R.P., CSC Docket No. 2025-262

BackgroundThe appeal of R.P., a Fire Fighter with the City of Camden, Fire Department, of his removal, effective June 11, 2024, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Joan M. Burke (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on November 6, 2025. No exceptions were filed.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting of December 17, 2025, accepted and adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as contained in the attached ALJ’s initial decision and her recommendation to reverse the removal.

The Commission has no issues with the ALJ’s determinations regarding the charges and affirms her dismissal of those charges as it finds the appointing authority did not sustain its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. However, the Commission does have concerns with the ALJ’s recommendations regarding reinstatement and the award of back pay.

Administrative Law JudgeIn her initial decision, the ALJ ordered, in pertinent part:

that the penalty of removal by the appointing authority is REVERSED in its entirety. It is also ORDERED that if Dr. [Keith] Semler’s behavioral health treatment protocol that the appellant engaged in along with attending Atlanticare Mental Health Intensive Outpatient program does not comport with the recommended treatment from the

AnalysisIFP [Institute for Forensic Psychology] dated March 22, 2024, appellant should undergo a satisfactory fitness-for-duty evaluation and any other prerequisites ordered by the City-selected psychiatrist or psychologist.

Since the penalty has been reversed, [ORDER that appellant is entitled to back pay, benefits, and seniority pursuant to N../.A.C. 4A:2-2.10. The amount of back pay awarded is to be reduced and mitigated for that period of time when back pay was waived.!

The Commission agrees that, given the concerns with the appellant’s psychological health as well as acknowledging his position as a public safety employee, it is appropriate for his actual reinstatement to occur after a psychological fitness-for-duty examination. In this regard, it disagrees with the ALJ that any treatments the appellant may have received or is continuing to receive from Dr. Semler should be considered. Rather, it orders that, regardless of Dr. Semler’s treatment, the appellant is to undergo a current psychological fitness-for-duty examination with a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist. The selection of the psychiatrist or psychologist shall be by agreement of both parties within 30 days of the date of this decision. The appointing authority shall pay for the cost of this evaluation. As the appellant’s psychological fitness is a condition of his reinstatement, if the appellant is found not fit for duty, the appointing authority may then issue a new Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action setting forth the current charges and the penalty to be imposed.

The Commission also disagrees that the entitlement to back pay should be limited in this matter. In her initial decision, the ALJ based the limitation of back pay on the appellant’s apparent waiver of the “180-day hearing requirement.” In that regard, it is assumed that the ALJ is referring to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 40A:14- 200, et seq., and N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.18, which indicate, in pertinent part, that for law enforcement and fire removal appeals, where such matters are not decided within 180 days from removal, the employee is entitled to begin collecting “base salary” starting the 1818T day. Waiver of the entitlement to “base salary” during the pendency of an appeal in no way constitutes a waiver of a potential award of back pay under N.d.A.C. 4A:2-2.10 should such removal be reversed and modified. Accordingly, since the removal has been reversed in this matter, the appellant is entitled to mitigated back pay, benefits, and seniority pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10 from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement or the issuance of new disciplinary charges.

Accordingly, this decision resolves the merits of the dispute between the parties concerning the disciplinary charges and the penalty imposed by the appointing authority. However, per the Appellate Division’s decision, Dolores Phillips v. Department of Corrections, Docket No. A-5581-01T2F (App. Div. Feb. 26, 2003), the Commission’s decision will not become final until any outstanding issues concerning back pay are finally resolved. In the interim, as the court states in

1 Earlier in the initial decision, the ALJ footnoted that “[o]n September 9, 2024, the appellant waived the 180-day hearing requirement.”

Phillips, supra, subject to the aforementioned fitness-for-duty examination, the appointing authority shall immediately reinstate the appellant to his permanent position.

ORDER

The Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in removing the appellant was not justified. The Commission therefore reverses the removal and grants the appeal of R.P.

The Commission also orders that the appellant undergo a_ current psychological fitness-for-duty examination with a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist. The selection of the psychiatrist or psychologist shall be by agreement of both parties within 30 days of the date of this decision. The appointing authority shall pay for the cost of this evaluation. If the results of that examination indicate the appellant is fit for duty, he shall be immediately reinstated to actual duty. If the results indicate that the appellant is not fit for duty, he shall be, as applicable, be issued a new Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action with current disciplinary charges and the penalty to be imposed.

The Commission orders that the appellant be granted back pay, benefits, and seniority from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement or the issuance of new disciplinary charges. The amount of back pay awarded is to be reduced and mitigated as provided for in N..A.C. 4A:2-2.10. Proof of income earned, and an affidavit of mitigation shall be submitted by or on behalf of the appellant to the appointing authority within 30 days of issuance of this decision.

Pursuant to N.d.A.C. 4A:2-2.10 the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to the amount of back pay. However, under no circumstances should the appellant’s reinstatement be delayed pending resolution of any potential back pay dispute.

The parties must inform the Commission, in writing, if there is any dispute as to back pay within 60 days of issuance of this decision. In the absence of such notice, the Commission will assume that all outstanding issues have been amicably resolved by the parties and this decision shall become a final administrative determination pursuant to R. 2:2-3(a)(2). After such time, any further review of this matter shall be pursued in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.