IN THE MATTER OF KEITH LAYTON, ANCORA PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES(CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION)
A-0463-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 6, 2017Background
- Keith Layton, a sewage and water treatment plant operator at Ancora Psychiatric Hospital, was arrested in Oct. 2012 for stealing manhole covers and other metal from Ancora and selling them to a salvage yard during work hours.
- DHS placed Layton on indefinite suspension (effective Oct. 12, 2012) and issued disciplinary charges after he entered Pretrial Intervention (PTI) in June 2013; amended charges included conduct unbecoming, leaving assigned work area, falsification of records, and theft of State property.
- Ancora issued a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action on Feb. 11, 2014 sustaining the charges; Layton appealed to the Civil Service Commission and the matter proceeded as a contested case to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL).
- The ALJ held multi-day hearings, heard testimony from multiple DHS/Ancora employees and union representatives, and reviewed a videotaped interview of Layton.
- The ALJ found DHS proved the charges by a preponderance of credible evidence and that no agreement existed to preserve Layton’s employment upon successful completion of PTI; the Civil Service Commission adopted the ALJ’s decision.
- Layton appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and invoking equitable estoppel to require reinstatement; the Appellate Division affirmed, finding the Commission’s decision supported by substantial credible evidence and not arbitrary or capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for termination | Layton: Commission decision not supported by sufficient, competent, credible evidence. | DHS: Record (witness testimony, video) shows theft and related misconduct supporting discipline. | Court: Evidence substantial and credible; Commission’s findings upheld. |
| Equitable estoppel to reinstate employment | Layton: Ancora promised not to remove him if he completed PTI, so he should be reinstated. | DHS: No written or other admissible evidence of such an agreement; no basis for estoppel. | Court: No evidence of agreement; equitable estoppel not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19 (2007) (standard of deference and when discipline shocks sense of fairness)
- In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182 (2011) (three-part appellate review of agency decisions)
- N.J. Soc’y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. N.J. Dep’t of Agric., 196 N.J. 366 (2008) (substantial credible evidence standard for agency actions)
- Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (1979) (articulating arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable standard)