NJ Civil Service Navigator

N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10 Back pay, benefits and seniority

N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10, Back pay, benefits and seniority. Where a disciplinary penalty has been reversed, the Commission shall award back pay, benefits, seniority or restitution of a fine. Such items may be awarded Full text with 5 recorded amendments, 146 citing decisions, cited by 5 other rules.

Appeals, Discipline, and Separations · Major Discipline

Current through New Jersey Register, Vol. 58 No. 14, July 20, 2026. Reviewed as of July 26, 2026.

This is an annotated mirror, not the official publication. Verify against the Civil Service Commission before relying on it.

In plain language

What you get back when discipline is overturned. Where a penalty is reversed the Commission must award back pay, benefits, seniority or restitution of a fine; where a penalty is only modified, it may award them. Suspension pending a criminal matter is treated separately and splits by job. A municipal police officer gets back pay, benefits and seniority under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-149.1 after the charges are disposed of. Everybody else gets them if acquitted at trial, or if the complaint or indictment is dismissed, or if the prosecution is terminated. Two disposals that feel like wins do not count: Conditional Discharge and Pre-Trial Intervention both leave you without back pay. And where disciplinary action followed the criminal disposition, nothing is awarded in a removal case.

Written by the NJ Civil Service Navigator editorial team from the text of N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10. It is a description of the rule, not the rule itself, and not legal advice.

What you get back if the discipline is reversed

Reversal and modification are not treated alike. Where a disciplinary penalty has been reversed, the Commission shall award back pay, benefits, seniority or restitution of a fine. Where the penalty is modified rather than reversed, those items may be awarded. Unless otherwise ordered, the award is calculated from the effective date of the appointing authority's improper action to the date you are actually back on the payroll.

Back pay is unpaid salary, meaning regular wages, overlap shift time, increments and across-the-board adjustments. Benefits are vacation and sick leave credits plus the additional amounts you spent to maintain health insurance coverage during the improper suspension or removal. Overtime pay, holiday premium pay and retroactive clothing, uniform or equipment allowances for periods you were not working are excluded. Taxes, social security, dues, pension payments and anything else normally withheld come off the award.

Then the reductions, which is where most of the argument sits. Money actually earned during the separation is deducted, including unemployment insurance benefits. Where a removal or a suspension of more than 30 working days has been reversed or modified and you were unemployed or underemployed and failed to make reasonable efforts to find suitable employment, no back pay is payable for that period. Suitable employment means work comparable to your permanent career service position in duties, responsibilities, functions, location and salary, and reasonable efforts run to reviewing classified advertisements and online listings, applying for positions, attending job fairs, visiting employment agencies, networking and distributing resumes. The burden of showing you did not make those efforts is on the employer. Mitigation also stops at the Commission decision: for the stretch between the decision and actual reinstatement only actual earnings are deducted, unless the decision is stayed, in which case the duty restarts from the date of the stay. Other employment you already held at the time of the adverse action does not reduce the award, though extra hours you added at it do. Unreasonable delay in the appeal directly attributable to you reduces the award, but delay caused by your representative may not be counted against you.

Suspension pending criminal charges is its own arithmetic, and municipal police officers are split off from everybody else, their back pay after disposition being set by statute rather than by this rule. For everyone else, back pay, benefits and seniority follow a finding of not guilty at trial, a dismissal of the complaint or indictment, or a terminated prosecution. Conditional Discharge and Pre-Trial Intervention are carved out, and a disposition through either produces no award. Note that a suspension continues through both: the complaint or indictment is not treated as disposed of until PTI is completed or the conditional discharge conditions are satisfied. Where discipline follows the disposition, removal produces nothing; on a suspension, the disciplinary suspension is applied against the indefinite suspension already served, back pay runs for the period beyond six months, and the appointing authority may for good cause deny back pay for the period beyond the disciplinary suspension up to a further six months.

The money itself is settled by the parties wherever possible. Failing that, either side may ask the Commission in writing to review the outstanding issue, on which the appointing authority submits the salary you were earning plus the increments and adjustments you would have received, and you submit an affidavit of all income received during the separation. Interest is separate and discretionary, available where the appointing authority has unreasonably delayed compliance with an order or where the Commission finds sufficient cause on the particular case. Counsel fees are a different rule with a different test. Law enforcement officers and firefighters who win a removal appeal have their own timetable, with back pay, benefits, seniority and counsel fees due within 60 days of the decision.

Related on this site: /discipline-removal

Written by the NJ Civil Service Navigator editorial team. Every statement here traces to the rules cited on this page. It is not legal advice, and a collective agreement may change how these rules apply to you.

(a) Where a disciplinary penalty has been reversed, the Commission shall award back pay, benefits, seniority or restitution of a fine. Such items may be awarded when a disciplinary penalty is modified. #

(b) Where a municipal police officer has been suspended based on a pending criminal complaint or indictment, following disposition of the charges the officer shall receive back pay, benefits and seniority pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-149.1 et seq. #

(c) Where an employee, other than a municipal police officer, has been suspended based on a pending criminal complaint or indictment, following disposition of the charges the employee shall receive back pay, benefits and seniority if the employee is found not guilty at trial, the complaint or indictment is dismissed, or the prosecution is terminated. #

1. Such items shall not be awarded when the complaint or indictment is disposed of through Conditional Discharge, N.J.S.A. 2C:36A-1, or Pre-Trial Intervention (PTI), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12 et seq. #

2. Where disciplinary action has been taken following disposition of the complaint or indictment, such items shall not be awarded in case of removal. In case of suspension, where the employee has already been suspended for more than six months pending disposition of the complaint or indictment, the disciplinary suspension shall be applied against the period of indefinite suspension. The employee shall receive back pay for the period of suspension beyond six months, but the appointing authority may for good cause deny back pay for the period beyond the disciplinary suspension up to a maximum of six months. #

(d) Back pay shall include unpaid salary, including regular wages, overlap shift time, increments and across-the-board adjustments. Benefits shall include vacation and sick leave credits and additional amounts expended by the employee to maintain his or her health insurance coverage during the period of improper suspension or removal. #

1. Back pay shall not include items such as overtime pay, holiday premium pay and retroactive clothing, uniform or equipment allowances for periods in which the employee was not working. #

2. The award of back pay shall be reduced by the amount of taxes, social security payments, dues, pension payments, and any other sums normally withheld. #

3. Where a removal or suspension has been reversed or modified, an indefinite suspension pending the disposition of criminal charges has been reversed, the award of back pay shall be reduced by the amount of money that was actually earned during the period of separation, including any unemployment insurance benefits received, subject to any applicable limitations set forth in (d)4 below. #

4. Where a removal or a suspension for more than 30 working days has been reversed or modified or an indefinite suspension pending the disposition of criminal charges has been reversed, and the employee has been unemployed or underemployed for all or a part of the period of separation, and the employee has failed to make reasonable efforts to find suitable employment during the period of separation, the employee shall not be eligible for back pay for any period during which the employee failed to make such reasonable efforts. #

i. "Underemployed" shall mean employment during a period of separation from the employee's public employment that does not constitute suitable employment. #

ii. "Reasonable efforts" may include, but not be limited to, reviewing classified advertisements in newspapers or trade publications; reviewing Internet or on-line job listings or services; applying for suitable positions; attending job fairs; visiting employment agencies; networking with other people; and distributing resumes. #

iii. "Suitable employment" or "suitable position" shall mean employment that is comparable to the employee's permanent career service position with respect to job duties, responsibilities, functions, location, and salary. #

iv. The determination as to whether the employee has made reasonable efforts to find suitable employment shall be based upon the totality of the circumstances, including, but not limited to, the nature of the disciplinary action taken against the employee; the nature of the employee's public employment; the employee's skills, education, and experience; the job market; the existence of advertised, suitable employment opportunities; the manner in which the type of employment involved is commonly sought; and any other circumstances deemed relevant based upon the particular facts of the matter. #

v. The burden of proof shall be on the employer to establish that the employee has not made reasonable efforts to find suitable employment. #

5. An employee shall not be required to mitigate back pay for any period between the issue date of a Civil Service Commission decision reversing or modifying a removal or reversing an indefinite suspension and the date of actual reinstatement. The award of back pay for this time period shall be reduced only by the amount of money that was actually earned during that period, including any unemployment insurance benefits received. #

6. Should a Civil Service Commission decision reversing or modifying a removal or reversing an indefinite suspension subsequently be stayed, an individual shall be required to mitigate an award of back pay from the date of the stay through the date of actual reinstatement, in accordance with (d)4i through v above. #

7. If an employee also held other employment at the time of the adverse action, the back pay award shall not be reduced by earnings from such other employment. However, if the employee increased his or her work hours at the other employment during the back pay period, the back pay award shall be reduced by the earnings from such additional hours. #

8. A back pay award is subject to reduction by any period of unreasonable delay of the appeal proceedings directly attributable to the employee. Delays caused by an employee's representative may not be considered in reducing the award of back pay. #

9. A back pay award is subject to reduction for any period of time during which the employee was disabled from working. #

10. Funds that must be repaid by the employee shall not be considered when calculating back pay. #

(e) Unless otherwise ordered, an award of back pay, benefits and seniority shall be calculated from the effective date of the appointing authority's improper action to the date of the employee's actual reinstatement to the payroll. #

(f) When the Commission awards back pay and benefits, determination of the actual amounts shall be settled by the parties whenever possible. #

(g) If settlement on an amount cannot be reached, either party may request, in writing, Commission review of the outstanding issue. In a Commission review: #

1. The appointing authority shall submit information on the salary the employee was earning at the time of the adverse action, plus increments and across-the-board adjustments that the employee would have received during the separation period; and #

2. The employee shall submit an affidavit setting forth all income received during the separation. #

(h) See N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.13 for situations in which certain law enforcement officers or firefighters have appealed a removal that has been reversed or modified. #

Amendment history

Rule numbers, effective dates and New Jersey Register citations as published. 5 recorded changes.

  1. ReadoptedR.2010 d.176
    42 N.J.R. 693(a); 42 N.J.R. 1855(a)
  2. AmendedR.2008 d.215
    40 N.J.R. 1402(a); 40 N.J.R. 4520(a); 41 N.J.R. 2720(a)
  3. AmendedR.1997 d.435
    29 N.J.R. 3102(a); 29 N.J.R. 4455(b)
  4. AmendedR.1992 d.414
    24 N.J.R. 2491(a); 24 N.J.R. 3716(a)
1 editorial correction (punctuation and cross-reference updates)
  1. AmendedR.2010 d.068
    42 N.J.R. 116(a); 42 N.J.R. 928(a)

How this rule has been applied

146 decisions have cited N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10. The list below is citations to those decisions, not the decisions. The summary above is ours, written from the opinion after reading it. Nothing here is legal advice.

Decisions we have read

O'Lone v. Department of Human Services357 N.J. Super. 170, January 28, 2003

An employee whose removal was eventually cut down to a three month suspension was refused about three years of back pay on the sole ground that he had not looked for other work while he was out. The Appellate Division accepted that he had not looked, and still held that finding could not wipe out the claim by itself. The employer has to show what work he could realistically have obtained, and the award is then reduced by what he would have earned in it, because the rule speaks of money that could have been earned rather than of effort spent searching.

Read the opinion (free, via CourtListener). Summary written from the decision, checked July 26, 2026.

New Jersey Supreme Court (2)
  • 99 N.J. 1; 489 A.2d 11451985
  • 127 N.J. 555; 606 A.2d 367
Appellate Division (2)
  • , No. A-0306-06T52008 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1694
  • In the Matter of Williams198 N.J.Super. 75; 486 A.2d 858
Superior Court (5)
  • O'Lone v. Department of Human Services357 N.J. Super. 170; 814 A.2d 665
  • Walcott v. City of Plainfield282 N.J.Super. 121; 659 A.2d 532
  • DelRossi v. Department of Human Services (Police)256 N.J.Super. 286; 606 A.2d 1128
  • DelRossi v. Department of Human Services (Police)256 N.J.Super. 286; 606 A.2d 1128
  • DelRossi v. Department of Human Services (Police)256 N.J.Super. 286; 606 A.2d 1128
Civil Service Commission final determinations (104)
  • In re Ugorji, Newark Sch. Distr., OAL Docket No. CSV 06917-242025 N.J. CSC LEXIS 196
  • In re Ugorji, Newark Sch. Distr., OAL Docket No. CSV 06917-242025 N.J. CSC LEXIS 196
  • In re Ragsdale, Atlantic City Dep't of Muni. Auth., CSC Docket No. 2025-13772025 N.J. CSC LEXIS 121Docket 2025-1377
  • In re Woodson, Newark Mayor's Dep't, CSC Docket No. 2025-10312025 N.J. CSC LEXIS 18Docket 2025-1031
  • In re S.A. Northern State Prison, Dep't of Corr., CSC Docket No. 2024-16732024 N.J. CSC LEXIS 438Docket 2024-1673
  • In re Christopher Ferro, Bergen Cnty. Sheriff's Office, CSC Docket No. 2025-612024 N.J. CSC LEXIS 376Docket 2025-61
  • In re Nolen, Roselle, Dep't of Pub. Works, CSC Docket No. 2023-9252023 N.J. CSC LEXIS 199Docket 2023-925
  • In re O.C., et al., Twp. of West Orange, CSC Docket Nos. 2023-492, et al. (Consolidated)2023 N.J. CSC LEXIS 50Docket 2023-492
  • In re Snyder, Marlboro, Police Dep't2023 N.J. CSC LEXIS 13Docket CSV 08663-16
  • In re Peterson, Greystone Park Psychiatric Ctr., Dep't of Health2022 N.J. CSC LEXIS 447Docket CSV 04312-21
  • Civil Service Commission. In re Ferro, Bergen Cnty. Sheriff's Office, CSC Docket No. 2022-18192022 N.J. CSC LEXIS 315Docket 2022-1819
  • In re Smirnov, Dep't of the Treas., Div. of Inv.2021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 529; 2021 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 432Docket CSV 07719-19
  • In re Carroll, Twp. of West Orange, CSC Docket Nos. 2022-5162021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 475Docket 2022-516
  • CSR 13401-19)2021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 285; 2021 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 279
  • In re Melendez, Dep't of Corr., CSC DKT. NO. 2016-34732021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 223
  • In re Stuiso, Bergen Cnty., Dep't of Pub. Works, CSC DKT. NO. 2019-25912021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 228
  • In re Navas, CSC DKT. NO. 2021-15032021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 219
  • In re Martin, East Orange Police Dep't, CSC Docket No. 2021-6282021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 153Docket 2021-628
  • In re Dye, City of Passaic, Dep't of Eng'g2021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 103; 2021 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 98Docket CSV 13516-18
  • In re Marsh, Twp. of West Orange, CSC Docket Nos. 2021-9842021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 53Docket 2021-984
  • In re Bermudez, Cumberland Cnty. Dep't of Corrs.2021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 73Docket CSR 07412-20
  • In re Card, Kean Univ.2021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 69Docket CSV 17773-19
  • In re O.C., Police Officer (S9999U), City of Elizabeth, CSC Docket No. 2021-3322021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 41Docket 2021-332
  • In re McKnight, City of Newark, CSC Docket No. 2021-6862021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 33Docket 2021-686
  • In re McKnight, City of Newark, CSC Docket No. 2021-6862021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 33Docket 2021-686
  • In re Montanez, Hudson Cnty., Dep't of Roads & Pub.Prop., CSC DKT. NO. 2020-19172021 N.J. CSC LEXIS 13; 2021 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 11
  • In re Morales, Newark Sch. Dist., CSC Docket No. 2020-26592020 N.J. CSC LEXIS 952Docket 2020-2659
  • In re Martin, City of East Orange Police Dep't2020 N.J. CSC LEXIS 945; 2020 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 332Docket CSV 16115-19
  • In re Albis, Ocean Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., CSC Docket No. 2019-25472020 N.J. CSC LEXIS 287Docket 2019-2547
  • In re Hendrickson, Jr., Dep't of Cmty. Affairs, CSC Docket No. 2019-17252020 N.J. CSC LEXIS 187Docket 2019-1725
  • In re Flynn, Monmouth Cnty., Dep't of Transp.2019 N.J. CSC LEXIS 438Docket CSV 13685-15
  • In re Able, City of Newark, CSC Docket No. 2018-35942019 N.J. CSC LEXIS 373Docket 2018-3594
  • PNDA. In re Graves, Newark, CSC Docket No. 2019-19742019 N.J. CSC LEXIS 173Docket 2019-1974
  • In re Robinson, Albert C. Wagner Youth Corr. Facility, Dep't of Corrs.2019 N.J. CSC LEXIS 168Docket CSV 11292-17
  • In re Barnes, Monmouth Cnty., CSC Docket No. 2019-2052018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 874Docket 2019-205
  • In re Raciti, Middlesex Cnty., CSC Docket No. 2018-37112018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 612Docket 2018-3711
  • In re Mulligan, East Jersey State Prison, Dep't of Corrs., CSC DKT. NO. 2017-24692018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 434Docket CSV 02610-17
  • In re Reyes, City of Paterson, OAL Docket No. CSR 03407-172018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 352
  • 2018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 349
  • In re Jenkins, CSC Docket No. 2018-1038, OAL Docket No. CSV 15785-20172018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 351Docket 2018-1038
  • In re Curtis, Dep't of Children & Families2018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 330Docket CSV 8037-16
  • In re Wine, Jersey City Pub. Library, CSC Docket No. 2016-40152018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 316Docket 2016-4015
  • In re Maisano, Aberdeen Twp., CSC Docket No. 2016-2614, OAL Docket No. CSV 03222-162018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 275Docket 2016-2614
  • In re Gomm, CSC Docket No. 2016-3502, OAL Docket No. CSV 02360-172018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 274Docket 2016-3502
  • In re Lemieux, Trenton Psychiatric Hosp., CSC Docket No. 2018-9772018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 245Docket 2018-977
  • In re Gauthier, Rockaway Twp., CSC Docket No. 2017-27662018 N.J. CSC LEXIS 125Docket 2017-2766
  • In re Robles, City of Newark, CSC Docket No. 2017-37792017 N.J. CSC LEXIS 604Docket 2017-3779
  • In re Wilson, CSC Docket No. 2017-31662017 N.J. CSC LEXIS 631Docket 2017-3166
  • In re Kraft, Hudson Cnty. Sheriff's Office, CSC Docket No. 2017-27222017 N.J. CSC LEXIS 632Docket 2017-2722
  • In re Jarpa, Dep't of Mil. Affairs, Veterans Haven Transitional Home, CSC DKT. NO. 2016-17832017 N.J. CSC LEXIS 535
  • In re Reyes, Hudson Cnty., CSC Docket No. 2017-5212017 N.J. CSC LEXIS 485Docket 2017-521
  • $ 34,862. In re Montella, CSC Docket No. 2016-25582017 N.J. CSC LEXIS 821Docket 2016-2558
  • In re Tyndall, City of East Orange, Dep't of Property Taxation, CSC DKT. NOs. 2013-733 & 2013-3452 (Consolidated)2017 N.J. CSC LEXIS 148
  • In re Hairston, City of East Orange, CSC Docket No. 2017-1452017 N.J. CSC LEXIS 86Docket 2017-145
  • In re Jeanpierre, North Jersey Developmental Ctr., Dep't of Human Servs., CSC DKT. NO. 2014-27552015 N.J. CSC LEXIS 3
  • In re Gandolfo, Twp. of West Orange, Dep't of Planning & Dev., CSC DKT. NO. 2015-23302015 N.J. CSC LEXIS 42
  • In re McGee, Dep't of Corrs., CSC Dkt. No. 2015-17172015 N.J. CSC LEXIS 467
  • In re Wimbush, Dep't of Human Servs., CSC Dkt. No. 2014-9232015 N.J. CSC LEXIS 268
  • In re Rosenberger, CSC Docket No. 2013-27232015 N.J. CSC LEXIS 169Docket 2013-2723
  • In re Bush, N.J. Dep't. of Corrs., East Jersey State Prison2014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 413Docket CSR 14630-13
  • In re Ortiz, Hudson Cty., CSC Docket No. 2012-29972014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 411Docket 2012-2997
  • In re Reedinger, Middlesex Cty., CSC Docket No. 2014-14912014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 479Docket 2014-1491
  • In re Bessie McDalton, CSC Docket No. 2014-9912014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 500Docket 2014-991
  • In re Hopkins, Mercer Cnty.2014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 378
  • In re Hopkins, Mercer Cnty.2014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 378
  • In re Huntley, OAL Docket No. CSV 12847-122014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 297
  • In re Burdsall, Judiciary, Vicinage 15 -- Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem (Consolidated), OAL Docket Nos. CSV 15226-11 and CSV 558-132014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 339
  • In re Zygmunt Krawczyk, Juvenile Justice Comm'm, CSC Dkt. No. 2014-2562014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 251
  • In re Robert Rivera, Passaic County2014 N.J. CSC LEXIS 338Docket CSV 06927-11
  • In re Joseph Graffagnino, Middlesex Cnty.2013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 1147Docket CSR 9216-13
  • In re Donna Jackson, Hudson Cnty., CSC DKT. No. 2014-12262013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 1101
  • In re Reedinger, Middlesex Cnty., Dep't. of Adult Corr., CSC Dkt. No. 2013-31552013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 1146
  • In re Pedulla, Monmouth Cnty., CSC Docket No. 2011-5039, OAL Docket No. CSV 9154-112013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 820Docket 2011-5039
  • In re Morris, CSC Docket No. 2013-29272013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 758Docket 2013-2927
  • In re Bowman, Newark, CSC Docket No. 2013-10852013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 815Docket 2013-1085
  • In re Brandis Puryear, CSC Dkt. No. 2013-2852013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 476Docket CSV 11114-12
  • In re Shawn Pressley2013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 475Docket CSV 05761-2012
  • In re Linda Tisby, Camden Cnty., CSC Dkt. No. 2013-11662013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 580
  • In re John Venables, Jr., City of Camden, CSC Dkt. No. 2010-12832013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 610Docket CSV 10418-09
  • In re David Williams, CSC Dkt. No. 2012-24522013 N.J. CSC Lexis 565
  • In re Robert Zorn, Mercer County, CSC Dkt. No. 2011-4042013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 242
  • In re Taylor, CSC Docket No. 2012-31902013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 297Docket 2012-3190
  • In re James Gillespie, Cnty. of Cape May, OAL Docket No. CSV 4752-122013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 353
  • In re Scott Haynes, OAL Docket No. CSV 4367-122013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 338
  • In re Stephen Phillips, Twp. of West Orange, CSC Dkt. No. 2012-10292013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 304
  • In re Michelle Taylor, Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs, CSC Docket No. 2012-32862013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 184Docket 2012-3286
  • In re Daniel Caetano, City of Newark2013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 109Docket CSV 13338-11
  • In re Vincent De Ponte, Monmouth Cnty.2013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 31Docket CSV 5497-12
  • In re Mark Lyszczak, CSC Docket No. 2012-16512013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 119Docket 2012-1651
  • In re Wade Rosenberger, CSC Dkt.. No. 2012-30462013 N.J. CSC LEXIS 129
  • In re Ford2009 N.J. CSC LEXIS 67Docket CSV 12530-08
  • Harrington v. Dep't of Human Services11 N.J.A.R. 5371989
  • Ward v. Department of Labor97 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 180
  • Naro v. Trenton Fire Department96 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 234
  • Finley v. Wagner Youth Correctional Facility95 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 676
  • Bellamy v. Essex County Hospital95 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 652
  • Gonzalez v. Essex County95 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 200
  • Takakjian v. Fairview Borough Board of Education93 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 184
  • Scouler v. Housing Services and Code Enforcement, City of Camden93 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 40
  • Amison v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection92 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 568
  • Kelly v. City of Camden92 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 537
  • Brantley v. New Jersey State Prison92 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 37
  • Holmes v. Essex County91 N.J.A.R.2d (CSV) 65
  • Valluzzi v. Bergen County10 N.J.A.R. 89
Office of Administrative Law initial decisions (33)
  • In re Ganopolous, Ocean Cnty. Dep't of Roads, OAL Docket No. CSV 15827-172023 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 458
  • Rule of Three. In re Alemany et al., Fire Captain (PM1051V), Paterson, OAL Docket No. CSV 13150-18 (Consolidated)2022 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 466
  • In re Peterson, Greystone Park Psychiatric Ctr., Dep't of Health [Stockton Univ.]2022 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 448Docket CSV 04312-21
  • In re Brown, Salem City Police Dep't, OAL Docket No. CSV 04702-192022 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 66
  • In re Spellman, Atlantic Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs.2021 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 80
  • In re Bermudez, Cumberland Cnty. Dep't of Corrs.2021 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 18Docket CSR 07412-20
  • In re Arocho-Ramos East Jersey State Prison, Dep't of Corrs.2020 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 342Docket CSR 12477-19
  • In re Ruggiero, Camden Cnty., Dep't of Fin.2020 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 325Docket CSV 01778-19
  • In re Pharo, Atlantic Cnty. Dep't of Pub. Safety2020 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 191Docket CSR 15785-19
  • In re Sanchez, Town of West N.Y., Dep't of Parks & Pub. Prop.2019 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 194Docket CSV 05728-18
  • In re Rivera, Essex Cnty. Dep't of Corrs.2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 397
  • Jones-Richardson v. City of East Orange, Dep't of Property Maint. Revitalization2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 260Docket CSV 08152-17
  • In re Johnson, Mercer Cnty. Corr. Ctr.2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 879Docket CSV 2550-17
  • In re Lindsey Newark Police Dep't.2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1134Docket CSV 10680-12
  • In re Marino, Dep't of Children & Families2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 458Docket CSV 16936-15
  • In re Irby, Burlington Cnty. Dep't of Corrs.2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 487Docket CSR 01662-15
  • In re Eatman, City of Newark2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 226Docket CSV 09544-09
  • In re Hill, Twp. of Lakewood, Dep't of Public Works2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 282Docket CSV 09021-14
  • In re Nemeth, Morris Cty. Dep't of Utils. Auth.2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 279Docket CSV 01031-14
  • 2015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 141
  • In re Turbeville, Dep't of Human Servs., OAL Docket No. CSV 16531-132015 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 785
  • In re Bellamy2009 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 807Docket CSV 8866-06
  • In re Delli Santi2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1088Docket CSV 11901-07
  • In re Abdul-Haqq2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 720Docket CSV 9385-03
  • In re Paris2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 708Docket CSV 12208-06
  • In re Paris2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 708Docket CSV 12208-06
  • In Re Griffin-Staples, Dept. of Children and Families2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1513Docket CSV8810-07
  • In re Grupico, Burlington Cty., and in re McLeod, Burlington Cty.2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1302Docket CSV2489-06
  • In re Mortimer2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 543Docket CSV 6378-05
  • In re Russo2005 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1077Docket CSV 11729-03
  • In re Martin2005 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1211Docket CSV 6599-03
  • In re Martin2005 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1211Docket CSV 6599-03
  • In re Martin2005 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1211Docket CSV 6599-03

This rule points to

Rules that point here

Elsewhere in Major Discipline