SHAWN KELLY, CSC Docket No. 2025-1719

BackgroundThe appeal of Shawn Kelly, a County Correctional Police Officer with Hudson County, Department of Corrections, of his removal, effective January 30, 2025, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Susana E. Guerrero (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on December 19, 2025. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the attached Al.J’s initial decision, including a thorough review of the exceptions, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting of January 21, 2026, accepted and adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusion as contained in the ALJ’s initial decision and her recommendation to uphold the removal.

As indicated above, the Commission thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed in this matter. Upon that review, it finds that the exceptions do not persuade the Commission that the ALJ’s findings and conclusions or her recommendation to uphold the removal were arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Accordingly, it upholds those actions for the reasons expressed by the ALJ. It makes only the following comments regarding the 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 vu. 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 like a Police Officer, a County Correctional Police Officer is a law enforcement officer who, by the very nature of his job duties, is held to a higher standard of conduct than other public employees. See Moorestown v. Armstrong, 89 N.J. Super. 560 (App. Div. 1965), cert. dented, 47 N.J. 80 (1966). See also, In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567 (1990). Moreover, even when a County Correctional Police Officer does not possess a prior disciplinary record after many unblemished years of employment, the seriousness of an offense such as in this matter may, nevertheless, warrant the penalty of removal.

In the instant matter, it is undisputed that the appellant was chronically and excessively absent in 2024 with at least 137 unauthorized absences. Further, of the 170 days he was expected to work in 2024, the appellant only worked 37 days. Moreover, the appellant was absent without approval for five consecutive business days in November 2024 and failed to offer any reasonable explanation for these absences. Significantly, the appellant did not have any approved leave of absence or any doctor's notes to support those absences, An employer, especially in a jail, has the legitimate right to expect that its employees will attend work when scheduled and the appellant chronically failed to do so. Accordingly, the charges as upheld by the ALJ are sustained, and given the egregious number of the appellant’s absences, including consecutive absences for five business days, and that his prior disciplinary record does not mitigate the penalty imposed, his removal is upheld.

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 Shawn Kelly.

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