In re Hendrickson, 193 A.3d 854

Background

Fire inspector William R. Hendrickson was terminated by the Department of Community Affairs for uttering an obscene gender-based slur; he appealed to the Civil Service Commission and the matter was heard by an ALJ at the OAL.
The ALJ sustained the misconduct charges but found removal excessive and imposed a six-month suspension, citing lack of prior discipline and mitigation.
The Civil Service Commission lacked a quorum (insufficient appointed members) and thus could not act within the statutory 45-day window; under N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c) the ALJ's recommendation was "deemed adopted" as the agency's final decision.
The DCA appealed; the Appellate Division treated the deemed-adopted ALJ decision differently, affording deference to ALJ factual findings but reviewing the sanction de novo and reinstated termination.
The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification, held that traditional deferential review applies to an ALJ's disciplinary sanction deemed adopted by an agency, and reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the six-month suspension.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What standard of appellate review applies when an ALJ's disciplinary sanction is "deemed adopted" because an agency lacks a quorum?	Appellant Hendrickson: apply ordinary agency deference; the Legislature intended deemed-adopted decisions to be final agency actions with normal deference.	DCA: lesser deference is proper because the Commission could not exercise its expertise; ALJ is not equivalent to agency decisionmakers.	The Court held that traditional deferential review for disciplinary sanctions applies (test: whether sanction is so disproportionate it shocks the conscience).
Whether the ALJ's six-month suspension was excessive compared to termination imposed by DCA	Hendrickson: six-month suspension was reasonable given mitigation and isolated nature of the incident.	DCA: termination was appropriate given the gender slur, public setting, duties involving public safety, and zero-tolerance policy.	The Court held the six-month suspension was within the range of reasonable outcomes and not shocking to one’s sense of fairness; suspension reinstated.
Whether Appellate Division erred by applying bench-trial (de novo legal) review to ALJ-imposed discipline	Hendrickson: App. Div. improperly narrowed review without statutory basis.	DCA: supported App. Div.'s approach as recognizing diminished agency role when Commission disabled.	The Court held the Appellate Division erred; appellate review of such disciplinary decisions is deferential, akin to sentencing review.
Does the Court's holding extend to other agency actions when an agency is shorthanded?	Hendrickson: (implicit) apply same deference to all deemed-adopted decisions.	DCA: argued diminished deference generally where agency cannot employ expertise.	The Court limited its holding to disciplinary sanctions and did not decide the standard for other types of agency decisions when agency is shorthanded.

Key Cases Cited

In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19 (2007) (sets deferential standard for appellate review of administrative disciplinary sanctions)
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (1984) (articulates "shocks the conscience" standard for appellate review of sentencing)
In re Polk, 90 N.J. 550 (1982) (discusses proportionality test for administrative punishment)
King v. Racing Comm’n, 103 N.J. 412 (1986) (construed earlier version of deemed-adopted statute regarding agency delays)
Campbell v. Dep’t of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556 (1963) (describes deference owed to civil service determinations)
In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182 (2011) (agency expertise justifies deference to administrative determinations)
In re Hendrickson, 451 N.J. Super. 262 (App. Div. 2017) (Appellate Division decision applying diminished review and reinstating termination)