V.V., CSC Docket No. 2025-2558

BackgroundThe appeal of V.V., a Fire Fighter with North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue, of his removal, effective May 14, 2025, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Patrice E. Hobbs (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on December 6, 2025. 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 January 21, 2026, accepted and adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusion as contained in the ALdJ’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, it cannot be ignored that a Fire Fighter operates in the context of a paramilitary organization in which the ability to follow orders is crucial to saving lives. In Karins v. City of Atlantic City, 152 Nid. 532, 552 (1998), the Supreme Court stated:

[Fire Fighters] are not only entrusted with the duty to fight fire; they must also be able to work with the general public and other municipal employees, especially [Plolice [O]fficers, because the police department responds to every emergency fire call. Any conduct jeopardizing an excellent working relationship places at risk the citizens of the municipality as well as the men and women of those departments who place their lives on the line on a daily basis. An almost symbiotic relationship exists between the fire and police departments at a fire.

In the instant matter, the appellant voluntarily entered into a Last Chance Agreement (LCA) with the appointing authority that specified if any disciplinary charges are sustained against him between 2022 and 2027, the appellant would be immediately terminated. In June 2024, the appellant was charged with insurance fraud, a third-degree felony, and he was still on probation for the 2020 arrest that resulted in the subject LCA. In August 2024, while suspended, the appellant voluntarily went to Ventura, California, to treat his alcoholism. On September 14, 2024, against the advice of doctors, the appellant left the treatment facility, went to downtown Ventura, and became heavily intoxicated. Police Officers responding to the scene observed the appellant attempting to engage other people to fight him. When taken to jail to start the booking process, the appellant threatened grave bodily harm to the responding Police Officer, called him demeaning and derogatory names, and threatened to hit the Police Officer with the Police Officer’s baton. He also told the Police Officers multiple times that he was a Fire Fighter in New Jersey and should be released. Therefore, the Commission finds that the charges of conduct unbecoming a public employee and other sufficient cause are sustained as the appellant’s behavior falls well below the standard expected from a public employee. Additionally, the appellant’s behavior is not excusable as the appointing authority removed him from employment because his conduct was unbecoming a public employee, not because he was intoxicated on the job or while on duty, which is not a violation of the Law Against Discrimination. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the penalty of removal is not disproportionate to the offenses committed.

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 V.V.

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