IN THE MATTER OF ALBERTO APONTE, ESSEX COUNTY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION), A-1782-19

Alberto Aponte, an Essex County DOC sergeant with eight years’ service and no prior discipline, tested positive on a random drug test for benzoylecgonine (a cocaine metabolite).
Aponte did not list the substance on his testing medical form and attributed the positive result to ingesting an over-the-counter supplement called Inka Leaf whose bottle did not clearly disclose a banned ingredient.
Aponte had received DOC training about banned coca‑leaf products but testified he did not notice the product label listed a prohibited substance.
The DOC terminated Aponte for violating its drug policy; an ALJ found he was not a drug abuser but violated policy and recommended suspension, demotion, and extended testing.
The Civil Service Commission adopted the ALJ’s recommendation (six months without pay, demotion, twice‑monthly random tests for one year) instead of termination.
The DOC appealed seeking reinstatement of termination; Aponte cross‑appealed claiming involuntary/unknowing ingestion as a defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Aponte)	Defendant's Argument (Essex County DOC)	Held
Whether Aponte’s unknowing ingestion excuses a drug‑policy violation	He unknowingly consumed a banned substance due to the manufacturer’s failure to disclose ingredients; thus no culpability	He violated policy irrespective of intent because he ingested a CDS and failed to declare it	Held against Aponte: his claim resembles involuntary consumption, but given training he was reckless for not knowing the supplement could cause a positive test; culpable for policy breach
Whether termination was required or progressive discipline appropriate	Argued for rejection of discipline only if no violation; sought relief from severe penalties based on lack of intent	DOC argued termination was justified due to positive CDS test and failure to disclose	Held for Commission: progressive discipline appropriate (suspension, demotion, testing) given eight‑year clean record and ALJ’s findings; termination not required
Whether Commission’s decision is supported by substantial credible evidence	Aponte argued the involuntary‑consumption rationale and record context warranted overturning discipline	DOC argued Commission’s decision was arbitrary and unsupported	Held for Commission: appellate review is deferential; decision not arbitrary or unsupported and will not be disturbed

Town of W. New York v. Bock, 38 N.J. 500 (recognition of progressive discipline and mitigation factors)
In re Hermann, 192 N.J. 19 (principles governing appellate review of administrative decisions)
State v. Baum, 224 N.J. 147 (discussion of self‑induced intoxication and involuntary consumption concepts)
N.J. Soc’y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. N.J. Dep’t of Agric., 196 N.J. 366 (standard for reversing agency action: arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by substantial credible evidence)
In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429 (deference and presumption of reasonableness accorded to agency decisions)