J.D., CSC Docket No. 2025-2365

BackgroundThe appeal of J.D., a Fire Fighter with the City of Newark, Department of Public Safety, of his removal, effective August 6, 2024, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Aurelio Vincitore (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on January 23, 2026. Exceptions were filed on behalf of 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 25, 2026, accepted and adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as contained in the ALJ’s initial decision and his recommendation to uphold the removal.

As indicated above, the Commission thoroughly reviewed the exceptions and reply filed in this matter. Upon that review, it finds that the exceptions do not persuade the Commission that the AlLdJ’s findings and conclusions or his recommendation to uphold the removal were arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Accordingly, it upholds those actions for the reasons expressed by the ALJ. In his Findings of Fact, the ALJ indicated, in relevant part:

Probationary firefighters like {J.D.] acknowledge receipt of employee memoranda, rules, and regulations while in the Newark FD training academy through an electronic portal called Power DMS. [J.D.] received such rules and regulations, including those regarding the reporting of arrests and detainments, as evidenced by his signature on Power DMS.

As such, {J.D.j] was on notice that he had to report all charges and his arrest and detainment to his supervisor immediately upon his first day reporting for duty.

Additionally, in recommending upholding the removal, the ALJ stated the following:

In this case, [J.D.] completed training and was on the job as of May 15,

2024, serving the Newark FD as a probationary firefighter on June 23,

2024. During this one-year probationary period, [J.D.]’s job performance and conduct were subject to review and scrutiny that applies to probationary firefighters. On June 23, 2024, after an arrest warrant was issued for an alleged violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(1), [J.D.] was taken into custody where he remained for four and a half days. Yet,

[J.D.] failed to report this arrest and detainment to the Newark FD, which {J.D.] knew he was obligated to do the first day he returned to duty. Given this failure to abide by departmental rules and regulations concerning personal integrity and dependability during his working test period, 1 CONCLUDE that [J.D.] must be removed from his position as a firefighter with the Newark FD under N.Jj.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)}(12).

Indeed, no credible evidence exists otherwise to substantiate [J.D.’s] claim that his discharge was improper.

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.Jj.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 Fire Fighters, like Police Officers, are public safety employees who, by the very nature of their job duties, are held to a higher standard than other public employees. See Moorestown v. Armstrong, 89 N.J. Super. 560 (App. Div. 1965), cert. denied, 47 N.dJ. 80 (1966). See also, In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567 (1990). Moreover, even when a Fire Fighter 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. Finally, Civil Service rules recognize that “[a]n employee may be separated for unsatisfactory performance at the end of the working test period” and that “[a]n employee may be disciplined during the working test period.” See N.d.A.C. 4A:4-5.4; see also In the Matter of Savon Brittingham (CSC, decided October 16, 2024).

In the instant matter, it is undisputed that the appellant was arrested and detained while in his working test period. The appellant was also aware of the requirement under departmental rules to report his arrest and detainment to his supervisors and nonetheless failed to do so. Importantly, because of the vital and sensitive nature of the appellant’s public safety position, the appointing authority had a compelling need to require the appellant to report this information in accordance with the subject policy. Moreover, the later expungement of the charge of simple assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-la(1), against the appellant did not relieve him of the obligation to report the charge to his supervisors. Accordingly, the charges as upheld by the ALJ are sustained, and the penalty of removal during the working test period is not disproportionate to the offense.

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 J.D.

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