Court Opinion

ID: 9964955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 14:09:40.52575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:50.389515
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0894-22

IN THE MATTER OF LANCE
BENNETTE, DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION.
___________________________

                Submitted April 16, 2024 – Decided May 1, 2024

                Before Judges Smith and Perez Friscia.

                On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service
                Commission, Docket No. 2021-1628.

                Destribats Campbell Staub & Schroth, LLC, attorneys
                for appellant Lance Bennette (Raymond C. Staub, on
                the briefs).

                Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
                respondent New Jersey Department of Transportation
                (Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney General, of
                counsel; Dennis J. Mikolay II, Deputy Attorney
                General, on the brief).

                Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
                respondent New Jersey Civil Service Commission
                (Brian D. Ragunan, Deputy Attorney General, on the
                statement in lieu of brief).

PER CURIAM
      Lance Bennette appeals from the October 12, 2022 final administrative

decision (FAD) of the New Jersey Civil Service Commission (Commission)

upholding the New Jersey Department of Transportation's (NJDOT) major

disciplinary action of a six-working day suspension and payment of restitution

for violations of N.J.S.A. 4A:2-2.3. We affirm.

                                         I.

      Bennette was a construction and maintenance technician for the NJDOT,

which required a valid driver's license. As a technician, he was entitled to

submit work travel expense invoices to the NJDOT for reimbursement of

eligible vehicle mileage accrued. The invoices required a signed certification

stating "I certify that the above expenses are correct in all respects. . . . I also

CERTIFY that on the date(s) when the above items of expense were incurred,

when using my personal vehicle, I possessed a valid driver['s] license."

      In accordance with the NJDOT's "policy/procedure" manual, an employee

was required to "[i]mmediately inform [his or her] supervisor of driver's license

suspension." Further, "[d]isciplinary action must be requested for an employee

who fail[ed] to notify his/her supervisor of the loss of driving privileges."

      On February 7, 2020, the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC)

notified Bennette his driving and registration privileges were scheduled for

                                                                                A-0894-22
                                         2
suspension on March 2 because he "failed to present acceptable proof of his

legal name, date of birth, valid address, social security number, [and] legal

presence in this country." The MVC previously issued a suspension notice on

November 20, 2019, notifying Bennette his "New Jersey driving and registration

privileges [we]re scheduled to be suspended as of [December 14, 2019]

indefinitely." In December 2019, Bennette had provided proof of his birth

certificate, social security card, and residence to the MVC in person, obtaining

a valid license.   After receiving the February 2020 notice of suspension,

Bennette's attorney, by letter dated February 24, 2020, requested a hearing and

a stay of the scheduled suspension. Three days later, the attorney additionally

requested Bennette's "[identification] [s]uspension" hearing to occur on the

same date as Bennette's "passenger endorsement" suspension hearing.

      On March 2, 2020, the MVC advised a hearing was scheduled on April 14

but did not stay the March 2 suspension. On March 13, the MVC advised

Bennette his basic driving privileges:     were "indefinitely" suspended as of

March 2; could be restored "with acceptable proof"; and reinstatement required

a "restoration fee." On June 16, Bennette paid the restoration fee. On June 22,

Bennette emailed the MVC for assistance with his "[s]uspension/[r]estoration

issues." His driving privileges remained suspended from March 2 until July 12.

                                                                          A-0894-22
                                       3
      Bennette failed to advise his supervisor of his license suspension and

continued driving his vehicle for work. Between March and July 2020, he

certified he possessed a valid driver's license in multiple travel expense invoices

for reimbursement. In July, the NJDOT's routine audit of employees' driving

privileges revealed Bennette's suspension. During the NJDOT's investigation

into Bennette's invoices, Bennette admitted to investigator Brian Harshman he

was aware of the suspension but believed it was in error.

      On March 23, 2021, Bennette was served with a preliminary notice of

disciplinary action seeking a six-working day suspension for violating the

"NJDOT Guidelines for Employee Conduct and Discipline."               Specifically,

Bennette was charged with:        failure to report the suspension of driving

privileges, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(12); falsification, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(12);

and conduct unbecoming of a public employee, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6). He did

not request an internal disciplinary hearing. On April 15, 2021, in its final notice

of disciplinary action, the NJDOT issued a six-working day suspension

beginning on May 14, 2021. Additionally, the NJDOT required $1,307.95 in

restitution for the invoices paid. After Bennette challenged the final notice, the

action was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law.

                                                                              A-0894-22
                                         4
      On September 12, 2022, after a two-day hearing during which five

witnesses testified, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a twenty-five-

page initial decision upholding the suspension. The ALJ found Bennette's

testimony that he was unaware of his license suspension in March 2020

inconsistent and lacked credibility, and he knew "that his license was

suspended." Next, the ALJ found credible Harshman's testimony that Bennette

admitted knowledge of the March 2020 order of suspension. She found the

NJDOT had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Bennette: failed to

report his driver's license suspension; falsified travel expense invoices by

certifying to possessing a valid driver's license; and engaged in conduct

unbecoming of a public employee.

      In considering the NJDOT penalty and Bennette's credibility, the ALJ

questioned why Bennette did not report his license suspension to his supervisor

if he had first learned about it in June 2020.     Further, in concluding the

disciplinary actions were appropriate, the ALJ found Bennette's lack of candor

was "an egregious aggravating factor." The Commission then issued an FAD

adopting the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law and dismissing

Bennette's appeal.

                                                                         A-0894-22
                                      5
      Before us, Bennette argues the Commission erred because it failed to:

weigh the COVID-19-related MVC closures and the impact on his suspension;

and acknowledge counsel's correspondence to the MVC requesting a stay of the

suspension.

                                        II.

      Our scope of review of a FAD is limited. In re M.M., 463 N.J. Super. 128,

136 (App. Div. 2020); see also Russo v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret.

Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011). An appellate court may only reverse an agency's

decision where it finds that the decision is "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable

or . . . not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole."

See Azzaro v. Bd. of Educ. of Trenton, 477 N.J. Super. 427, 436 (App. Div.

2023) (quoting G.D.M. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Ramapo Indian Hills Reg'l High

Sch. Dist., 427 N.J. Super. 246, 259-60 (App. Div. 2012)). "While we must

defer to the agency's expertise, we need not surrender to it." In re Thomas

Orban/Square Props., LLC, 461 N.J. Super. 57, 72 (App. Div. 2019) (quoting

N.J. Chapter of Nat'l Ass'n of Indus. & Off. Parks v. N.J. Dep't of Env't Prot. ,

241 N.J. Super. 145, 165 (App. Div. 1990)). The party challenging the FAD has

the burden to demonstrate grounds for reversal. See Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J.

163, 171 (2014).

                                                                              A-0894-22
                                         6
      In determining if an agency's decision is arbitrary, capricious or

unreasonable, we examine "(1) whether the agency's action violates express or

implied legislative policies," (2) whether there is substantial evidence in the

record to support the agency's decision, and (3) whether in applying the law to

the facts, the agency reached a conclusion "that could not reasonably have been

made on a showing of the relevant factors." Allstars Auto Grp., Inc. v. N.J.

Motor Vehicle Comm'n, 234 N.J. 150, 157 (2018) (quoting In re Stallworth, 208

N.J. 182, 194 (2011)). We "afford[] a 'strong presumption of reasonableness' to

an administrative agency's exercise of its statutorily delegated responsibilities."

Lavezzi, 219 N.J. at 171 (quoting City of Newark v. Nat. Res. Council in the

Dep't of Env't Prot., 82 N.J. 530, 539 (1980)). "This is particularly true when

the issue under review is directed to the agency's special 'expertise and superior

knowledge of a particular field.'" Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 195 (quoting In re

Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 28 (2007)). We "may not substitute [our] own judgment

for the agency's even though [we] might have reached a different result." In re

Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 483 (2007) (quoting Greenwood v. State Police Training

Ctr., 127 N.J. 500, 513 (1992)). An appellate court does not automatically

accept an agency's interpretation of a statute or a regulation, and reviews strictly

                                                                              A-0894-22
                                         7
legal questions de novo. See Bowser v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Fireman's Ret.

Sys., 455 N.J. Super. 165, 170-71 (App. Div. 2018).

                                     III.

      We reject Bennette's argument that the COVID-19-related emergency

closure of the MVC "effectively caused his license and driving privileges to be

erroneously suspended," leading to his discipline. The record demonstrates the

MVC's February 7, 2020 letter noticed Bennett of the March 2, 2020 scheduled

suspension of his driving and registration privileges. Bennette specifically

retained counsel, who requested a hearing scheduled for April 14. On March

13, the MVC advised Bennette his basic driving privileges were "indefinitely"

suspended as of March 2. Notably, Bennette had no contraindication that a stay

or reinstatement of his privileges occurred. He had previous knowledge an issue

existed with his driving privileges because he received the November 2019

notice of his license suspension, which he addressed. It was incumbent on

Bennette as a public employee to report his driving privileges suspension

regardless of the COVID-19-related cancelation of his hearing due to the MVC's

closure.

      Bennette's candid admission that he knew his license was suspended, but

believed it was in error, does not negate the violations. Notably, his June 22

                                                                         A-0894-22
                                      8
email to the MVC seeking to "figure out how to overturn a license suspension

that went out on Jan[uary] 2020 for an age verification" further demonstrates his

knowledge. Moreover, Bennette admitted to Harshman he was aware of the

suspension. We conclude that while the COVID-19 pandemic caused the MVC's

closure, clearly making restoration more difficult, it did not obviate Bennette's

requirement to report his license suspension to his superior, maintain accuracy

in his certifications, and demonstrate conduct becoming of a public employee.

The Commission's decision, which accepted and adopted the ALJ's

determination to uphold Bennette's violations and the penalties, is sufficiently

supported by the record and consistent with the applicable law.

      We are unpersuaded by Bennette's argument that the Commission did not

consider his counsel's correspondence with the MVC. In adopting the ALJ's

initial decision, the Commission determined counsel had sent two letters

requesting a hearing and in one requested a stay. We discern no error in the

Commission's decision to accord no further weight to counsel's letters, as they

were immaterial to the determination of Bennette's charges under N.J.A.C.

4A:2-2.3. The record amply supports Bennette's knowledge of his driver's

license suspension, failure to report the suspension, wrongful submission of

certified invoices attesting to a valid license, and unbecoming conduct of a

                                                                           A-0894-22
                                       9
public employee. Even accepting his belief that the suspension was in error,

Bennette was required to follow the NJDOT reporting requirements.

      To the extent that we have not addressed Bennette's remaining arguments,

it is because they lack sufficient merit to be discussed in a written opinion. R.

2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

      Affirmed.

                                                                           A-0894-22
                                      10