IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH CONNORS, CAMDEN COUNTY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION), A-2779-18

On November 9, 2014, inmates reported personal photographs were defaced with the word "Carr." Connors was acting shift commander at Camden County Correctional Facility that day.
Sergeant Pierce supervised the cell search but failed to log which officers searched which cells; several inmates complained and Pierce told Connors about the allegations.
Officer Jacob later told Connors that he saw Officer King writing on photographs; King denied involvement. Connors orally interviewed officers, directed Pierce to prepare a deliberately vague incident report, and instructed Pierce to submit the report and photos to Internal Affairs (IA).
IA did not act until December 1, 2014, when Carr filed a complaint. IA investigator Jones later interviewed witnesses and Connors; Jones concluded Connors failed to properly investigate, document interviews, and recommend discipline.
CCDOC charged Connors and imposed a 30-day suspension. An ALJ upheld the charges; the Civil Service Commission adopted the ALJ’s decision. Connors appealed arguing inadequate credibility findings, violation of the 45-day timeliness rule, denial of Weingarten rights/due process, and failure to apply progressive discipline. The appellate division affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Connors)	Defendant's Argument (CCDOC/Commission)	Held
Whether ALJ/Commission made required credibility findings	ALJ failed to expressly make credibility findings on disputed facts	ALJ implicitly credited testimony in factual findings; record supports conclusions	Affirmed—ALJ’s factual findings show implied credibility determinations and are supported by the record
Whether CCDOC violated 45-day filing rule (N.J.S.A. 30:8-18.2)	Timeliness clock started Nov 9 or Dec 1; charges untimely	Clock began when warden received sufficient information (Jones’s report on Jan 7, 2015)	Affirmed—sufficient information arrived Jan 7; charges filed within 30 days thereafter
Whether Connors was denied due process / Weingarten right to representation during IA interview	Connors was a target and should have been advised of representation rights	Investigator reasonably believed Connors was a witness; information that made him a target emerged during the interview	Affirmed—no Weingarten violation; right attaches only when employee reasonably believes discipline may result and requests representation
Whether Commission should have applied progressive discipline	Connors argued progressive discipline required before 30-day suspension	CCDOC argued misconduct severity and disciplinary history justified bypassing stricter progression	Affirmed—progressive discipline may be waived for severe/unbecoming misconduct and public-interest concerns; suspension reasonable given role and history

Circus Liquors, Inc. v. Middletown Twp., 199 N.J. 1 (2009) (standard for appellate review of administrative decisions)
Campbell v. Department of Civil Service, 39 N.J. 556 (1963) (review limits for agency determinations)
In re Polk, 90 N.J. 550 (1982) (appointing authority bears burden by preponderance in disciplinary appeals)
NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975) (right to representation in investigatory interviews if employee reasonably believes discipline may result)
Roberts v. Division of State Police, 191 N.J. 516 (2007) (sufficient-information rule for timeliness starts when charging authority receives adequate info)
In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19 (2007) (progressive-discipline principle and exceptions)
In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182 (2011) (examples when bypassing progressive discipline is appropriate)
Division of State Police v. Jiras, 305 N.J. Super. 476 (App. Div. 1997) (discipline bypass justified for conduct rendering officer unsuitable)