Court Opinion

ID: 9928299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 15:07:13.246276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:34.742888
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1546-22

IN THE MATTER OF JILLIAN
BARON, HUDSON COUNTY,
DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS.
____________________________

                Argued December 13, 2023 – Decided January 31, 2024

                Before Judges Currier and Firko.

                On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service
                Commission, Docket No. 2022-2919.

                Arthur J. Murray argued the cause for appellant Jillian
                Baron (Alterman & Associates, LLC, attorneys; Arthur
                J. Murray, on the brief).

                Priscilla E. Savage argued the cause for respondent
                Hudson County, Department of Corrections (Chasan
                Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo, PC, attorneys; Cindy
                N. Vogelman, of counsel and on the brief; Priscilla E.
                Savage, on the brief).

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

PER CURIAM
      Appellant Jillian Baron appeals from the January 18, 2023 final agency

decision by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) removing her as a Correctional

Police Officer with the Hudson County Department of Corrections (HCDOC).

We affirm.

                                       I.

      Baron was hired by the HCDOC in 2015 as a Correctional Officer and her

job title later changed to Senior Correction Police Officer (SCPO). At the time

of the hearing, Sergeant Alfredo Castro (Alfredo) 1 had been employed by the

HCDOC for thirteen years. He has been married to Heidi Castro for twenty-two

years, and they have two sons. Alfredo and Heidi lived separate and apart from

each other from February 2020 to February 2022, but never legally separa ted or

divorced. From 2016 until 2021, while Baron and Alfredo were both employed

by the HCDOC, they were romantically involved and had twins together. In

2017, Heidi learned about Baron and Alfredo's relationship when Baron was

pregnant. According to Baron, Alfredo told her he was getting divorced from

Heidi.

1
  Parties who share a last name with other parties are referred to by their first
names for ease of reference. By doing so, we intend no disrespect.
                                                                           A-1546-22
                                       2
       On May 9, 2021, which was Mother's Day, Alfredo went to his mother

Elizabeth Castro's house to visit his family for a brunch. At 1:00 p.m., Baron

arrived uninvited with the four-year-old twins. Upon arrival, the twins chanted,

"Daddy's a liar." Baron sat on the couch in Elizabeth's living room and made a

"snide" remark stating she did not think Alfredo would be there because he had

told her that he was going to his aunt's house in New York City. Baron tried to

talk to Heidi, but Heidi told her not to address her.

       Alfredo tried to ignore Baron and left the room with the twins. Elizabeth

told Baron to leave because she was not invited, but she refused to leave until

she was "ready." Baron also replied, "Why can't Heidi leave?" Eventually,

Baron went to the bedroom to get the twins and left. As she walked past the

kitchen, Baron told Alfredo's and Heidi's sons, "Your father's a liar. He f***s

me."

       At that point, Heidi screamed at Baron, who responded by calling Heidi

"a stupid b****." The twins started crying, so Alfredo's and Heidi's youngest

son took them outside.      Baron and Heidi's verbal argument escalated to a

physical altercation when they grabbed each other's hair and clothing . Baron

tried to "chest bump" Elizabeth, who was holding her hands out to prevent Baron

from approaching Heidi and lead Baron out of her home. Baron is 6'2" tall, and

                                                                          A-1546-22
                                         3
Elizabeth is between 5'2" and 5'3" tall. When Heidi tried to separate Baron and

Elizabeth, Baron grabbed Heidi's face, twisted it, and scratched with her nails.

Alfredo tried to get in between Baron and Heidi to stop the fight. Alfredo, his

father, and his brother separated them and escorted Baron out of the house.

      Elizabeth called the police, who took statements from everyone,

photographed the injuries inflicted on all three women, and prepared an incident

report. On May 10, 2021, Alfredo submitted an incident report to the HCDOC.

Heidi and Elizabeth filed citizen complaints against Baron in Bogota municipal

court, and Baron filed a citizen complaint against Heidi, which were all later

dismissed.

      On May 17, 2021, the HCDOC issued a Preliminary Notice of

Disciplinary Action (PNDA) to Baron alleging insubordination, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-

2.3(a)(2); conduct unbecoming an employee, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6); neglect

of duty, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(7); and other sufficient cause, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-

2.3(a)(12). The PNDA did not specify the basis for the other sufficient cause

violation under N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(12). In addition, Baron was charged with

violating several HCDOC Custody Staff Rules and Regulations (2017); Section

III, Paragraph F of the HCDOC Ethics Policy (2019); and sections 1, 3, 6, 7, 8,

and 20 of the Discipline Section of the Hudson County Employee Handbook.

                                                                          A-1546-22
                                       4
        Following three days of departmental hearings, the Hearing Officer

upheld the charges and Baron was removed from her position effective May 10,

2022. The HCDOC issued Baron a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action (FNDA)

memorializing the Hearing Officer's decision. The FNDA noted Baron got into

a physical altercation with Heidi and that during the altercation, Alfredo

"attempted to get in between Heidi, his wife, and Officer Baron, the mother of

his twins, to separate the two as they were entangled and hard to separate."

        The FNDA listed Baron's progressive disciplinary actions "of major and

minor consequences" as follows:

              • June 19, 2015 A.N.P. 2 (1-day fine); November 13,
              2015 A.N.P. (three-day fine); March 6, 2016 D.N.R. 3
              (five-day fine).

              • December 4, 2017 - December 10, 2017 - Minor
              disciplinary action of five-day suspension for neglect
              of duty and other sufficient cause.

              • June 28, 2018 - Served with notice of immediate
              suspension because was charged with simple assault
              and was served with a restraining order.

              • July 2, 2018 - Indefinite suspension pending outcome
              of disciplinary hearing, stemming from being charged
              with violation N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1A (1). On June 22,
              2018, Officer Baron caused bodily injury to Officer

2
    Absent no pay.
3
    Did not report.
                                                                          A-1546-22
                                        5
            Alfredo Castro, during a domestic violence dispute by
            jumping on his back, placing him in a headlock and
            punching him in the face several times.

            • December 13, 2018 - Officer Baron signed settlement
            agreement for a ninety-seven (97) working day unpaid
            suspension from July 2, 2018 - November 19, 2018.
            Officer Baron pled guilty to insubordination and other
            sufficient cause stemming from events that occurred on
            June 22, 2018, in which Officer Baron cause bodily
            injury to Officer Alfredo Castro during a domestic
            violence dispute.

            • April 2, 2019 - Suspended without pay pending
            outcome of hearing stemming from incident that
            happened on March 25, 2019, in which HCDOC was
            informed by the Ridgefield Park Police Department that
            Officer Baron was involved in a domestic violence in
            with Sgt. Alfredo Castro (the victim) and was charged
            with simple assault. PNDA served on April 4, 2019.

            • August 20, 2019 - Officer Baron signed settlement
            agreement for a ninety-nine (99) working day
            suspension, time served and agreed to take anger
            management/domestic       violence     training/therapy.
            Officer Baron pled guilty to the charge of Other
            Sufficient Cause detailed in the April 4, 2019 PNDA.

      Baron appealed from her termination to the CSC, which referred the

matter to the Office of Administrative Law as a contested case for a fair hearing.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted a two-day hearing and

considered the testimony of Alfredo, Heidi, Elizabeth, and Baron.

                                                                            A-1546-22
                                        6
      Alfredo testified there were no rules at HCDOC prohibiting his

relationship with Baron, and they were no longer in a relationship. During the

May 9, 2021 incident, Alfredo stated he and Baron were "off-duty" and "in

civilian clothes." Alfredo testified about a June 22, 2018 incident with Baron

when they got into a fight as she grabbed his watch. The police arrested Baron,

and a complaint was filed against her in municipal court. On March 24, 2019,

Alfredo stated he and Baron got into a fight over a set of keys, and he was hit in

the eye with the keys. The police responded and took statements from Alfredo

and Baron.

      Alfredo testified that temporary restraining orders had previously been

entered against both him and Baron, but no final restraining orders were ever

issued. Alfredo testified he has never been disciplined by HCDOC because of

his relationship with Baron. He also stated that Baron and Heidi were never on

good terms. Alfredo played a recording he made a month after the incident

where Baron stated that she "should have knocked the s*** out of [his] mother."

      In contrast to Alfredo's testimony, Heidi testified the hostility began on

Mother's Day the moment Baron showed up. When Elizabeth opened the front

door, the twins entered and yelled, "Daddy's a liar." Heidi testified about the

photographs taken by the police on the day of the incident depicting scratches

                                                                            A-1546-22
                                        7
on her face, scratches on Elizabeth's face, and one depicting pictures of Baron's

arms. Heidi explained that Baron had "harassed" her previously "with multiple

phone calls and showing up outside her house and screaming [Alfredo's] and the

children's names at 3:00 a.m." In addition, Heidi testified that Baron showed up

to two of her older son's baseball games and "made scenes there." As a result

of mediation of the municipal court matters, Heidi and Baron agreed to mutual

no-contact orders.

      Heidi also testified about a police report filed in 2018 based on terroristic

threats made telephonically after Baron became upset when Heidi and Alfredo

reconciled. Heidi described prior incidents with Baron. Heidi contacted an

internal affairs investigator at HCDOC because Baron had harassed her over the

phone. Heidi stated Baron would call her incessantly on some days, about forty

times, with twenty to thirty minutes between the phone calls. Four years earlier,

Heidi testified Baron made "terroristic threats" and "threatened to kill [her ]."

On cross-examination, Heidi denied ever telling Baron she would shoot her in

the stomach, killing her children.

      Elizabeth testified she hosted Mother's Day—May 9, 2021—at her home

and only her sons Alfredo, Ambal, Jr., and their immediate families were

invited, including the twins. When Baron arrived uninvited, Elizabeth stated

                                                                             A-1546-22
                                        8
she began to "antagonize Heidi immediately." According to Elizabeth, Baron

cursed at Alfredo's and Heidi's boys, told them she "was still having sex with

their father and that he f**** inmates."

        Elizabeth testified she asked Baron to leave, but she refused, and Heidi

began screaming at Baron after hearing what she said to her sons. After asking

her to leave a second time, Baron then "shoved" Elizabeth and a "scuffle"

ensued. Elizabeth testified she pulled Baron's "pants to try and drag her out the

front door" while her husband and Alfredo tried to separate them. After Baron

was removed from her house, Elizabeth testified she called the police and filed

charges against her. Elizabeth identified a photograph depicting scratches on

her neck inflicted by Baron. On cross-examination, Elizabeth testified she has

known Baron since she was three months pregnant with the twins and

previously, Baron "would always call before coming to the house." Elizabeth

clarified she did not have a relationship with Baron "where she would just 'drop

in.'"

        Baron testified she was driving to IHOP on the date at issue, stopped at

Elizabeth's house to wish her a Happy Mother's Day, and tell her she was unable

to purchase cards or flowers but wanted to buy Elizabeth lunch. Baron explained

that one of the reasons she went to Elizabeth's house was because Alfredo had

                                                                           A-1546-22
                                        9
texted her that he was going to be at his aunt's house. Baron denied knowing

there was a family gathering at Elizabeth's house that day, and she thought she

and the twins were invited by Elizabeth to be there.          Baron admitted, in

hindsight, once she realized that Alfredo and Heidi were at Elizabeth's house,

she should have left.

      Prior to May 9, 2021, Baron testified she had met Heidi five to seven

times. In response to a question posed by the ALJ, Baron testified as she was

leaving the back room of Elizabeth's house, where she had spoken to Alfredo,

he called her a "liar," pulled her hair, and said, "You [are] going to get it you

c*** b****." Baron decided to stay because the twins were crying, and she did

not want them to get "[riled] up." When Elizabeth told her to leave, Baron

testified she began walking towards the door, turned around to ask for her twins,

and Alfredo pushed her, causing Baron to fall and hit her head on the doorknob.

When Baron tried to get up, her eyeglasses fell off and she felt her hair being

grabbed and the back of her head getting punched.

      After Baron stood up, Alfredo was standing between her and Heidi, and

Heidi was punching her. Baron denied pushing Elizabeth and claimed she had

to "put both of [her] forearms in front of [her] and both . . . fists above [her]

head" to protect herself. Baron testified she told Elizabeth to call the police and

                                                                             A-1546-22
                                       10
while waiting for them to arrive, Alfredo tried to break her cellular phone by

throwing it at her car. At Baron's request, the police photographed her hand to

illustrate she was not injured and did not hurt Heidi. Baron photographed her

car to show the damage caused when Alfredo threw her phone against it. She

also photographed the wound on her arm.

      On cross-examination, Baron elaborated on her disciplinary record and

testified she received a five-day suspension in December 2017 because she had

inadequate legal representation. Baron stated she did not think the five -day

suspension was appropriate because she was a new employee at the time and

was unfamiliar with HCDOC's rules and regulations. In April 2018, police

responded after Alfredo accused Baron of hitting him with a closed fist. In June

2018, Baron testified she was charged with simple assault after she accused

Alfredo of throwing her to the ground, however, an Internal Affairs investigation

revealed that she fell by herself "in an attempt to stage a false report of assault."

      Baron testified about a PDNA that was issued in July 2018 that stated

during a parenting exchange of the twins, Baron jumped on his back and put him

in a headlock while punching his face. Consequently, in December 2018, as a

result of the incident, Baron stated she was suspended for ninety-seven days.

                                                                               A-1546-22
                                        11
      In August 2018, Baron testified she was suspended for ninety-nine days

after being charged with assault. Baron estimated the police had responded to a

"domestic situation" between Alfredo and herself four or five times before May

9, 2021. She claimed to be the victim of domestic violence and later attended

domestic violence survivor therapy.

      Baron agreed she should have been disciplined for her conduct related to

the May 9, 2021 incident but not terminated because she was not the aggressor.

In light of the therapy and counseling she had completed, Baron testified she

was confident this type of incident would not happen again. Baron testified she

"had healed from domestic violence" and could "move on with [her] life and be

a correctional officer, be a sergeant and, . . . show [her] kids a legacy." Baron

stated HCDOC had used "selective discipline" to target her as a female and a

victim of domestic violence. Baron denied the twins were chanting anything as

they entered Elizabeth's house on the day of the incident and disagreed with

Elizabeth's testimony that she only went to her house on previous occasions so

Elizabeth could babysit the twins.

      When Heidi saw Baron on the day of the incident, Baron testified she had

no hostility towards her, but Heidi stated, "shut the f*** up, do not speak to me."

Baron testified she knew Heidi didn't like her but thought she could just ignore

                                                                             A-1546-22
                                       12
her. Baron testified she has not been able to carry her service weapon since

August 2017 because her aunt called the police believing Baron was suicidal.

Baron testified she voluntarily checked herself into a psychiatric ward, where

she stayed for a few hours. Baron admitted to writing offensive Facebook posts

about Alfredo being a neglectful father and sharing photographs of him in

uniform with labels stating, "deadbeat father, liquor, sex, dating inmates,

steroids, ego, reputation, lies," leading to a complaint being filed against her

with HCDOC on August 5, 2021.

      On cross-examination, Baron conceded she made the statements in the

recording, but refuted Heidi's testimony that she had ever threatened to kill

Baron by presenting pictures of text messages from Alfredo to Heidi. In one

message, Alfredo wrote: "Heidi you threatened to kill her and the kids . . . she

has that recorded. I[f] she throws that in our faces at the custody trial it [will]

bite me in the a[**]." In another message, Heidi wrote: "I told her I would shoot

her and she said[,] '[O]h you [are] going to kill me' and I told her I would shoot

her in the leg so she could be a stay at home mom and collect benefits like she

wants to."

      At the close of the evidence and after considering written summations, the

ALJ issued his Initial Decision on December 7, 2022, sustaining only the

                                                                             A-1546-22
                                       13
conduct unbecoming an officer charge under N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6). The ALJ

found after Baron entered Elizabeth's house, she knew the situation could

become volatile, and made "extremely poor" choices.            The ALJ found

Elizabeth's testimony was the most credible because it was "straightforward and

believable" and not based on emotion. The ALJ found Alfredo's testimony was

not credible because it was "directed at deliberately downplaying his position of

conflicts with [Baron]."

      Regarding the incident in question, the ALJ noted Heidi's credibility was

adversely affected by the threats she made against Baron, and her account of the

events that day was consistent with other witness's testimony. The ALJ found

Baron's testimony was credible in some respects, but "her self-portrayal as an

innocent victim of circumstance during the May 9, 2021 event," "downplaying

her substantial disciplinary history, and further downplaying . . . her highly

negative previous interactions with Heidi . . . problematic." The ALJ concluded

that "Baron was not the victim of domestic violence or that Alfredo had ever

been convicted of a domestic violence offense or disciplined by HCDOC." The

ALJ found the only two instances of assault were perpetrated by Baron.

      In finding Baron not guilty of violating N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(7), neglect

of duty, the ALJ noted the altercation took place while Baron was off -duty and

                                                                           A-1546-22
                                      14
was not related to her job responsibilities. The ALJ also determined Baron was

not guilty of insubordination under N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(2) because the

altercation was not related to her job, and she was not guilty of violating "other

sufficient cause" under N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(12) because there were no alleged

violations of HCDOC rules and regulations stated in the FNDA.

      In addressing Baron's disciplinary record, the ALJ described it as "poor"

and "troublesome," and emphasized that her two major disciplinary actions

occurred within only four-and-a-half months of each other. The ALJ explained

the May 9, 2021 incident alone would have resulted in her termination, but

"when the second incident was added to the first one," it was the ALJ's

"impression" that Baron's attorneys "kept the penalty to the ninety-nine days,

rather than a longer suspension or termination." The ALJ concluded termination

was appropriate based on "the relative severity of the offense" and Baron's

"checkered disciplinary history and the short duration of [her] employment."

      The CSC upheld the ALJ's decision sustaining the charge and decision to

terminate Baron's employment given her disciplinary record.            The CSC

determined the ALJ's factual findings, credibility determinations, and legal

conclusions were not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, and the ALJ's

application of progressive discipline principles was warranted.        The CSC

                                                                            A-1546-22
                                       15
accepted and adopted the ALJ's factual findings, legal conclusions, and penalty

in a January 18, 2023 order. This appeal followed.

      Baron raises the following arguments for our consideration:

            (1) despite the ALJ dismissing three of the four charges
            levied by the HCDOC against Baron, neither the ALJ
            nor the CSC took that fact into account when
            formulating the penalty in this matter;

            (2) the ALJ inappropriately speculated that Baron's
            prior major suspensions would have been worse had it
            not been for "good lawyering";

            (3) the ALJ improperly categorized this discipline as a
            third domestic incident instead of the first and only
            interaction between Baron and Heidi;

            (4) the testimony of the four witnesses the ALJ heard
            and considered was in equipoise;

            (5) the record showed in the prior face-to-face meetings
            between Baron and Heidi, there was never any physical
            contact;

            (6) Baron's prior discipline stemmed from altercations
            with Alfredo, not Heidi; and

            (7) the notion of progressive discipline is not served by
            imposing removal on Baron for the FDNA issued in this
            matter.

We reject these arguments and affirm.

                                                                         A-1546-22
                                      16
                                        II.

      Our role in reviewing the decision of an administrative agency is limited.

In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011). We accord a strong presumption of

reasonableness to an agency's exercise of its statutorily delegated responsibility,

City of Newark v. Nat. Res. Council in Dep't of Env't. Prot., 82 N.J. 530, 539

(1980), and defer to its fact finding, Utley v. Bd. of Rev., 194 N.J. 534, 551

(2008). We will not upset the determination of an administrative agency absent

a showing that it was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; that it lacked fair

support in the evidence; or that it violated legislative policies. Lavezzi v. State,

219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014); Campbell v. Dep't of Civ. Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562

(1963).

      As particularly relevant here, our deference extends to the agency's choice

of a disciplinary sanction. In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 28 (2007). "[W]hen

reviewing administrative sanctions, 'the test . . . is "whether such punishment is

so disproportionate to the offense, in light of all the circumstances, as to be

shocking to one's sense of fairness."'" Id. at 28-29 (quoting In re Polk, 90 N.J.

550, 578 (1982)).

                                                                              A-1546-22
                                        17
                                        A.

      Baron argues her termination should be overturned, and she should be

reinstated because the ALJ did not give proper weight to his finding that she was

not guilty of violating three of the four charges. Baron contends neither the ALJ

nor the CSC took the three "not guilty" findings into account when determining

the penalty in this matter. The HCDOC argues the severity of Baron's conduct

combined with her disciplinary record, supports the ALJ's decision to terminate

and should be affirmed.

      When imposing penalties, the CSC has long considered progressive

discipline principles, which are based on the notion that "past misconduct ca n

be a factor in the determination of the appropriate penalty for present

misconduct." Herrmann, 192 N.J. at 29. The CSC has applied progressive

discipline in two ways: (1) to "support the imposition of a more severe penalty

for a public employee who engages in habitual misconduct," id. at 30; and (2)

"to mitigate the penalty for a current offense," id. at 33. Progressive discipline,

however, need not "be applied in every disciplinary setting." Ibid. Rather,

progressive discipline may be bypassed "when the misconduct is severe, when

it is unbecoming to the employee's position or renders the employee unsuitable

                                                                             A-1546-22
                                       18
for continuation in the position, or when application of the principle would be

contrary to the public interest." Ibid.

      When progressive discipline is applied, "an employee's past record with

emphasis on the 'reasonably recent past' should be considered." Stallworth, 208

N.J. at 199 (quoting West New York v. Bock, 38 N.J. 500, 524 (1962)). "This

includes consideration of the totality of the employee's work performance,

including all prior infractions." Ibid. (emphasis omitted). "The number and

remoteness or timing of the offenses and their comparative seriousness, together

with an analysis of the present conduct, must inform the evaluation of t he

appropriate penalty." Ibid.

      However, progressive discipline is not mandatory, and the ALJ can

fashion a penalty without regard to the public employee's disciplinary history if

they committed severe misconduct, acted in a manner that is "unbecoming" to

their position or that "renders the[m] . . . unsuitable for continuation," or if

applying progressive discipline "would be contrary to the public interest." Id.

at 33; see also In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 484 (2007) (explaining that the

application of progressive discipline is not "fixed and immutable" and that there

are "some disciplinary infractions . . . so serious that removal is appropriate

notwithstanding a largely unblemished prior record").

                                                                           A-1546-22
                                          19
      On appeal, the court must ask "whether [the] punishment is 'so

disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be

shocking to one's sense of fairness." Polk, 90 N.J. at 578 (quoting Pell v. Bd. of

Ed., 313 N.E.2d 321, 326 (N.Y. 1974)).

      Law enforcement officers are also held to a higher standard of conduct

than other individuals because they are "held up as . . . model[s] of proper

conduct."   In re Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136 (App. Div. 1960).              They

"represent[] law and order to the citizenry and must present an image of personal

integrity and dependability in order to have the respect of the public."

Moorestown v. Armstrong, 89 N.J. Super. 560, 566 (App. Div. 1965).               In

disciplinary matters involving police and corrections officers, the court may

consider public safety concerns. Carter, 191 N.J. at 485.

      Against this backdrop, we are satisfied the CSC's imposition of

termination was in accordance with the applicable law, supported by sufficient

credible evidence, and was therefore neither arbitrary, capricious nor

unreasonable. In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567, 579 (1990). As noted, the ALJ

categorized Baron's prior disciplinary violations as minor or major and

determined her disciplinary record was "poor" and "her history is troublesome."

Additionally, Baron had two significant suspensions only four and a half months

                                                                            A-1546-22
                                       20
apart from each other, and the May 9, 2021 altercation occurred less than two

years later.

      The ALJ's determination was supported by evidence in the record. The

ALJ considered the sustained infractions in tandem with Baron's ninety-seven-

day suspension in 2018, and ninety-nine-day working suspension in 2019. The

record therefore contained sufficient evidence for the ALJ to conclude Baron

should be terminated.

      Additionally, we are satisfied termination falls within the "continuum of

reasonable outcomes," Henderson, 235 N.J. at 145, and is not "shocking to one's

sense of fairness," Herrmann, 192 N.J. at 28-29 (quoting Polk, 90 N.J. at 578).

The ALJ was not tasked with balancing the charges Baron was found not guilty

of to determine her penalty. Rather, the ALJ's analysis focused on the type of

offenses that Baron had been found guilty of in the past and the penalties

assessed against her. We are satisfied the CSC's decision to terminate Baron

was consistent with progressive discipline principles.

                                       B.

      Next, Baron argues the ALJ should not have speculated about the effect

of her prior legal representation relative to her previous disciplinary record.

Baron contends the ALJ improvidently gave the impression that she "ha[d]

                                                                         A-1546-22
                                      21
already been cut a break . . . thereby eliminating the need to do her any favors

stemming from this matter."

      Here, the ALJ reasoned Baron's conduct was sufficiently egregious to

warrant termination. We conclude the ALJ's comment was simply dicta and

does not invoke an erroneous interpretation of the law. Melnyk v. Bd. of Educ.

of Delsea Reg'l High Sch. Dist., 241 N.J. 31, 40 (2020). Given our deferential

standard of review, the record amply supports Baron's termination as the

appropriate disciplinary penalty.

                                      C.

      Baron also argues the ALJ mischaracterized the subject altercation as

another incident of her "assaulting [Alfredo] or his family member" and ignored

the fact that she and Heidi had previously seen each other without fighting.

Baron contends her prior disciplinary violations involved Alfredo, not Heidi,

and the May 9, 2021 altercation should not be viewed as another domestic

violence incident with Alfredo, but separately, as the first incident between

Baron and Heidi. We reject Baron's unsupported contention.

      The record reflects the ALJ described Baron's conduct on May 9, 2021 as

another assault on Alfredo or one of his family members. However, the ALJ

compared the May 9, 2021 altercation in relation to the rest of Baron's

                                                                          A-1546-22
                                      22
disciplinary record and found "there were obviously some differences in the

exact nature of the incidents."     Therefore, Baron's assertion that the ALJ

misconstrued the history and nature of altercations between Alfredo, Heidi, and

Baron is entirely without merit.

                                       D.

      Baron asserts that even though she admitted to violating the conduct

unbecoming a public employee regulation while off-duty, HCDOC failed to

sustain its burden of proof on this charge because the witnesses' testimony was

contradictory, and therefore, she should not have been found guilty of the

charge.   At best, Baron contends the evidence was in equipoise.         Baron's

argument is wholly without merit.

      Conduct unbecoming a public employee is an "elastic" phrase that "has

been defined as 'any conduct which adversely affects . . . moral[s] or efficiency

of the [employer] [or] which has a tendency to destroy public respect for . . .

employees and confidence in the operation of . . . services." Emmons, 63 N.J.

Super. at 140 (quoting In re Zeber, 398 Pa. 35, 43 (Sup. Ct. 1959)). A public

employee does not need to violate a specific departmental rule to violate

N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6). Phillips, 117 N.J. at 576. For example, in Hartmann

v. Police Dep't of Ridgewood, we reasoned that if their conduct was proved on

                                                                           A-1546-22
                                      23
remand, two police officers who were alleged to have rolled down an

embankment while fighting, resulting in one officer discharging their personal

firearm, could be guilty of conduct unbecoming a public employee. 258 N.J.

Super. 32, 34-35, 39-40 (App. Div. 1992).

      In this case, the ALJ had the opportunity to hear testimony and assess

credibility. The CSC was "bound by the credibility determinations of the ALJ

unless arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable." Klusaritz v. Cape May Cnty., 387

N.J. Super. 305, 315 (App. Div. 2006). Significantly, Baron has not identified

any credibility determinations or findings of fact of the ALJ as arbitrary,

capricious, or unreasonable.

      The ALJ determined Baron showed up at Elizabeth's home on the day in

question and was the "instigator" and "the primary 'bad actor'" of the altercation,

telling the twins to chant "Daddy's a liar," insulting Heidi, making inappropriate

comments to her, making sordid comments to Heidi's and Alfredo's sons, and

refusing to leave. The ALJ observed Elizabeth's testimony was "straightforward

and believable," and that Alfredo was not credible because of his "demeanor and

reluctance to answer questions" and his minimizing prior issues with Baron.

Overall, the ALJ found Heidi's testimony was credible but was undermined by

her disingenuous testimony about the recording.         And, the ALJ provided

                                                                             A-1546-22
                                       24
background for how his assessment of credibility of Baron's testimony affected

his conclusion, noting "her self-portrayal as an innocent victim of

circumstance," downplaying her substantial disciplinary history, and "her highly

negative previous interactions with Heidi." The ALJ emphasized that both

Elizabeth and Heidi's versions of events confirmed Baron refused to leave when

asked, and she started the fight. The evidence therefore was not in equipoise

and fully supported the ALJ's determination that Baron was guilty of conduct

unbecoming a public employee.

      To the extent we have not specifically discussed any remaining arguments

raised by Baron, we conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in

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

      Affirmed.

                                                                          A-1546-22
                                      25