FREDDIE MITCHELL VS. BOROUGH OF ROSELAND(L-4726-13, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-5752-14T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- Freddie Mitchell, a former Roseland police officer, was charged with misconduct related to a marital dispute and failure to follow departmental remediation orders (e.g., submitting weekly reports).
- A disciplinary hearing was held before a retired Superior Court judge acting as hearing officer, who recommended discharge.
- The Borough of Roseland's municipal council adopted the hearing officer's recommendation and terminated Mitchell.
- Mitchell filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs (Rule 4:69-1) in the Law Division seeking to overturn his termination; Roseland counterclaimed for salary paid during suspension.
- The Law Division affirmed the termination and awarded Roseland recovery of suspended pay, applying an "arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable" standard of review.
- The Appellate Division vacated that judgment and remanded, concluding the trial court applied the wrong standard of review for a municipal employee termination case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of judicial review for Mitchell's challenge to termination | Mitchell argued his termination was illegal, capricious, unreasonable and unsupported by the hearing record; he sought de novo review as a municipal employee not in Civil Service. | Roseland conceded the trial court misstated the standard but argued the court's findings effectively applied the correct standard. | Appellate Division held the trial court applied the wrong standard (used arbitrary/capricious); de novo review is required for municipal employee terminations outside Civil Service. |
| Whether the trial court's factual findings could substitute for de novo review | Mitchell contended the court must independently re-evaluate the evidence without deference. | Roseland contended the court's reasoning shows it effectively performed the correct review. | Court rejected Roseland's position — proper de novo review cannot be inferred; remand required for fresh review. |
| Recovery of suspended pay | Mitchell implicitly challenged forfeiture by contesting the termination's validity. | Roseland sought repayment of salary paid during suspension as part of counterclaim. | Because the standard applied was incorrect, the judgment awarding suspended pay was vacated and remanded for reconsideration under the correct standard. |
| Appropriate remedy and next steps | Mitchell sought reinstatement/overturning of discharge. | Roseland sought affirmation of termination and repayment. | Remanded for proceedings consistent with de novo review; trial court decision vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- 117 N.J. 567 (In re Disciplinary Procedures of Phillips) (de novo review required for municipal employees not protected by Civil Service)
- 214 N.J. 338 (Ruroede v. Borough of Hasbrouck Heights) (discusses standards and review for municipal disciplinary matters)
- 185 N.J. Super. 197 (Romanowski v. Brick Twp.) (supports principle that court must hear matter anew on review)