Background - David Kenney, a Burlington County corrections officer, was the subject of an NJ State Police search of his home on October 30, 2008; no charges ultimately resulted. - Kenney did not report the search to his employer before an internal affairs inquiry in 2012/2013; the jail alleged he violated its reporting rules in effect in 2008. - The jail's standard operating procedures (SOP) in 2008 required reporting of incidents that "may negatively impact upon the Jail"; the SOP was amended on June 1, 2012 to explicitly require immediate reporting of any contact with law enforcement. - Burlington County suspended Kenney for twenty working days for conduct unbecoming, neglect of duty, and other sufficient cause; Kenney appealed to OAL and then to the Civil Service Commission, which upheld the suspension. - On appeal to the Appellate Division, the court considered whether the 2008 SOP clearly imposed a duty to report the police search and whether the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kenney) | Defendant's Argument (BCDC/Commission) | Held | |---|---:|---:|---:| | Whether the 2008 SOP required reporting of the NJSP search of Kenney’s home | The SOP was vague and ambiguous; Kenney reasonably believed the search was not a "reportable incident." | The SOP imposed a duty to report incidents that may threaten security; Kenney’s failure deprived the jail of the ability to reassess assignments and protect security. | Reversed: the 2008 SOP was not sufficiently clear to support finding Kenney violated it; substantial evidence lacking. | | Whether the Commission’s decision merited deference under substantial-evidence review | Kenney argued the agency misinterpreted the SOP as imposing a reporting duty it only clarified in 2012. | The Commission and ALJ relied on the pre-amendment SOP and testimony about management’s interest in knowing of investigations. | Court declined to defer on this legal interpretation and found the agency’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. | ### Key Cases Cited In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474 (discussing scope of appellate review of administrative decisions) City of Newark v. Nat. Res. Council, 82 N.J. 530 (presumption of reasonableness for agency exercise of delegated responsibilities) In re Application of Virtua-West Jersey Hosp. Voorhees for a Certificate of Need, 194 N.J. 413 (standard for disturbing agency determinations) Greenwood v. State Police Training Ctr., 127 N.J. 500 (court may not substitute its judgment when substantial evidence supports agency) Mayflower Sec. Co. v. Bureau of Sec., 64 N.J. 85 (courts not bound by agency interpretation of law) Bowden v. Bayside State Prison, 268 N.J. Super. 301 (burden on appellant to show agency action arbitrary or unreasonable) McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super. 544 (appellant bears burden to demonstrate grounds for reversal) Circus Liquors, Inc. v. Governing Body of Middletown Twp., 199 N.J. 1 (review standards for administrative action)