Michael Bonner, CSC Docket No. 2025-1600

BackgroundThe appeal of Michael Bonner County Correctional Police Officer, Cumberland County, Department of Corrections, 10 working day suspension, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Susan McCabe (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on September 30, 2025. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, including a thorough review of the exceptions, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on November 5, 2025, adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and her recommendation to uphold the 10 working day suspension.

As indicated above, the Commission has thoroughly reviewed the exceptions and finds them unpersuasive. The appellant points to what he considers several mitigating factors and thus, argues that the suspension imposed should be modified to a minor discipline. The Commission is not persuaded. 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). In this regard, the Commission emphasizes that a law enforcement 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).

Here, it is clear that the appellant, notwithstanding his arguments otherwise, or any purported mitigating factors, engaged in serious and dangerous misconduct. His breathalyzer test, which indicated a level more than twice the legal limit, is highly concerning. Further, the statement highlighted in his exceptions from his testimony that “I was truly unaware of the situation because I did not feel intoxicated” is equally concerning. Here, the appellant admitted that he had no issue driving after having consumed enough alcohol to test at more than twice the legal limit because he did not “feel” intoxicated. Further, as he pleaded guilty both to driving while intoxicated and failure to consent to take samples or breath, he cannot now argue in this forum any insufficiency to those charges. Moreover, the fact that he was cooperative and admitted to his mistake does not serve as a basis to reduce the original penalty, which appears eminently reasonable. Rather, it would appear to the Commission that those actions merely served to already lessen a penalty which could have been more severe. Finally, while it is commendable that the appellant has apparently had no disciplinary issues after the current matter, this fact does not serve as a mitigating factor. Rather, it is more appropriately considered evidence that the penalty imposed for this matter had its desired effect. Accordingly, the Commission finds the penalty of a 10 working day suspension neither disproportionate to the offense nor shocking to the conscious.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending the appellant was justified. The Commission therefore upholds that action and dismisses the appeal of Michael Bonner.

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