SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5617-15T1

IN THE MATTER OF PETER

FARLOW, CAMDEN COUNTY

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.

______________________________

Argued December 5, 2018 – Decided January 24, 2019

Before Judges Reisner and Mawla.

On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service 

Commission, Docket No. 2015-2246.

Stuart J. Alterman argued the cause for appellant Peter 

Farlow (Alterman & Associates, LLC, attorneys; Stuart 

J. Alterman, of counsel and on the brief; Arthur J. 

Murray, on the brief).

Howard L. Goldberg, First Assistant County Counsel, 

argued the cause for respondent Camden County 

Correctional Facility (Christopher A. Orlando, County 

Counsel, attorney; Howard L. Goldberg, on the brief).

Respondent Civil Service Commission has not filed a 

brief.1

 

1

 The Commission filed a letter stating that it took no position on the merits of 

the appeal. 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5617-15T1

PER CURIAM

Peter Farlow appeals from a final administrative action of the Civil 

Service Commission (Commission), approving his termination from

employment by the Camden County Correctional Facility (CCCF or employer) 

for conduct unbecoming a public employee, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6), 

discrimination that affects equal employment opportunity, including sexual 

harassment, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(9), and other sufficient cause, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-

2.3(a)(12). After a lengthy administrative hearing, an administrative law judge 

(ALJ) credited testimony from the employer's witnesses. Although Farlow 

denied all of the charges, the ALJ found that Farlow's testimony was not 

credible. The ALJ found that Farlow committed the misconduct with which he 

was charged, and he recommended termination from employment as the 

appropriate penalty. Lacking a quorum, the Commission could not vote on 

whether to adopt or reject the initial decision, and as a result, the decision was 

deemed adopted. See N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c); In re Hendrickson, 235 N.J. 145, 

153-54 (2018). 

On this appeal, Farlow presents the following points of argument: 

I. EVEN ASSUMING ARGUENDO THE BONA 

FIDES OF THE SUSTAINED DISCIPLINE 

AGAINST FARLOW, REMOVAL, AS FOUND BY 

THE ALJ, WAS INAPPROPRIATE UNDER THE 
3

A-5617-15T1

CIRCUMSTANCES AND WAS AN AFFRONT TO 

NEW JERSEY'S LONG HELD JURISPRUDENCE OF 

PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE.

II. THE ALJ ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN 

DETERMINING THAT CCCF WAS NOT 

REQUIRED TO ADOPT THE NEW JERSEY 

ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES ON 

INTERNAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.

III. THE ALJ ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN 

FINDING THE SPECIFICATIONS LEVIED BY 

CCCF AGAINST FARLOW WERE ADEQUATE.

IV. THE ALJ ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN 

FAILING TO DISMISS THE DISCIPLINARY 

CHARGES LEVIED AGAINST FARLOW WHEN IT 

WAS ESTABLISHED THAT CCCF HAD NOT 

ADOPTED THE NEW JERSEY ATTORNEY

GENERAL GUIDELINES ON INTERNAL AFFAIRS 

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES COUPLED WITH 

THE LACK OF DETAIL IN CCCF'S PURPORTED 

SPECIFICATIONS.

V. THE ALJ ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY 

DENYING DISMISSAL OF THE CHARGES LEVIED 

AGAINST FARLOW BASED UPON CCCF'S 

BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE 45-DAY RULE.

VI. THE ALJ ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN 

CONSIDERING TWO ALLEGED CLAIMS OF 

HARASSMENT AND HOSTILE WORK 

ENVIRONMENT (ALJ FINDING OF FACT #8 AND 

#13) BASED ON HEARSAY. 

VII. THE ALJ DENIED FARLOW A 

FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS BY NOT 

CONSIDERING ANY OF THE EXHIBITS HE 
4

A-5617-15T1

MOVED INTO EVIDENCE IN RENDERING HIS 

INITIAL DECISION, WHICH BECAME THE FINAL 

DECISION.

VIII. THE ALJ'S FACTUAL FINDINGS ARE NOT 

SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL CREDIBLE 

EVIDENCE.

We find no merit in any of those arguments, and we affirm.

We begin by addressing Farlow's first and last points of argument. After 

reviewing the record, we find no basis to second-guess the ALJ's evaluation of 

witness credibility, and we conclude that his factual findings are supported by 

substantial credible evidence. See Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171-72 

(2014). The hearing testimony is outlined at length in the initial decision and 

need not be repeated in detail here. For purposes of this appeal, a summary of 

the ALJ's factual findings will suffice. 

Between November 2012 and December 2013, Farlow, a corrections 

lieutenant, made various inappropriate comments to a subordinate, a female 

officer named D.H.2 He made sexual references to her anatomy, subjected her 

to crude insults, and made a comment about her sexual relationship with her 

 

2

 The employees' names are not germane to our decision, and we use initials to 

protect their privacy. 
5

A-5617-15T1

husband. D.H. did not file complaints about these comments, because Farlow 

led her to believe that he had a close relationship with one of the deputy wardens.

Between February 2013 and February 2014, Farlow had several 

inappropriate interactions with another female officer, S.R. According to S.R., 

Farlow touched her hair without her consent and made comments to S.R.'s coworkers about her body. Those comments referred to a photograph, from her 

personal Facebook page, of S.R. wearing a bathing suit. Farlow also made 

demeaning remarks about other officers in front of S.R., referring to them as

"pieces of shit." S.R., who was a probationary employee at the time, did not file 

complaints about this behavior because she was afraid that it would negatively 

affect her prospects for continued employment with CCCF. 

Between March 2013 and March 2014, Farlow subjected a female officer, 

J.D., to descriptions of his sex life, including his marital infidelities, and asked 

her if women liked men who performed oral sex. During this time, Farlow also 

referred to other officers as "pieces of shit" in front of J.D., and he told other 

officers that J.D. "slept with most of the guys in the department." J.D., who was 

also a probationary employee, did not file complaints, fearing that she would 

not be retained after her probationary year.3 

 

3

 Witnesses also referred to the probationary year as the working test period. 
6

A-5617-15T1

Between March 2012 and March 2014, Farlow made a litany of 

inappropriate comments to A.C., a female officer. He made comments about 

S.R.'s bathing suit photo, stated that J.D. was the "biggest whore in the jail," and 

said that J.D. had performed oral sex on another officer. Farlow also told A.C.

that he had received oral sex from a woman in an elevator during a sports 

tournament. Farlow commented to A.C. that a male officer, W.R., "look[ed] 

gay" because of his physical appearance. A.C. did not file complaints about

these incidents due to fear of retaliation. 

According to W.R., Farlow yelled at him in front of inmates and demeaned 

him. Farlow called W.R. a "piece of shit." On one occasion, Farlow entered an 

office occupied by W.R. and said he "smelled shit." Like the other officers, 

W.R. did not file a complaint due to fear that it would affect his employment 

status. 

On July 25, 2014, in the presence of J.V., a male sergeant, Farlow told a 

female officer, A.B., that Farlow would like to see J.V. "push you up against the 

wall and kiss the back of your neck." Farlow told A.B. not to tell her husband, 

who was also a corrections officer. 

Farlow received training on sexual harassment, diversity, ethics, and 

respect in the work place in 2013 and 2014. Previously, Farlow had received 
7

A-5617-15T1

training on hostile work environments, harassment, quid pro quo harassment, 

and sexual harassment policy and procedures. 

The ALJ determined that Farlow's conduct "revealed a complete disregard 

of the profession[al] manner in which a superior officer should comport his 

actions. His actions sexually harassed the women assigned to his shift. . . . [His 

actions left] the CCCF subject to exposure to claims based on a hostile work 

place or sexual harassment." The ALJ concluded that the CCCF had met its 

burden of proof and termination of employment was an appropriate penalty. 

The ALJ's factual findings are amply supported by the record. In light of

those findings, we find no legal error in the decision that termination was the

appropriate penalty. Our standard of review is whether the penalty "shocks one's

sense of fairness." Hendrickson, 235 N.J. at 150. We conclude it does not.

Farlow engaged in a pattern of unprofessional and demeaning behavior 

toward his subordinates, most of whom were probationary employees who felt

powerless to complain about his conduct. Moreover, his prior disciplinary 

record reflected four violations for conduct unbecoming a public employee 

between 2006 and 2009. Each of those violations resulted in a suspension 

ranging from two days to ninety days. Two of the violations involved 

unprofessional comments, including an instance where Farlow was disciplined 
8

A-5617-15T1

for telling a female co-worker that she had "a flabby ass." Farlow's disciplinary 

history gave him ample notice that future incidents of inappropriate and 

unprofessional behavior would be the basis for further disciplinary action, but 

he continued to engage in that type of behavior. Farlow's conduct was 

particularly egregious in light of his position as the disciplinary lieutenant on 

his shift at CCCF. His misconduct was also severe, because it potentially 

exposed CCCF to hostile work environment and sexual harassment claims.

While we find that the employer followed principles of progressive

discipline here, termination would have been appropriate in any case. "[N]either

this court nor our Supreme Court 'regard[] the theory of progressive discipline

as a fixed and immutable rule to be followed without question.'" In re Restrepo,

449 N.J. Super. 409, 425 (App. Div.) (alteration in original) (quoting In re

Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 484 (2007)), certif. denied, 230 N.J. 574 (2017). 

"[P]rogressive discipline is not a necessary consideration 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). Those considerations apply here.
9

A-5617-15T1

Farlow's remaining appellate arguments are without sufficient merit to

warrant discussion beyond the following brief comments. See R. 2:11-

3(e)(1)(E).

Contrary to Farlow's argument, the charges were not untimely under

N.J.S.A. 30:8-18.2, which requires that charges be filed no later than forty-five

days after the employer "obtain[s] sufficient information" on which to base the

complaint. As a matter of fairness and good management practice, the warden

ordered a thorough internal investigation before deciding whether disciplinary

charges were warranted. The charges were filed within forty-five days of the

date on which the warden received the internal investigation report.

CCCF was not required to follow the Attorney General's (AG's) guidelines

for law enforcement agencies conducting internal affairs investigations. See

N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181 (mandanting that "[e]very law enforcement agency" adopt

guidelines consistent with the AG's guidelines). Those guidelines do not apply

to corrections facilities. Office of the N.J. Attorney Gen., Div. of Criminal

Justice, Internal Affairs Policy & Procedures 5 (last updated Nov. 2017),

https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/internalaffairs2000v1_2.pdf ("[C]ounty

correctional agencies . . . are under no obligation to implement the provisions of
10 A-5617-15T1

this policy."). 4 Moreover, Farlow had notice of the charges against him well in

advance of the hearing before the ALJ. Prior to the hearing, Farlow was

provided with discovery, including the internal investigative report and the

written statements of the witnesses interviewed during the investigation. In fact,

he admitted that he was given copies of the witness statements prior to his

departmental hearing at CCCF. 

Affirmed.

 

4

 Farlow's counsel spent extensive amounts of time cross-examining witnesses 

about the procedures CCCF followed in conducting the internal investigation. 

As a result, a relatively straightforward case involving employee misconduct 

occupied fifteen days of hearings.