SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0373-19T1

IN THE MATTER OF MATTHEW

BERMUDEZ, POLICE OFFICER

(S9999U), LINDEN.

_____________________________

Submitted January 5, 2021 – Decided

Before Judges Yannotti and Mawla. 

On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service 

Commission, Docket No. 2019-1649.

Harkavy Goldman Goldman & Gerstein, attorneys for 

appellant Matthew Bermudez (Brian M. Gerstein, on 

the brief).

Apruzzese McDermott Mastro & Murphy, attorneys for 

respondent City of Linden (Robert J. Merryman, on the 

brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent Civil Service Commission (Jonathan S. 

Sussman, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in 

lieu of brief). 

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

January 22, 2021
2

A-0373-19T1

Matthew Bermudez appeals from a final decision of the Civil Service 

Commission (Commission) dated August 16, 2019, which upheld his removal 

from the eligibility list for the position of police officer in the City of Linden 

(the City). We affirm.

The City's police department employed Bermudez as a public safety 

telecommunicator since 2012. In 2015, he completed the written portion of the 

civil service exam, scored a 92.7%, and ranked twenty-seventh on the eligibility 

list for the position of police officer. 

In his pre-employment background investigation, Bermudez indicated he 

had been terminated from employment with a bank in 2010 for leaving the 

grounds without permission and terminated from a fast food job in 2007 due to 

a "no-show." The City disciplined Bermudez during his employment in 2013, 

2014, and 2017. He also admitted he "was arrested [on] . . . bench warrants for 

moving violations in Union, Watchung, Mountainside, [and] Piscataway." 

Bermudez's driving record revealed the following citations: careless 

driving in 2003; speeding in 2004, 2006 (two), and 2007; improper passing in 

2005; improper display/fictitious plates in 2005 and 2006; failure to appear in 

2006 (two); and unlicensed driving in 2006 (twice). His driving privileges were

suspended in 2006, 2008 (three times), and 2011. 
3

A-0373-19T1

In July 2018, the City notified Bermudez it was no longer considering his

candidacy because of "his unsatisfactory work history as a Linden Public Safety 

Telecommunicator." In November 2018, Bermudez received a certification 

disposition notice stating: "Your name had been removed from [the] list [of 

candidates for police officer] due to your unsatisfactory driving record which 

relates adversely to the duties of this position." 

Bermudez appealed the City's determination. He supplied the 

Commission with a recent driver's abstract1and argued the motor vehicle 

violations occurred when he was a young driver, he had no summonses since 

2009, and had no points on his license since 2014. He argued his driving record 

did not evince "any disregard for the motor vehicle laws, behavior that would 

be incompatible with the duties of a law enforcement officer, and/or anything 

that would be inconsistent with the performance of the duties of a law 

enforcement officer." 

On August 16, 2019, the Commission issued a final determination 

upholding Bermudez's removal from the eligibility list. The Commission made 

the following findings:

1 Bermudez obtained the updated abstract by utilizing his position within the 

police department in violation of department rules and regulations, which in turn 

prompted an internal affairs investigation.
4

A-0373-19T1

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(a)[(l)], in conjunction with N.J.A.C.

4A:4-6.l(a)[(7)], allows the . . . Commission[] to 

remove an eligible's name from an eligible list for 

having a prior employment history which relates 

adversely to the title.

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(a)[(l)], in conjunction with N.J.A.C.

4A:4-6.l(a)[(9)], allows the Commission to remove an 

eligible's name from an eligible list for other sufficient

reasons. Removal for other sufficient reasons includes, 

but is not limited to, a consideration that based on a 

candidate's background and recognizing the nature of

the position at issue, a person should not be eligible for 

appointment. The Commission has the authority to 

remove candidates from lists for law enforcement titles 

based on their driving records since certain motor 

vehicle violations reflect a disregard for the law and are 

incompatible with the duties of a law enforcement

officer. 

[(Citations omitted).]

Citing Bermudez's driver's license suspensions, employment terminations, 

disciplinary actions while employed for the City, and the misuse of his position 

to run an updated driver's abstract, the Commission concluded Bermudez's 

background is not suitable to be a [p]olice [o]fficer. In 

this regard, it is recognized that a [p]olice [o]fficer is a 

law enforcement employee who must enforce and 

promote adherence . . . to the law. Police [o]fficers hold 

highly visible and sensitive positions within the 

community and . . . the standard for an applicant 

includes good character and an image of the utmost 

confidence and trust. It must be recognized that a 

municipal [p]olice [o]ffice[r] is a special kind of 
5

A-0373-19T1

employee. His primary duty is to enforce and uphold 

the law. He carries a service revolver on his person and 

is constantly called upon to exercise tact, restraint[,]

and good judgment in his relationship with the public. 

He represents law and order to the citizenry and must 

present an image of personal integrity and 

dependability in order to have the respect of the public.

See Moorestown v. Armstrong, 89 N.J. Super. 560, 566 

(App. Div. 1965) . . . . See also In re Phillips, 117 NJ. 

567 (1990).

The Commission held Bermudez did not meet his burden of showing the City's 

decision to remove him from the list of eligible candidates was an error.

On appeal, Bermudez argues the Commission's decision is arbitrary, 

capricious, and unreasonable. He asserts when the City sought his removal from 

the eligibility list, it only cited his unsatisfactory driving record. He repeats the 

argument that his driving infractions occurred when was young and claims he 

matured since then. He reasserts his driving privileges were last suspended ten 

years before the Commission's decision, and there is no evidence he has 

disregarded the State's motor vehicle laws since then. 

The scope of appellate review of an administrative agency's final 

determination is limited. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011). "In order 

to reverse an agency's judgment, an appellate court must find the agency's 

decision to be 'arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or [ ] not supported by 

substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.'" Ibid. (alteration in 
6

A-0373-19T1

original) (citing Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)). 

Specifically, we must ask 

(1) whether the agency's action violates express or 

implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency 

follow the law; (2) whether the record contains 

substantial evidence to support the findings on which 

the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying 

the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly 

erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably 

have been made on a showing of the relevant factors.

[In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 482-83 (2007) (citing 

Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995)).]

This highly deferential standard reflects the agency's expertise in administering 

its legislative authority. Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194-95.

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1 states: "(a) A person may be denied examination 

eligibility or appointment when he or she: . . . 7. Has a prior employment history 

which relates adversely to the title; [or] . . . 9. Other sufficient reasons." 

Therefore, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)(9), the City's citation of Bermudez's 

driving record alone was adequate grounds to remove him from the eligibility 

list. As the record further developed on appeal before the Commission to 

include Bermudez's employment and disciplinary history as well as the incident 

involving the updated driver's abstract, it only bolstered the City's decision to 
7

A-0373-19T1

remove Bermudez from the eligibility list pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)(7) 

and (9). 

For these reasons, we reject Bermudez's arguments and substantially 

affirm for the reasons expressed by the Commission. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). The 

Commission's decision was neither arbitrary, capricious nor unreasonable, and 

was instead supported by sufficient credible evidence.

Affirmed.