IN THE MATTER OF N.L. VS. OCEAN COUNTY BOARD OF SOCIAL Â SERVICES (CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION), A-0329-15T4

Background

N.L., a Human Services Specialist 2 at the Ocean County Board of Social Services, posted on Facebook after witnessing transgender client being ridiculed in the Board's waiting room.
Her posts defended the client but revealed the client’s nickname and included derogatory remarks about other clients; posts were visible to non-friends including a Board assistant administrator.
The Board suspended N.L. for 60 days for breaching client confidentiality and conduct unbecoming an employee.
An ALJ found a confidentiality breach but not other policy violations, cited mitigating factors (unclear rules, lack of social media training, no intent, clean record) and reduced the suspension to 10 days.
The Civil Service Commission, after de novo review, found both a confidentiality breach and conduct unbecoming, and imposed a 30-day suspension. The Board appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Board)	Defendant's Argument (Respondent/Commission)	Held
Was the Commission’s reduction of the Board’s 60‑day suspension arbitrary or unsupported?	Reduction was arbitrary and disproportionate; original 60‑day suspension was appropriate.	Commission reasonably balanced aggravating and mitigating factors and properly adjusted sanction.	Affirmed: 30‑day suspension upheld as not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported.
Did N.L. breach client confidentiality by posting the client’s nickname?	(Board) Post disclosed client information and breached confidentiality.	(N.L.) Claimed she intended posts for friends only and did not intend to violate privacy.	Held: Confidentiality breach proven; nickname disclosure could indirectly identify client.
Did N.L. commit conduct unbecoming an employee via derogatory social‑media comments?	(Board) Derogatory comments warranted discipline.	(N.L./ALJ) ALJ initially found no other policy violation beyond confidentiality.	Held: Commission found comments vulgar and constituted conduct unbecoming; supported by record.
Was progressive discipline applicable and did it justify reduction from 60 days?	(Board) Original progressive discipline was appropriate; reduction was undue.	(Commission) Progressive discipline and mitigating facts (clean record, unclear rules, lack of training, lack of intent) justified reducing sanction but not to ALJ’s 10 days.	Held: Commission properly exercised discretion and set 30‑day suspension as reasonable compromise.

Key Cases Cited

In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182 (discussing standard of review for Civil Service Commission decisions)
In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474 (articulating when punishment is so disproportionate as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness)
Klusaritz v. Cape May County, 387 N.J. Super. 305 (upholding termination where employee lacked competence to perform duties)