Court Opinion

ID: 9948974
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 15:17:01.398931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:25.869334
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                     SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                     APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                     DOCKET NO. A-3663-21

IN THE MATTER OF R.B.,
GARDEN STATE YOUTH
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS.
___________________________

                Argued December 4, 2023 – Decided March 8, 2024

                Before Judges DeAlmeida and Bishop-Thompson.

                On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service
                Commission, Docket No. 2020-2438.

                Samuel Michael Gaylord argued the cause for appellant
                R.B. (Szaferman Lakind Blumstein & Blader, PC,
                attorneys; Samuel Michael Gaylord, on the brief).

                Eric Alexander Zimmerman, Deputy Attorney General,
                argued the cause for respondents New Jersey
                Department of Corrections and Garden State Youth
                Correctional Facility (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney
                General, attorney; Sara M. Gregory, Assistant Attorney
                General, of counsel; Eric Alexander Zimmerman, on
                the brief).

                Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
                respondent New Jersey Civil Service Commission
              (Levi Malcolm Klinger-Christiansen, Deputy Attorney
              General, on the statement in lieu of brief).

PER CURIAM

        Appellant R.B.1 appeals from a July 31, 2022 final administrative decision

by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) terminating R.B.'s employment as a

senior correctional police officer with the New Jersey Department of

Corrections (DOC). We affirm.

                                          I.

        R.B. was hired by the DOC in 2013 and was assigned to the Garden State

Youth Facility. In October 2018, R.B. was arrested for a domestic violence

incident (2018 incident) involving his longtime girlfriend, T.T.       A temporary

restraining order (TRO) was entered, and criminal charges were filed. Both the

TRO and the criminal charges were subsequently dismissed. The DOC did not

impose any disciplinary action.

        On August 28, 2019, Mount Laurel Police Department (MLPD) officers

were called to R.B.'s apartment in the early morning hours concerning a

domestic dispute (2019 incident) between R.B. and T.T. The parties' versions

of the incident differed. When the officers arrived, R.B. was standing outside

1
    We use initials to protect the parties' privacy. R. 1:38-3(d)(9) to (10).

                                                                                A-3663-21
                                          2
on the sidewalk. He stated that he had an "altercation" with T.T. when she was

late getting home from work. According to R.B., T.T. became "agitated" and

"yelled" at him on the phone when she told him that she had a flat tire and was

waiting for roadside assistance. When she arrived at home, she "yelled" that

R.B. did not believe her, and she started breaking household items. R.B. claimed

that he tried to leave the apartment and called police.

      However, when the officers interviewed T.T., she explained that an

argument happened when she arrived at the apartment. According to T.T., R.B.

placed both his hands around her neck and held her down on the bed. She was

able to free herself, but R.B. again grabbed her neck with both hands and held

her against the wall. T.T. stated that her breathing was restricted. She also

stated that R.B. "threw" her into the television, resulting in a broken cable box.

The officers saw visible signs of injury to T.T.'s neck and elbow. T.T. stated

that R.B. had torn necklaces off her neck during the altercation, which were

found by the officers in the hallway.

      R.B. was arrested and charged with third-degree aggravated assault under

N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(13). T.T. applied for and was granted a TRO, which was

later dismissed. T.T. later gave a signed and notarized statement to the MLPD

recanting her prior testimony and instead claimed that she "[did] not remember

                                                                            A-3663-21
                                        3
how the items in the home were broken." The criminal charge was downgraded

to simple assault and subsequently dismissed.

      The next day, on August 29, 2019, the DOC issued a Preliminary Notice

of Disciplinary Action (PNDA), specifying the domestic violence incident

demonstrated conduct unbecoming and violated the DOC's rules and

regulations. R.B. was charged with (1) conduct unbecoming a public employee

under N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6); (2) other sufficient cause under N.J.A.C. 4A:2-

2.2(a)(12); (3) Human Resources Bulletin 84-17, as amended, C-11, conduct

unbecoming of an employee; and (4) Human Resources Bulletin 84-17, as

amended, E-1 violation of rule, regulation, policy, procedure, or administrative

decision.

      R.B. was suspended and removal from employment was recommended.

Following a pretermination hearing, R.B.'s suspension without pay was

continued based on the "severity of the charges" and the "direct impact" of the

charges on Bennett's position as a law enforcement officer.

      In February 2020, the DOC held a disciplinary hearing. After considering

the testimony and documentary evidence from DOC and R.B., the hearing

officer determined the penalty of removal was appropriate. On March 13, 2020,

the DOC issued a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action (FNDA), removing R.B.

                                                                          A-3663-21
                                       4
from his position. R.B. appealed the disciplinary action to the CSC, and the

contested matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL).

      A two-day hearing was held before the administrative law judge (ALJ).

The DOC presented testimony from the following three witnesses: Maria

Jackson, Brian Darcy, and Matthew Jankaitis. Jackson, an investigator in the

DOC's Special Investigations Division (SID), testified that she conducted the

investigation into the 2019 incident and concluded R.B. was the initial

aggressor. R.B. had been placed in a "weapon's restricted post" because of the

TRO and criminal charges associated with the 2019 Incident. She also testi fied

that R.B. did not have a state-issued weapon in connection with his employment.

However, he owned an off-duty weapon that had been confiscated by the

prosecutor's office because of the 2018 domestic violence incident. T.T. did not

respond to Jackson's request for an interview.

      Darcy, a DOC administrative lieutenant, testified that he was shift

commander on the date of the 2019 incident. After he received notification from

the MLPD regarding the domestic dispute, he notified SID and the DOC's

information clearinghouse. Darcy then explained that "correctional officers are

required to conduct themselves in a professional manner both on and off duty

and they are not to act in a way that betrays the public trust." He highlighted

                                                                          A-3663-21
                                       5
Sections 2 and 3 of the DOC rules and regulations that prohibit correctional

officers from engaging in threatening or assaultive conduct. Darcy stated R.B.'s

actions also violated Article 1, Section 2 of the DOC's rules and regulations

because by breaking the law, he violated the public's trust.

      MLPD Officer Jankaitis testified regarding the 2019 incident. He stated

the dispute was a "must arrest" situation based upon his observations at the

scene, which was confirmed by the photographs.

      R.B. testified concerning the 2019 incident. He stated T.T. was late

getting home, and he had called her at approximately 2:30 a.m. When R.B.

called T.T., she said she had a flat tire and was on the phone with roadside

assistance. When T.T. came to the apartment, she "yelled" at him that he did

not believe her. R.B. claimed that he attempted to avoid "confrontation," and as

he attempted to leave, he was "hit with the lamp." When R.B. ran to the closet

to get his uniform, she started to "attack" him using the television, a pot, and

"anything she could get her hands on." He then "dropped everything" and ran

outside because "his job was on the line." R.B. claimed T.T. broke the television

stand. He also was unaware as to how T.T.'s necklaces were on the floor.

According to R.B., T.T. was "lying" about the domestic disputes.

                                                                           A-3663-21
                                        6
      In regard to the 2018 incident, R.B. testified his personal weapon was

confiscated by the Willingboro Police Department as a result of his arrest and

the TRO. As of August 2019, R.B.'s personal weapon had not been returned

because SID was still conducting an investigation.

      In a May 4, 2022 written decision, the ALJ upheld R.B.'s removal,

concluding the "seriousness of these charges relating to the 2019 domestic

violence incident warrant[ed] imposition of the penalty of termination despite

[R.B.'s] lack of disciplinary history." The ALJ reasoned that R.B.'s return to the

position of a senior correctional police officer "would be contrary to the [DOC's]

interest in maintaining the public's trust and confidence."

      On June 20, 2022, the CSC issued a final administrative decision adopting

the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

                                       II.

      On appeal, R.B. argues (1) that the DOC failed to sustain its burden of

proof and (2) the CSC's decision that progressive discipline was not appropriate

was arbitrary and capricious.

      Our review of quasi-judicial agency determinations is limited. Allstars

Auto Grp., Inc. v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n, 234 N.J. 150, 157 (2018) (citing

Russo v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011)). "An

                                                                            A-3663-21
                                        7
agency's determination on the merits will be sustained unless there is a clear

showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair

support in the record." Saccone v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys.,

219 N.J. 369, 380 (2014) (quoting Russo, 206 N.J. at 27) (internal quotation

marks omitted).

      We "afford[] a 'strong presumption of reasonableness' to an administrative

agency's exercise of its statutorily delegated responsibilities." Lavezzi v. State,

219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014) (quoting City of Newark v. Nat. Res. Council, Dep't

of Env't Prot., 82 N.J. 530, 539 (1980)). That presumption is particularly strong

when an agency is dealing with specialized matters within its area of expertise.

Newark, 82 N.J. at 540. We, therefore, defer to "[a]n administrative agency's

interpretation of statutes and regulations within its implementing and enforcing

responsibility . . . ." Wnuck v. N.J. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 337 N.J. Super. 52,

56 (App. Div. 2001). "A reviewing court 'may not substitute its own judgment

for the agency's, even though the court might have reached a different result.'"

Blanchard v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 461 N.J. Super. 231, 238-39 (App. Div. 2019)

(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194

(2011)). However, if there is "any fair argument" supporting the agency action,

it must be affirmed. In re Stormwater Mgmt. Rules, 384 N.J. Super. 451, 465-

                                                                             A-3663-21
                                        8
66 (App. Div. 2006). The party challenging the administrative action bears the

burden of making that showing. Lavezzi, 219 N.J. at 171.

      Applying those standards to our review of the record and R.B.'s

contentions, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in the ALJ's initial

decision, which were accepted and adopted by the CSC. We add the following

comments.

      The CSC adopted and agreed with the ALJ's determination the

"seriousness of these charges relating to the 2019 domestic violence" warranted

removal. New Jersey courts have found the phrase "conduct unbecoming" to be

"elastic" and have defined it to include "any conduct which adversely affects the

morale or efficiency of the bureau . . . [or] which has a tendency to destroy

public respect for municipal employees and confidence in the operation of

municipal services." Karins v. City of Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532, 554 (1998)

(quoting In re Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136, 140 (1960)). Such a finding of

misconduct "may be based merely upon the violation of the implicit standard of

good behavior which devolves upon one who stands in the public eye as an

upholder of that which is morally and legally correct." Ibid. (quoting Hartmann

v. Police Dep't of Ridgewood, 258 N.J. Super. 32, 40 (App. Div. 1992)).

                                                                             A-3663-21
                                        9
      Under the theory of progressive discipline, an agency is not required to

consider progressive discipline in every matter; progressive discipline is not a

"fixed and immutable rule to be followed without question." In re Carter, 191

N.J. 474, 484 (2007).     Progressive discipline is not necessary "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). As correctly noted by the ALJ, R.B.'s 2019

domestic violence incident was considered a violation of the implicit standard

of good behavior expected of law enforcement officers. Therefore, we reject

R.B.'s contention that the CSC failed to utilize progressive discipline, and we

uphold his removal. Consequently, we decline to conclude the CSC's decision

was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

      To the extent we have not specifically discussed any remaining arguments

raised by R.B., we conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in

a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

      Affirmed.

                                                                          A-3663-21
                                      10