Jonathan Revolus, CSC Docket No. 2026-1119

BackgroundThe appeal of Jonathan Revolus, a Police Officer with the City of Atlantic City, Department of Public Safety, of his removal, effective September 29, 2025, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Susan McCabe (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on April 30, 2026. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant and a reply to exceptions was filed on behalf of the appointing authority.

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 and replies filed by the parties, the Civil Service Commission (Commission) at its meeting of June 10, 2026, accepted the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the ALJ’s initial decision and her recommendation to uphold the removal.

As indicated above, the Commission has reviewed the exceptions filed in this matter. Upon that review, it finds that those filings 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. The appellant’s exceptions assert that the exhibits presented to the ALJ do not support a conclusion that the appellant “lied to his superiors.” The Commission acknowledges that the ALJ, who has the benefit of hearing and seeing the witnesses, is generally in a better position to determine the credibility and veracity of the witness. See Matter of J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108 (1997).

"[T]rial courts' credibility findings . . . are often influenced by matters such as observations of the character and demeanor of the witnesses and common human experience that are not transmitted by the record." See also, In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644 (1999) (quoting State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999)). Additionally, such credibility findings need not be explicitly enunciated if the record as a whole makes the findings clear. Id. at 659 (citing Locurto, supra). The Commission appropriately gives due deference to such determinations. However, in its de novo review of the record, the Commission has the authority to reverse or modify an ALJ's decision if it is not supported by sufficient credible evidence or was otherwise arbitrary. See N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c); Cavalieri v. Public Employees Retirement System, 368 N.J. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004). The Commission finds no persuasive evidence in the record to demonstrate that the ALJ's credibility determinations, or her findings and conclusions based on those determinations, were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Accordingly, the Commission finds nothing in the record to question those determinations or the findings and conclusions made therefrom.

The appellant also asserts that removal is not a proportional penalty given the appellant’s benign disciplinary history. The Commission is unconvinced. In addition to considering the seriousness of the underlying incident in determining the proper penalty, the Commission 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). Moreover, the Commission emphasizes that a Police Officer, as 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). Moreover, even when a Police Officer does not possess a prior disciplinary record after many unblemished years of employment, the seriousness of offenses such as the ones in this matter may, nevertheless, warrant the penalty of removal.

Administrative Law JudgeIn recommending that the charges be sustained and that the removal be upheld, the ALJ stated the following:

The two most recent incidents of misconduct, however, are egregious.

AnalysisRevolus placed two officers at risk on two separate occasions and demonstrated that he is no longer suitable for his position because he can no longer be trusted. Indeed, it would be contrary to the public interest for Revolus to continue in his position. Therefore, I

CONCLUDE that Revolus must be terminated from his position as a police officer with the Atlantic City Police Department.

The Commission wholeheartedly agrees with the above assessment and finds that removal from employment is neither disproportionate to the offenses nor shocking to the conscience.

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 Jonathan Revolus.

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