SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-2733-21

IN THE MATTER OF 

SHANNON TURNER, 

MERCER COUNTY 

CORRECTION CENTER. 

______________________

Submitted November 9, 2023 – Decided January 9, 2024 

Before Judges Currier and Susswein. 

On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service 

Commission, Docket No. 2018-3108.

Alterman & Associates, LLC, attorneys for appellant

Shannon Turner (Stuart J. Alterman and Timothy J. 

Prol, on the brief). 

Paul R. Adezio, Mercer County Counsel, attorney for

respondent Mercer County (Michael Anthony Amantia, 

Assistant County Counsel, of counsel and on the brief). 

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent New Jersey Civil Service Commission 

(Nicholas V. Klimowicz, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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.
A-2733-21

2 

 Petitioner Shannon D. Turner appeals from the Civil Service 

Commission's (Commission) April 6, 2022 Final Administrative Action (Final 

Order) adopting the initial decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that 

found her guilty of violating provisions of N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a) and upheld her 

eight-day suspension. We affirm. 

On January 30, 2018, Turner was employed as a Correctional Police 

Officer at the Mercer County Correction Center (MCCC). At 6:48 p.m., a Code 

3 was called on the West Wing Right unit, indicating an altercation between 

inmates. At 6:50 p.m., a Code 2 was called on the West Wing Left unit, 

indicating an inmate needed medical attention. The codes were dispatched by 

radio to all the correction officers and were announced on MCCC's Bogen Box, 

a public address system that broadcasts messages to all radios and over speakers 

placed inside and outside the MCCC. 

MCCC's Standards and Operating Procedures (SOP) required every 

officer, including Turner, to respond to codes even when on a break. On this 

day, when the codes were called, Turner was on an authorized break, sitting in 

her car in the parking lot and talking to her daughter on the phone. She did not 

respond to the codes. 
A-2733-21

3 

 MCCC issued a Preliminary Disciplinary Action charging Turner with: 

Conduct unbecoming a public employee, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6); Neglect of 

duty, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(7); Other sufficient cause, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(12) 

for violations of the SOPs and the Mercer County Public Safety Table of 

Offenses and Penalties—Correction Center. It suspended her for ten days. After 

a departmental hearing, MCCC issued a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action 

(FNDA) sustaining the charges against Turner but reducing her suspension to 

eight days. After Turner appealed from the FNDA, the matter was transferred 

to the Office of Administrative Law where an ALJ conducted a hearing and 

considered testimony from seven witnesses. 

Sergeant George Mizsak testified that on January 30, 2018, he was 

working in Master Control which was located next to the West Wing unit. It 

was standard procedure to strip search inmates after a Code 3, and Mizsak 

explained that more female officers were needed to perform the search. Mizsak 

noticed that Turner was absent, and he called over the radio for her to respond. 

 Lieutenant Christopher Zegarski was also stationed in Master Control on 

January 30, 2018. He testified that he, Mizsak, and his Master Control officer 

called for Turner over the radio and Bogen Box. When she did not respond, 
A-2733-21

4 

Zegarski asked the outside security officer if they had seen Turner, and then 

went to look for her. 

Zegarski found Turner in her car in the parking lot. He knocked on her 

window and asked her why she had not replied to the codes. Zegarski said 

Turner "just looked at [him]" and did not answer. He then told her to report to 

the building and complete an incident report providing her reasons for not 

responding to the codes. He testified that approximately four to six other 

officers were in the parking lot when the codes were called, and they had 

responded. Zegarski also recalled hearing a radio transmission sent by Turner 

after the codes. 

 Turner testified that while she was sitting in her car talking to her 

daughter, Zegarski banged on the passenger's side window. When he informed 

her of the codes and unsuccessful attempts to contact her, Turner said she was 

"startled" and "stuck." Concerned the codes were ongoing, she explained that 

she got out of her car and attempted to run into MCCC. However, Zegarski told 

her to write an incident report and go home. 

 Turner stated in the incident report: "On the above date, I . . . was told to 

wri[te] a report on why I did not go to a [C]ode 3 and go home[.] I . . . did not 
A-2733-21

5 

hear the code being called and was [outside] on break and did not know[.]" 

Mizsak and Zegarski also wrote incident reports. 

During the hearing, several witnesses testified about issues with MCCC's 

radios and the Bogen Box. They explained the same radios were used for every 

shift of officers, and they often died. While the radios were supposed to make 

a sound to indicate a low battery, they did not always do so. As a result, officers 

would sometimes not know when their radios ran out of battery power. 

Additionally, some of the radios did not hold a charge, and even if fully charged, 

would run out of battery quickly. Only one person at a time could speak on the 

radios and if multiple people spoke simultaneously, their messages were cut off. 

Sometimes the radios switched settings, and officers would not be able to hear 

communications from other officers. 

The Bogen Box had speakers on the outside of MCCC, but they did not 

work. Turner described how, because of the issues with the Bogen Box, an 

officer responding to a code from the parking lot would notify others on their 

way into MCCC by tapping on the hoods of their cars. Turner did not see any 

other officer in their car in the parking lot on January 30, 2018, and did not see 

other officers leaving the parking lot to respond to the codes. 
A-2733-21

6 

Radio checks were completed at the beginning of each shift to make sure 

that every officer's radio was functioning. Turner testified, and the radio check 

indicated, that her radio was functioning at the beginning of her shift on January 

30, 2018. Turner stated she did not turn the volume down on her radio while 

talking to her daughter, and her radio ran out of battery without warning during 

her shift. She also admitted she did not mention a radio malfunction in her 

incident report. She stated that when she wrote she did not hear the codes, she 

meant "the radio didn't transmit, so that means it didn't work and that's [why] I 

didn't hear it, and due to the fact that I was outside[,] the Bogen Box was only 

heard inside . . . so both transmissions . . . fail[ed] . . . ." 

On March 2, 2022, the ALJ issued an initial decision. He found the 

witnesses' testimony about the events of January 30, 2018 and the issues with 

the radios and the Bogen Box were credible. However, he also found there was 

no evidence that the radios or Bogen Box were malfunctioning on January 30, 

2018. The ALJ stated that Turner's contradictory testimony was "selfinterested," "unsupported by any documentary evidence or corroborating 

testimony," and therefore, "unpersuasive." He reasoned that while Turner did 

not have to "constantly check that her radio was operational during her shift," 

there was a "reasonable expectation that she should check her radio to ensure 
A-2733-21

7 

that [it] was working prior to leaving the facility for her break." The ALJ 

concluded that Turner had violated N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6), (7), and (12) and 

affirmed her eight-day suspension. The Commission adopted the ALJ's decision 

over Turner's exceptions. 

On appeal, Turner argues she is not guilty of violating N.J.A.C. 4A:2-

2.3(a) because her radio and the Bogen Box were not working properly. She 

also contends the ALJ did not consider the malfunctioning equipment when he 

affirmed her eight-day suspension and did not apply progressive discipline 

properly because he overlooked her clean disciplinary record and July 2020 

commendation. 

An agency's decision carries "[a] strong presumption of reasonableness." 

In re Vey, 272 N.J. Super. 199, 205 (App. Div. 1993), aff'd, 135 N.J. 306 (1994). 

The challenging party bears the burden of showing that the agency's decision "is 

arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the record." 

Saccone v. Bd. of Trs. of the Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 219 N.J. 369, 380 

(2014) (quoting Russo v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 

27 (2011)). 
A-2733-21

8 

We grant deference to an ALJ's credibility findings if they were "made 

after due consideration of the witnesses' testimony and demeanor during the 

hearing." H.K. v. State, Dep't of Hum. Servs., 184 N.J. 367, 384 (2005). 

Applying these principles, we see no reason to reverse the Commission's 

Final Order. Turner did not respond to the codes when they were originally 

called or after she was specifically summoned over the radio and the Bogen Box. 

While many of the witnesses testified about general problems with the radios 

and the Bogen Box, there was no specific evidence presented of problems with 

Turner's radio or general issues with the radios or the Bogen Box on January 30, 

2018. 

The only evidence supporting Turner's assertion of a malfunction was her 

own testimony. That testimony conflicted with the statement she made in the 

incident report filled out immediately following the incident, in which Turner 

did not mention any malfunction with her radio. The ALJ found her testimony 

was "self-interested" and not credible. As the ALJ's credibility and factual 

findings are supported by the record, his conclusion that Turner was guilty of 

violating N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6), (7), and (12) is affirmed. See Saccone, 219 

N.J. at 380 (quoting Russo, 206 N.J. at 27). 
A-2733-21

9 

We next consider Turner's arguments about her suspension. When 

reviewing an employee's punishment on appeal, the inquiry "is 'whether [the] 

punishment [was] "so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the 

circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness."'" In re Revocation 

of the License of Polk, 90 N.J. 550, 578 (1982) (quoting In re Pell v. Bd. of 

Educ., 313 N.E.2d 321, 327 (N.Y. 1974)). 

The Supreme Court first recognized progressive discipline in Town of 

West New York v. Bock, 38 N.J. 500, 523 (1962). Progressive discipline is a 

process used to either "ratchet-up" a public employee's punishment if they have 

"engage[d] in habitual misconduct" or mitigate a public employee's punishment 

if they "ha[ve] a substantial record . . . that is largely or totally unblemished by 

significant disciplinary infractions." In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 30-33 (2007). 

However, the application of progressive discipline is not mandatory and "has 

been bypassed" when a public employee has committed "severe misconduct, 

especially when the[ir] . . . position involves public safety and the misconduct 

causes risk of harm to persons or property." Id. at 33. Correction officers are 

held to higher standards than other public employees and "public safety concerns 

may also bear upon the propriety of the . . . sanction." In re Carter, 191 N.J. 

474, 485 (2007). 
A-2733-21

10

In his decision, the ALJ acknowledged Turner's clean disciplinary record 

and stated, "she has been described as a loyal employee who can be relied upon." 

However, he affirmed her eight-day suspension because of the high standard that 

correction officers are held to and the seriousness of Turner's misconduct. He

concluded that not responding to the codes, "constituted a failure of [Turner's] 

professional duty in an emergency situation that put her fellow correction[]

officers and the inmates in their charge at great risk of harm." 

 We see no reason to disturb the imposed sanction. Although Turner only 

had one prior minor disciplinary violation, the seriousness of her misconduct on 

January 30, 2018 supports her suspension. Turner's failure to respond to two 

codes while other correction officers responded to an altercation between 

inmates and an inmate's need for medical attention jeopardized others' physical 

safety. As a result, we do not find Turner's eight-day suspension 

"disproportionate" or "shocking to one's sense of fairness." See Polk, 90 N.J. at 

578 (quoting Pell, 313 N.E.2d at 327). 

 Turner has not demonstrated the Commission's Final Order was arbitrary, 

capricious, or unreasonable. It was supported by the credible evidence in the 

record. 

 Affirmed.