the working test period. See In the Matter of Steven Woodburn, Jr. (MSB, decided March 5, 1996)

(Appellant's repeated tardiness during his working test period disrupted the normal course of work).

Administrative Law JudgeIn addition, the ALJ noted that while the appellant's Daily Observation Reports were average, the credible evidence demonstrated that he was counseled regarding specific violations, his compliance with the dress code, his behavior expectations, and the cell phone policy and that he was not applying his training on calls and appeared lounging while at his desk. Moreover, the appellant did not pass all 16 quizzes given to trainees as required. Further, disciplinary action during a working test period has been found to be sufficient justification to release an employee. See In the Matter of Walter F. Kowalczyk (MSB, decided September 6, 2006) (Disciplinary action during a working test period could form a sufficient justification to release an employee at the end of the working test period).

AnalysisThe appellant’s exceptions with respect to procedural deficiencies during the hearing at the Office of Administrative Law are not persuasive. It is noted that while the ALJ described the appellant as being “terminated during his working test period,” the separation may be considered a release as the appellant had the benefit of completing and being assessed for almost the entire time of the working test period. The appellant was notified on the 87 day that he was being released on the 90‘ day of his three-month working test period. Thus, the burden of proof is on the appellant with respect to his release. See N.edJ.A.C. 4A:2-1.4(c). To be successful in such a challenge, the appellant would need to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the appointing authority effectuated the working test period in bad faith. See N.J.A.C. 4A:2-4.3(b). In this matter, as found by the ALJ, the appellant has clearly not satisfied that burden.

Therefore, upon its de novo review, the Commission finds nothing in the record or the exceptions demonstrating that the ALd’s assessment of the charges, finding that the appointing authority sustained its burden of proof with respect to the suspension and the appellant did not sustain his burden of proof with respect to his release at the end of the working test period, was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Accordingly, the Commission dismisses the appellant’s appeal.

ORDER

The Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending and releasing the appellant at the end of the working test period was justified. The Commission therefore dismisses the appeal of Dane Bath.