SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5250-17T3

IN THE MATTER OF TIA 

SMITH, CAMDEN COUNTY 

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 

DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS.

Submitted October 3, 2019 – Decided October 31, 2019

Before Judges Alvarez and DeAlmeida.

On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service 

Commission, Docket No. 2018-1068.

Alterman & Associates, LLC, attorneys for appellant 

Tia Smith (Stuart J. Alterman and Timothy J. Prol, on 

the briefs).

Christopher A. Orlando, Camden County Counsel, 

attorney for respondent Camden County Department of 

Corrections (Howard L. Goldberg, First Assistant 

County Counsel, on the brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent Civil Service Commission (George N. 

Cohen, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-5250-17T3

Tia Smith, a former corrections officer with the Camden County 

Correctional facilities, Department of Corrections (CCC), appeals from the June 

8, 2018 final agency decision of the Civil Service Commission (Commission) 

terminating her employment on grounds, among others, of insubordination and

conduct unbecoming an employee.1 We affirm.

CCC commenced disciplinary proceedings against Smith, culminating in 

an October 3, 2017 final notice of disciplinary action (FNDA) sustaining all 

charges and terminating her employment. Smith appealed to the Commission, 

where the case was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for 

hearing as a contested case. See N.J.S.A. 52:14D-1 to -8 and 14F-1 to -23. The 

administrative law judge's (ALJ) initial decision thoroughly canvassed the 

testimony, finding Smith was not credible.

 

1

 Smith was charged with violating: N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(1) Incompetency, 

Inefficiency, Failure to Perform Duties; N.J.A.C. 4:A2-2.3(a)(2) 

Insubordination; N.J.A.C 4A:2-2.3(a)(6) Conduct Unbecoming of an Employee; 

N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(12) Other Sufficient Cause. Smith was also found to have 

violated Camden County Correctional Facility Rules of Conduct: 1.1 Violations 

in General; 1.2 Unbecoming Conduct; 1.3 Neglect of Duty; 1.4 Insubordination; 

2.1 Abuse of Sick Leave; 2.4 Reporting Off Sick; 2.12 Fictitious Illness or Injury 

Reports; Internal Affairs Order #001 (for lying during questioning); General 

Order #28 (sick leave and lateness policies); General Order #72 (personal 

conduct of employee); and General Order #74 (violation of the professional code 

of conduct). 
3

A-5250-17T3

The charges arose from Smith's travel to Las Vegas to celebrate her 

birthday, which resulted in her failure to appear for her next scheduled tour of 

duty. Smith falsely reported that she was ill to justify her absence, and was not 

forthright during the internal affairs investigation regarding the incident. As the 

ALJ detailed, Smith gave "ever morphing version[s]" of the events at issue "from 

her first interview through her testimony in [the OAL hearing]." The ALJ found 

the employer met its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence as to 

each charge. 

Smith, who had been a corrections officer since 2011, was found to have 

engaged in conduct unbecoming and neglect of duty in 2015. She lied during 

that investigation, and the CCC imposed a 180-day suspension. In 2016, she 

was suspended for three days for failure to perform her duties, conduct 

unbecoming, and neglect of duty. Because of Smith's prior disciplinary history 

and the nature of these charges, the ALJ agreed with the CCC that termination 

was the appropriate sanction. Progressive discipline was not applicable where 

the employee held a position involving public safety, and the misconduct raised 

the risk of harm to persons or property. The Commission adopted the ALJ's 

initial decision in its entirety. Thus, it affirmed Smith's removal and dismissed 

her appeal. 
4

A-5250-17T3

Smith claims the Commission erred as follows: 

POINT I. THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE CIVIL 

SERVICE COMMISSION IN REMOVING 

APPELLANT FROM EMPLOYMENT WAS 

ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AND 

UNREASONABLE AND, ACCORDINGLY, MUST 

BE REVERSED.

A. THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE 

COMMISSION IN REMOVING APPELLANT 

FROM EMPLOYMENT VIOLATES EXPRESS 

OR IMPLIED LEGISLATIVE POLICIES AND, 

ACCORDINGLY, MUST BE REVERSED.

B. THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE 

COMMISSION IN REMOVING APPELLANT 

FROM EMPLOYMENT LACKS FAIR 

SUPPORT IN THE RECORD AND, 

ACCORDINGLY, MUST BE REVERSED.

We affirm, relying upon the Commission's reasons for adopting the ALJ's 

cogent initial decision. We also consider Smith's points of error to be so lacking 

in merit as to require little discussion in a written decision. See R. 2:11-

3(e)(1)(D).

We will not disturb an agency's judgment unless the court finds it to be 

"arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or [ ] not supported by substantial 

credible evidence in the record as a whole." In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 

(2011) (citing Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)); 

Karins v. Atl. City, 152 N.J. 532, 540 (1998). We do not substitute our judgment 
5

A-5250-17T3

for the agency's. In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 483 (2007). This deferential review 

applies to disciplinary actions. In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 28 (2007). 

Substantial credible evidence supports the ALJ's findings, as adopted by the 

Commission.

In employee discipline proceedings, the agency need only "prove [its] case 

by a preponderance of . . . credible evidence." Beaver v. Magellan Health Servs., 

Inc., 433 N.J. Super. 430, 435 (App. Div. 2013) (citing Atkinson v. Parsekian, 

37 N.J. 143, 149 (1962)). The CCC did so here.

Police officers2are held to a higher standard than other public employees, 

and must act as an ambassador to the public in "personal integrity and 

dependability . . . ." In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567, 576 (1990); Twp. of 

Moorestown v. Armstrong, 89 N.J. Super. 560, 566 (App. Div. 1965). An officer 

may be punished for refusing to obey orders. See, e.g., Cosme v. Borough of E. 

Newark Twp. Comm. 304 N.J. Super. 191, 199 (App. Div. 1997); see also

Bowden v. Bayside State Prison (Dep't of Corr.), 268 N.J. Super. 301, 305-06 

(App. Div. 1993) (Correctional officers must maintain order and discipline to 

safely run a prison or jail.).

 

2 Correctional police officers, such as Smith, hold full police powers. N.J.S.A. 

2A:154-4. 
6

A-5250-17T3

We do not consider the punishment to have been disproportionate to the 

offense, or shocking to our sense of fairness. Herrmann, 192 N.J. at 28-29.

Smith had a prior disciplinary history that included being dishonest during the 

course of an internal affairs investigation. For a corrections officer in particular, 

this breach of basic standards of behavior and protocol, having occurred more 

than once, warranted removal. Generally, progressive discipline is the implied 

legislative policy. Smith's failure to appear at the facility, however, and her 

flagrant disregard for the truth during the ensuing investigation and hearing, 

made termination necessary. Smith's conduct in this instance and her past record 

justified removal. See Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 196.

Affirmed.