A-3889-22/A-2406-23
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.Sep 26, 2025Background
- Howard, a corrections officer in the Essex County Department of Corrections, was assigned to ECCF and involved in a 2018 incident at a suicide-watch unit.
- Inmate L.V. was on suicide watch in the 2D3 unit; the unit required substantial in-person observation under GHU/SHU and Suicide Prevention policies.
- Howard logged Close Custody checks for 1:00, 1:16, 1:30, 1:46, and 2:01 a.m., but admitted not all checks were in-person; she relied on a surveillance camera after 1:46 a.m.
- Camera was obstructed at 1:46 a.m. and L.V. hanged himself at 6:27 a.m.; subsequent surveillance and IA findings alleged falsification of the Close Custody Supervision Report.
- Criminal charges were dismissed in July 2022; the Director issued PNDA(s) and administrative disciplinary proceedings followed, culminating in removal and post-termination back-pay considerations; the Commission affirmed removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of disciplinary charges under 30:8-18.2 | Howard argued the 45-day clock began after criminal dismissal, making the Aug. 31 PNDA untimely. | The Commission applied Roberts to start the clock when sufficient information was received (Aug. 22, 2022), making the Aug. 31 PNDA timely. | Timely; second PNDA was filed within 45 days after sufficient information was obtained. |
| Whether the 180-day rule under 40A:14-201(a) applied | Howard claimed the 180-day rule required reinstatement/payment after Aug. 31, 2022 due to dismissal. | The 180-day rule does not apply where a criminal investigation/charges are involved; police-officer specific statute does not cover correctional officers. | Rule inapplicable; Commission correctly held 180-day rule did not govern this case. |
| Whether the 40A:14-149.2 back-pay provision applies to corrections officers | Howard urged retroactive back pay under this police-officer statute. | Statute applies to police officers, not corrections officers; not controlling here. | Not applicable to corrections officers; back-pay analysis upheld independent of this statute. |
| Whether the ALJ/Commission properly weighed evidence and witness questioning | Howard claimed bias and improper handling of Investigator Conti; argued misapplication of policies. | The ALJ properly assessed credibility, policies were applied correctly, and questioning was within discretion. | Agency decisions supported by substantial evidence and proper application of policy. |
| Whether the Close Custody/Surveillance findings supporting falsification were warranted | Howard argued electronic monitoring plus intermittent in-person checks complied with policies. | Close Custody required fifteen-minute in-person checks for suicide-watch; electronic surveillance could not substitute regular contact. | Falsification proven; policy-supported conclusions to sustain removal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. State, 191 N.J. 516 (2007), 191 N.J. 516 (2007) (interprets forty-five-day framework for disciplinary action in criminal-concurrent investigations)
- Roberts v. State, Div. of State Police, 386 N.J. Super. 546 (App. Div. 2006), 386 N.J. Super. 546 (2006) (premise for Roberts interpretation cited in N.J.S.A. 30:8-18.2 analysis)
- Allstars Auto Grp., Inc. v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n, 234 N.J. 150 (2018), 234 N.J. 150 (2018) (deferential review of regulatory agency decisions; multiple reasonable inferences allowed)
- Clowes v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 109 N.J. 575 (1988), 109 N.J. 575 (1988) (standard of review for agency fact-finding; deference to agency’s credibility determinations)
- State v. J.Q., 252 N.J. Super. 11 (App. Div. 1991), 252 N.J. Super. 11 (1991) (trial-court gatekeeping and credibility considerations in bench trials)