SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-3663-21 

IN THE MATTER OF R.B., 

GARDEN STATE YOUTH 

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS. 

___________________________ 

Argued December 4, 2023 – Decided March 8, 2024 

Before Judges DeAlmeida and Bishop-Thompson. 

On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service 

Commission, Docket No. 2020-2438. 

Samuel Michael Gaylord argued the cause for appellant 

R.B. (Szaferman Lakind Blumstein & Blader, PC, 

attorneys; Samuel Michael Gaylord, on the brief). 

Eric Alexander Zimmerman, Deputy Attorney General, 

argued the cause for respondents New Jersey 

Department of Corrections and Garden State Youth 

Correctional Facility (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney

General, attorney; Sara M. Gregory, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Eric Alexander Zimmerman, on 

the brief). 

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent New Jersey Civil Service Commission 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION 

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-3663-21

(Levi Malcolm Klinger-Christiansen, Deputy Attorney

General, on the statement in lieu of brief).

PER CURIAM 

Appellant R.B.1 appeals from a July 31, 2022 final administrative decision 

by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) terminating R.B.'s employment as a 

senior correctional police officer with the New Jersey Department of 

Corrections (DOC). We affirm. 

I.

 R.B. was hired by the DOC in 2013 and was assigned to the Garden State 

Youth Facility. In October 2018, R.B. was arrested for a domestic violence 

incident (2018 incident) involving his longtime girlfriend, T.T. A temporary 

restraining order (TRO) was entered, and criminal charges were filed. Both the 

TRO and the criminal charges were subsequently dismissed. The DOC did not 

impose any disciplinary action. 

 On August 28, 2019, Mount Laurel Police Department (MLPD) officers 

were called to R.B.'s apartment in the early morning hours concerning a 

domestic dispute (2019 incident) between R.B. and T.T. The parties' versions 

of the incident differed. When the officers arrived, R.B. was standing outside 

1

 We use initials to protect the parties' privacy. R. 1:38-3(d)(9) to (10). 
3 A-3663-21

on the sidewalk. He stated that he had an "altercation" with T.T. when she was 

late getting home from work. According to R.B., T.T. became "agitated" and 

"yelled" at him on the phone when she told him that she had a flat tire and was 

waiting for roadside assistance. When she arrived at home, she "yelled" that 

R.B. did not believe her, and she started breaking household items. R.B. claimed 

that he tried to leave the apartment and called police. 

 However, when the officers interviewed T.T., she explained that an 

argument happened when she arrived at the apartment. According to T.T., R.B. 

placed both his hands around her neck and held her down on the bed. She was 

able to free herself, but R.B. again grabbed her neck with both hands and held 

her against the wall. T.T. stated that her breathing was restricted. She also 

stated that R.B. "threw" her into the television, resulting in a broken cable box. 

The officers saw visible signs of injury to T.T.'s neck and elbow. T.T. stated 

that R.B. had torn necklaces off her neck during the altercation, which were 

found by the officers in the hallway. 

R.B. was arrested and charged with third-degree aggravated assault under 

N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(13). T.T. applied for and was granted a TRO, which was 

later dismissed. T.T. later gave a signed and notarized statement to the MLPD 

recanting her prior testimony and instead claimed that she "[did] not remember 
4 A-3663-21

how the items in the home were broken." The criminal charge was downgraded 

to simple assault and subsequently dismissed. 

 The next day, on August 29, 2019, the DOC issued a Preliminary Notice 

of Disciplinary Action (PNDA), specifying the domestic violence incident 

demonstrated conduct unbecoming and violated the DOC's rules and 

regulations. R.B. was charged with (1) conduct unbecoming a public employee 

under N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6); (2) other sufficient cause under N.J.A.C. 4A:2-

2.2(a)(12); (3) Human Resources Bulletin 84-17, as amended, C-11, conduct 

unbecoming of an employee; and (4) Human Resources Bulletin 84-17, as 

amended, E-1 violation of rule, regulation, policy, procedure, or administrative 

decision. 

 R.B. was suspended and removal from employment was recommended. 

Following a pretermination hearing, R.B.'s suspension without pay was 

continued based on the "severity of the charges" and the "direct impact" of the 

charges on Bennett's position as a law enforcement officer. 

 In February 2020, the DOC held a disciplinary hearing. After considering 

the testimony and documentary evidence from DOC and R.B., the hearing 

officer determined the penalty of removal was appropriate. On March 13, 2020, 

the DOC issued a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action (FNDA), removing R.B. 
5 A-3663-21

from his position. R.B. appealed the disciplinary action to the CSC, and the 

contested matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). 

 A two-day hearing was held before the administrative law judge (ALJ). 

The DOC presented testimony from the following three witnesses: Maria 

Jackson, Brian Darcy, and Matthew Jankaitis. Jackson, an investigator in the 

DOC's Special Investigations Division (SID), testified that she conducted the 

investigation into the 2019 incident and concluded R.B. was the initial 

aggressor. R.B. had been placed in a "weapon's restricted post" because of the 

TRO and criminal charges associated with the 2019 Incident. She also testified 

that R.B. did not have a state-issued weapon in connection with his employment. 

However, he owned an off-duty weapon that had been confiscated by the 

prosecutor's office because of the 2018 domestic violence incident. T.T. did not 

respond to Jackson's request for an interview. 

 Darcy, a DOC administrative lieutenant, testified that he was shift 

commander on the date of the 2019 incident. After he received notification from 

the MLPD regarding the domestic dispute, he notified SID and the DOC's 

information clearinghouse. Darcy then explained that "correctional officers are 

required to conduct themselves in a professional manner both on and off duty 

and they are not to act in a way that betrays the public trust." He highlighted 
6 A-3663-21

Sections 2 and 3 of the DOC rules and regulations that prohibit correctional 

officers from engaging in threatening or assaultive conduct. Darcy stated R.B.'s 

actions also violated Article 1, Section 2 of the DOC's rules and regulations 

because by breaking the law, he violated the public's trust. 

 MLPD Officer Jankaitis testified regarding the 2019 incident. He stated 

the dispute was a "must arrest" situation based upon his observations at the 

scene, which was confirmed by the photographs. 

 R.B. testified concerning the 2019 incident. He stated T.T. was late 

getting home, and he had called her at approximately 2:30 a.m. When R.B. 

called T.T., she said she had a flat tire and was on the phone with roadside 

assistance. When T.T. came to the apartment, she "yelled" at him that he did 

not believe her. R.B. claimed that he attempted to avoid "confrontation," and as 

he attempted to leave, he was "hit with the lamp." When R.B. ran to the closet 

to get his uniform, she started to "attack" him using the television, a pot, and 

"anything she could get her hands on." He then "dropped everything" and ran 

outside because "his job was on the line." R.B. claimed T.T. broke the television 

stand. He also was unaware as to how T.T.'s necklaces were on the floor. 

According to R.B., T.T. was "lying" about the domestic disputes. 
7 A-3663-21

 In regard to the 2018 incident, R.B. testified his personal weapon was 

confiscated by the Willingboro Police Department as a result of his arrest and 

the TRO. As of August 2019, R.B.'s personal weapon had not been returned 

because SID was still conducting an investigation. 

 In a May 4, 2022 written decision, the ALJ upheld R.B.'s removal, 

concluding the "seriousness of these charges relating to the 2019 domestic 

violence incident warrant[ed] imposition of the penalty of termination despite 

[R.B.'s] lack of disciplinary history." The ALJ reasoned that R.B.'s return to the 

position of a senior correctional police officer "would be contrary to the [DOC's] 

interest in maintaining the public's trust and confidence." 

 On June 20, 2022, the CSC issued a final administrative decision adopting 

the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

II. 

On appeal, R.B. argues (1) that the DOC failed to sustain its burden of 

proof and (2) the CSC's decision that progressive discipline was not appropriate 

was arbitrary and capricious. 

Our review of quasi-judicial agency determinations is limited. Allstars 

Auto Grp., Inc. v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n, 234 N.J. 150, 157 (2018) (citing 

Russo v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011)). "An 
8 A-3663-21

agency's determination on the merits will be sustained unless there is a clear 

showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair 

support in the record." Saccone v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 

219 N.J. 369, 380 (2014) (quoting Russo, 206 N.J. at 27) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

We "afford[] a 'strong presumption of reasonableness' to an administrative 

agency's exercise of its statutorily delegated responsibilities." Lavezzi v. State, 

219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014) (quoting City of Newark v. Nat. Res. Council, Dep't 

of Env't Prot., 82 N.J. 530, 539 (1980)). That presumption is particularly strong 

when an agency is dealing with specialized matters within its area of expertise. 

Newark, 82 N.J. at 540. We, therefore, defer to "[a]n administrative agency's 

interpretation of statutes and regulations within its implementing and enforcing 

responsibility . . . ." Wnuck v. N.J. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 337 N.J. Super. 52, 

56 (App. Div. 2001). "A reviewing court 'may not substitute its own judgment 

for the agency's, even though the court might have reached a different result.'" 

Blanchard v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 461 N.J. Super. 231, 238-39 (App. Div. 2019) 

(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 

(2011)). However, if there is "any fair argument" supporting the agency action, 

it must be affirmed. In re Stormwater Mgmt. Rules, 384 N.J. Super. 451, 465-
9 A-3663-21

66 (App. Div. 2006). The party challenging the administrative action bears the 

burden of making that showing. Lavezzi, 219 N.J. at 171. 

Applying those standards to our review of the record and R.B.'s 

contentions, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in the ALJ's initial 

decision, which were accepted and adopted by the CSC. We add the following 

comments. 

The CSC adopted and agreed with the ALJ's determination the 

"seriousness of these charges relating to the 2019 domestic violence" warranted 

removal. New Jersey courts have found the phrase "conduct unbecoming" to be 

"elastic" and have defined it to include "any conduct which adversely affects the 

morale or efficiency of the bureau . . . [or] which has a tendency to destroy 

public respect for municipal employees and confidence in the operation of 

municipal services." Karins v. City of Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532, 554 (1998) 

(quoting In re Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136, 140 (1960)). Such a finding of 

misconduct "may be based merely upon the violation of the implicit standard of 

good behavior which devolves upon one who stands in the public eye as an 

upholder of that which is morally and legally correct." Ibid. (quoting Hartmann 

v. Police Dep't of Ridgewood, 258 N.J. Super. 32, 40 (App. Div. 1992)). 
10 A-3663-21

Under the theory of progressive discipline, an agency is not required to 

consider progressive discipline in every matter; progressive discipline is not a 

"fixed and immutable rule to be followed without question." In re Carter, 191 

N.J. 474, 484 (2007). Progressive discipline is not necessary "when the 

misconduct is severe, when it is unbecoming to the employee's position or 

renders the employee unsuitable for continuation in the position, or when 

application of the principle would be contrary to the public interest." In re 

Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 33 (2007). As correctly noted by the ALJ, R.B.'s 2019 

domestic violence incident was considered a violation of the implicit standard 

of good behavior expected of law enforcement officers. Therefore, we reject 

R.B.'s contention that the CSC failed to utilize progressive discipline, and we 

uphold his removal. Consequently, we decline to conclude the CSC's decision 

was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

 To the extent we have not specifically discussed any remaining arguments 

raised by R.B., we conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in 

a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

 Affirmed.