Source: https://www.njexpungements.com/case-carlucci.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:41:34+00:00

Document:
Arthur Russell argued the cause for appellant Martin Carluccio (Stuart Ball, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Ball and Mr. Russell, on the brief).
Pamela N. Ullman, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Civil Service Commission (Paula T. Dow, Attorney General, attorney; Lewis A. Scheindlin, of counsel; Ms. Ullman, on the brief).
Before Judges MESSANO, ESPINOSA and KENNEDY.
On July 27, 2009, the Civil Service Commission (the CSC) issued its final administrative action: 1) denying the enforcement request of the Division of State Human Resource Management (SHRM); and 2) denying Martin Carluccio's appeal from the Motor Vehicle Commission's (the MVC) decision to remove his name from a list of eligible candidates based upon an unsatisfactory background investigation.FN1 Carluccio subsequently sought reconsideration, and, on June 1, 2010, the CSC denied the request. This appeal followed.
FN1. The SHRM is now the Division of State and Local Operations.
FN2. The record does not contain the grounds upon which Carluccio's probation was violated.
Carluccio was among 334 eligible candidates for the position of “Safety Specialist Trainee, DMV” on a civil service list promulgated on November 15, 2007.FN3 Carluccio's name appeared on three certifications, one each for Morris, Monmouth and Camden counties. Carluccio was offered the position contingent upon a criminal background check.
FN3. The MVC was formerly known as the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
In his written response, Carluccio stated that his 1998 conviction resulted from a domestic incident that [he] allowed to get out of control due to alcohol and immaturity.” Carluccio offered as proof of his rehabilitation: a Certificate of Good Conduct issued by the Parole Board in December 2007, recognizing that his employment as a Code Enforcement Official “would not be incompatible with the welfare of society,” and a letter from the Parole Board indicating the certificate “may be applied to your proposed employment as a Safety Specialist”; a commercial driver's license with a Hazardous Material Endorsement, along with letters from the federal Transportation Security Administration approving Carluccio's application for the endorsement and its renewal after finding he posed no security threat; a certificate of membership in the Italian-American Police Society of New Jersey; a diploma from the Chubb Institute issued in April 2002; an Inspector's License issued by the MVC for employment by a private contractor, Parsons, that operated motor vehicle inspection stations from 2002 to 2005, and letters of recommendation from a supervisor who worked for the MVC and Carluccio's sister, who was also employed by the MVC; and several letters of recommendation from friends in the law enforcement community. Carluccio cited provisions of the Rehabilitated Convicted Offenders Act, N.J.S. 2A:168A-1 to -16 (the RCOA), in further support.
Carluccio appealed, and, on May 13, 2008, SHRM notified Carluccio that it denied the MVC's request, his “name remain[ed] active on the eligible list” and his “appeal [wa]s moot.” SHRM also notified the MVC that it “ha[d] failed to provide justification as to how [Carluccio's] criminal record adversely relate [d] to a position that involves the inspection of motor vehicles and the administration of the driver's examination.” SHRM instructed the MVC to include Carluccio on the three certifications, but the MVC refused. SHRM referred the matter to the CSC for enforcement, and Carluccio filed a direct appeal with the CSC.
[D]isqualification and rejection of Mr. Carluccio under the provisions of Title 39 [was] justified.... N.J.S. 2A:168A-1 and N.J.S. 2A:168-2 allow for the disqualification of an individual based on a prior criminal conviction, provided that the disqualification is based upon a law or rule or regulation or a prior conviction that adversely affects the individual[']s employment. Clearly, Title 39 is the statute that allows the [MVC] to disqualify Mr. Carluccio from employment, based on his serious prior criminal conviction that the [MVC] reasonably believes adversely affects his employment.
Carluccio filed a response contending that the MVC's “interpretation and application of [T]itle 39 [was] in error.” He alleged that “the position ... was in Inspection Services and not in Driver Testing,” and he would “not give driving tests” nor be “involved in any way with the driving test process and therefore [would not be] 'directly or indirectly involved in the issuance or processing of driver's licenses, identification cards, driving records, or vehicle registrations and titles.' ” Carluccio further alleged that “while [he] was employed at Parsons” pursuant to a license issued by the MVC that was “renewed in 2004, 2006, and 2008,” he “worked on State property and had constant, extensive contact with customers.” Carluccio also argued that the MVC failed to consider the impact of the RCOA.
In its July 27, 2009, decision, the CSC rejected Carluccio's argument that N.J.S. 2A:168A-3 “preclude[d]” the MVC from “disqualifying or discriminating” against him in light of his Certificate of Good Conduct and MVC-issued inspector license. The CSC concluded that N.J.S. 2A:168A-3 was “normally applied in situations where the agency issues a license or certification so that an individual may engage in a particular type of employment”; thus, the statute did not apply because the MVC “[wa]s acting as a public employer,” and “not ... as a licensing agency.” The CSC further found that, while pardon or expungement prohibits an appointing authority from rejecting an eligible person based upon a conviction, Carluccio was neither pardoned nor was his conviction expunged.
The CSC contends that the RCOA does not apply and it properly considered the provisions of other applicable statutes. It further argues that its decision should be affirmed because it was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.
We have considered these arguments in light of the record and applicable legal standards. We reverse and remand the matter to the CSC for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
We note the well-recognized standards that guide our review of agency action. Appellate courts have “a limited role” in the review of administrative agency determinations. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194, 26 A.3d 1059 (2011) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579, 410 A.2d 686 (1980)); In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 482, 924 A.2d 525 (2007). “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.' ” Stallworth, supra, 208 N.J. at 194, 26 A.3d 1059 (alteration in original) (quoting Henry, supra, 81 N.J. at 579, 410 A.2d 686 (in turn citing Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562, 189 A.2d 712 (1963))).
(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.
“[I]f in reviewing an agency decision an appellate court finds sufficient credible evidence in the record to support the agency's conclusions, that court must uphold those findings even if the court believes that it would have reached a different result.” In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 657, 731 A.2d 35 (1999); see also Carter, supra, 191 N.J. at 483, 924 A.2d 525 (noting that a reviewing court “may not substitute its own judgment for the agency's, even though the court might have reached a different result”).
(8) any evidence of rehabilitation, including good conduct in prison or in the community, counseling or psychiatric treatment received, acquisition of additional academic or vocational schooling, successful participation in correctional work-release programs, or the recommendation of those who have had the applicant under their supervision.
h. Any evidence of rehabilitation, including good conduct in prison or in the community, counseling or psychiatric treatment received, acquisition of additional academic or vocational schooling, successful participation in correctional work-release programs, or the recommendation of persons who have or have had the applicant under their supervision.
As noted, the CSC concluded that N.J.S. 2A:168A-3 was “normally applied in situations where the agency issues a license or certification so that an individual may engage in a particular type of employment.” It held that the statute did not apply because the MVC “[wa]s acting as a public employer,” and “not ... as a licensing agency.” Carluccio argues this was error. For the reasons cited below, we need not address this discrete issue.
It is true that the few reported cases interpreting the RCOA have done so in the context of applications for specific vocational licenses. See Maietta v. N.J. Racing Comm'n, 93 N.J. 1, 459 A.2d 295 (1983) (application for a groom's license); In re C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc., 79 N.J. 344, 399 A.2d 637 (1979) (determining that the RCOA did not apply to licenses issued under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, N.J.S. 33:1-1 to -97); Storcella v. Dept. of Treasury, Div. of State Lottery, 296 N.J.Super. 238, 243, 686 A.2d 789 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 149 N.J. 141, 693 A.2d 110 (1997) (Lottery Commission license); Bevacqua v. Renna, 213 N.J.Super. 554, 517 A.2d 1215 (App.Div.1986) (application for a license as an electrical subcode official and inspector).
Since those cases were decided, however, the Legislature significantly broadened the reach of the RCOA by enacting L. 2007, c. 327, § 1-10 (eff. date Aug. 1, 2008), now codified as N.J.S. 2A:168A-7 to -16. No reported case has interpreted these new provisions of the RCOA.
a. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, a certificate may be issued in accordance with the provisions of this act that suspends certain disabilities, forfeitures or bars to employment or professional licensure or certification that apply to persons convicted of criminal offenses.
The Parole Board is a “supervising authority,” N.J.S. 2A:168A-7(c)(3), authorized to issue such a certificate “to a qualified offender.” N.J.S. 2A:168A-8(b)(1) and (d)(1).FN4 Such a certificate “may suspend disabilities, forfeitures and bars generally within the limits of [the RCOA], or only certain disabilities, forfeitures and bars, specifically named in the certificate document.” N.J.S. 2A:168A-8(b)(2) and (d)(2).
FN4. N.J.S. 2A:168A-8(c) precludes the issuance of a certification to certain offenders. The exclusions are not relevant to this appeal.
A certificate issued pursuant to [N.J.S. 2A:168A-7] shall be presumptive evidence of the subject's rehabilitation when considered in regard to public employment as defined in this act, or in conjunction with any licensing, or certification process to which this act applies, which in any particular case may or may not be overcome by other evidence or information. A certificate granted under this act shall not prevent any judicial, administrative, licensing or other body, board, authority or public official from relying on grounds other than the fact of the criminal conviction in exercising any discretionary authority, if any, to suspend, revoke, refuse to issue or refuse to renew any license, permit or other authority or privilege or to determine eligibility or suitability for employment.
The plain language of these amendments to the RCOA extended the statute's reach to “public employment” opportunities. Compare N.J.S. 2A:168A-7 (extending RCOA to “public employment”) with N.J.S. 2A:168A-12 (exempting “private employers” from the RCOA). The Legislature's intent is further evidenced by the legislative history that accompanied passage.
Therefore, “[n]otwithstanding any law to the contrary,” N.J.S. 2A:168A-7(a), a certificate issued pursuant to N.J.S. 2A:168A-8, not N.J.S. 2A:168A-3, is the legislatively-chosen mechanism to “reliev[e] disabilities, forfeitures or bars” to public employment arising from certain prior criminal convictions. In this case, the Parole Board's 2009 certificate, furnished in support of Carluccio's motion for reconsideration, presumptively demonstrated his rehabilitation for purposes of seeking public employment and relieved him of any “disabilities, forfeitures [and] bars” resulting from his 1998 conviction.
employment by a State, county, or municipal agency, but shall not include elected office, or employment in law enforcement, corrections, the judiciary, in a position related to homeland security or emergency management, or any position that has access to sensitive information that could threaten the public health, welfare, or safety.
In this case, without reference to N.J.S. 2A:168A-7(c)(1), the CSC determined “that a Safety Specialist Trainee is not a law enforcement title.” When originally enacted in 1968, the RCOA did not exempt law enforcement agencies from its purview. However, in 1974, the Legislature adopted N.J.S. 2A:168A-6 that expressly exempts “any law enforcement agency.” Ibid.; see also In re C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc., supra, 79 N.J. at 354, 399 A.2d 637 (holding the law enforcement exemption applies to the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control); but see Maietta, supra, 93 N.J. at 7, 459 A.2d 295 (holding the exemption does not apply to the Racing Commission). Because the issue is not squarely before us, we do not consider whether employees of the MVC are “in law enforcement” as that term is used in N.J.S. 2A:168A-7(c)(1). However, referencing the potential duties included in the job description, and concluding that the position of Safety Specialist provided “access to sensitive information that could threaten the public health, welfare and safety[,]” the CSC concluded the position was not “public employment,” as defined by N.J.S. 2A:168A-7(c)(1), to which the RCOA applied.
N.J.S. 2A:168A-16 authorizes the Parole Board to adopt regulations implementing the RCOA. The Parole Board regulations became effective on January 20, 2009. See 41 N.J.R. 618(a). These regulations are now codified as N.J.A.C. 10A:71-9.1 to -9.8, and essentially track the language of the RCOA. Specifically, N.J.A.C. 10A:71-9.2 defines “public employment” in identical language to the statute, thus, providing no elucidation of the phrase “any position that has access to sensitive information that could threaten the public health, welfare, or safety,” the critical exemption from the RCOA's definition of “public employment” at issue here.
N.J.S. 11A:4-4(a) authorizes the CSC to establish the list of eligibles for a job title. The Legislature has delegated to the CSC the authority to “render the final administrative decision” on a variety of appeals, and to “[i]nterpret the application of [the Civil Service Act] to any public body or entity.” N.J.S. 11A:2-6(a), (b), and (e).
In deciding the SHRM's enforcement request and Carluccio's appeal, the CSC “had the right and the duty to interpret and apply the [RCOA] to the dispute before it.” In the Matter of Allen, 262 N.J.Super. 438, 444, 621 A.2d 87 (App.Div.1993). However, “general agency principles provide that administrative actions cannot alter the terms of any statute, nor can they violate legislative policies.” Oches v. Twp. of Middletown Police Dep't, 155 N.J. 1, 27-28, 713 A.2d 993 (1998) (Garibaldi, J., dissenting).
In considering whether Carluccio's potential employment as a Safety Specialist was “public employment” under the RCOA, the CSC was required to recognize that the Legislature delegated to the Parole Board implementation of the 2008 amendments to the RCOA. It is axiomatic that the Parole Board's interpretation of the statute was entitled to some deference. See, e.g., Wnuck v. N.J. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 337 N.J.Super. 52, 56, 766 A.2d 312 (App.Div.2001) (noting that our standard of review requires that we “ordinarily” defer to the “ 'interpretation of statutes and regulations within [an agency's] implementing and enforcing responsibility' ”) (quoting In re Appeal by Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 307 N.J.Super. 93, 102, 704 A.2d 562 (App.Div.1997)).
In issuing the 2009 certificate, the Parole Board concluded that “[n]otwithstanding any law to the contrary,” N.J.S. 2A:168A-7(a), Carluccio was “reliev[ed] [of] disabilities, forfeitures or bars ... to ... public employment” occasioned by his criminal conviction. N.J.S. 2A:168-7(b)(1). By specifically referencing the job title in question, we assume the Parole Board concluded the position of Safety Specialist was “public employment.” N.J.S. 2A:168A-7(c). Further, the certificate was “presumptive evidence of [Carluccio's] rehabilitation.” N.J.S. 2A:168A-9.
To be sure, this presumption “may or may not be overcome by other evidence or information” “in any particular case.” N.J.S. 2A:168-9; see also Storcella, supra, 296 N.J.Super. at 243, 686 A.2d 789 (noting that despite the broad language of N.J.S. 2A:168A-3, the Lottery Commission could “consider the nature of the activities underlying the crimes committed ... and the impact that licensing someone who had conducted an illegal lottery, especially on the very same premises covered by the license, will have on the public's perception of the integrity of the Lottery”). Additionally, “grounds other than the fact of the criminal conviction” may inform the appointing agency's exercise of its “discretionary authority.” Ibid. However,in the first instance, the 2009 certificate specific to the title in question established that Carluccio's conviction did not disqualify him from eligibility for the position, “[n]otwithstanding any other law to the contrary.” N.J.S. 2A:168A-7.
In its decision denying Carluccio's appeal and his motion for reconsideration, the CSC did not reference the above-cited regulations or the preeminent role the Legislature assigned to the Parole Board in implementing the amendments to the RCOA. Because we are not confident that the CSC properly considered the effect of the amendments to the RCOA and the Parole Board's issuance of the 2009 certification in reaching its decision, we are constrained to remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The appellate record does not contain the job description for the position of Safety Specialist Trainee, although the MVC, the CSC and Carluccio referenced various portions of it in their submissions that were part of the record below. We cannot discern whether the Parole Board was supplied with the actual job description when it issued the 2009 certificate. The appellate record only contains the certificate and letters the Board sent to Carluccio announcing its determination and enclosing the certificate. On remand, the CSC may permit the MVC to submit the entire job description to the Parole Board for consideration and determination as to whether the position of Safety Specialist MVC provides “access to sensitive information that could threaten the public health, welfare, or safety.” N.J.S. 2A:168A-7(c)(1). The CSC may consider the Parole Board's response on remand.
Page last updated August 19, 2018, and displayed Tuesday 23 April 2019, at 10:41:33 MDT.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v.