Court Opinion

ID: 9915988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-09 15:07:48.614503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:23:21.066073
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-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
      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
                                       2
      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
                                       3
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
                                        4
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
                                        5
        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 "self-

interested," "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
                                            6
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
                                         7
        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
                                        8
      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
                                         9
      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.

                                                                          A-2733-21
                                       10