Jennifer Akturk, CSC Docket No. 2026-809

BackgroundThe appeal of Jennifer Akturk, a Correctional Police Sergeant with the Garden State Youth Correctional Facility, Department of Corrections, of her 120 working day suspension, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Sarah G. Crowley (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on January 7, 2026. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appointing authority, and a reply to exceptions was filed on behalf of the appellant.

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 4, 2026, accepted and adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as contained in the ALJ’s initial decision and her recommendation to reverse the suspension. \

As indicated above, the Commission has thoroughly reviewed the exceptions filed by the appointing authority in this matter and finds them unpersuasive. In this regard, the ALJ’s determinations are predominantly based on her assessment of the credible evidence in the record. In this regard, the ALJ found the Investigator of the appellant’s charges not credible in that his testimony was not consistent with the charges brought against the appellant in that she was not the individual who had taken unauthorized pictures of locations in and around the facility with a State- issued digital camera. The Investigator also provided no examples on how the appellant was not truthful in her interview. Rather, the appellant credibly testified that she did not know who left the camera on her desk to “help her out” on a prior disciplinary proceeding. The exceptions raise allegations that the appellant only acknowledged the photographs when shown during her interview. However, this does not overcome the ALdJ’s credibility determination and assessment of the charges.

While the appellant did utilize the photographs contained in the camera in a prior disciplinary proceeding, the specific charges as written against her cannot be sustained.

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 witnesses. See Matter of J.W.D., 149 N./. 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.-/. 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./.S.A. 52:14B-10(c); Cavalieri u. Public Employees Retirement System, 368 N.J. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004). In this matter, the exceptions filed are not persuasive in demonstrating that the ALJ’s determinations, or her findings and conclusions based on those determinations, were arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. As such, the Commission has no reason to question those determinations or the findings and conclusions made therefrom. Therefore, upon its de novo review, the Commission finds nothing in the record or the exceptions demonstrating that the ALdJ’s assessment of the charges, finding that the appointing authority did not sustain its burden of proof, was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the charges were properly dismissed and the appellant’s 120 working day suspension should be reversed.

Since the suspension has been reversed, the appellant is entitled to mitigated back pay, benefits, and seniority pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10 for the time the appellant was suspended. Moreover, as the appellant has prevailed, she is entitled to reasonable counsel fees pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12.

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 decision of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, 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 or counsel fees are finally resolved.

ORDER

The Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in suspending the appellant was not justified. The Commission therefore reverses the 120 working day suspension and grants the appeal of Jennifer Akturnk.

The Commission orders that the appellant be granted back pay, benefits, and seniority for the time the appellant was suspended. The amount of back pay awarded is to be reduced and mitigated as provided for in N..-J.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.

Additionally, the Commission orders that counsel fees be awarded to the attorney for the appellant pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12. An affidavit of services in support of reasonable counsel fees 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.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10 and N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12, the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to the amount of back pay or counsel fees.

The parties must inform the Commission, in writing, if there is any dispute as to back pay or counsel fees 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.