IN THE MATTER OF JUSTINE BRANHAM, CITY OF NEWARK(CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION)
A-1791-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 28, 2017Background
- Justine Branham, a Newark police officer, received a six-day suspension after a May 17, 2010 incident and appealed to the Civil Service Commission (Commission).
- Branham later filed a discrimination action in Law Division that referenced the suspension; OAL proceedings were stayed pending the civil suit.
- In November 2013 Branham settled the civil suit, signing a broad release that did not expressly exclude the pending administrative appeal.
- After the settlement the City moved in the OAL; the ALJ dismissed the OAL matter for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding the ALJ/Commission could not enforce the civil settlement.
- On review the Commission affirmed dismissal on a different ground: it found the Release covered the claims underlying the administrative appeal and thus Branham had released her right to pursue that appeal.
- Branham appealed the Commission decision; the Appellate Division affirmed, enforcing the settlement and upholding dismissal of the administrative appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the civil Release covered the pending administrative appeal | The Release did not encompass the administrative disciplinary appeal | The Release broadly released "any and all claims and rights," which includes the administrative appeal | Release plainly covered and released the administrative appeal; appeal dismissed |
| Whether collateral estoppel or res judicata barred enforcement of the Release | Administrative appeal is distinct and not barred by release or collateral estoppel | Settlement bars relitigation of released claims including those in the administrative forum | Commission correctly found the settlement released the claims; collateral estoppel not a bar to enforcing the release |
| Whether Branham needed separate consent from administrative counsel to settle the civil claim affecting the administrative appeal | Settlement required consent of counsel handling the administrative matter | A party may settle and release claims absent a showing of fraud, mistake, or other compelling grounds | No evidence of fraud, mistake, or other invalidating circumstances; settlement enforced |
| Whether the agency erred in applying/interpretation of the Release and enforcing the settlement | Release ambiguous as to administrative rights; agency overreached | Courts and agencies should enforce clear settlements; agency may determine scope of release | De novo review of legal question; the Release was unambiguous and enforcement was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19 (standards for appellate review of administrative action)
- Brundage v. Estate of Carambio, 195 N.J. 575 (public policy favors enforcement of settlements)
- Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan, 128 N.J. 427 (agreement on essential terms creates enforceable contract)
- De Caro v. De Caro, 13 N.J. 36 (clear and convincing evidence required to undo settlements)
- Brunswick Hills Racquet Club, Inc. v. Route 18 Shopping Ctr. Assocs., 182 N.J. 210 (courts/agencies may not rewrite contracts absent settled equitable principles)