IN THE MATTER OF RUBY SAUNDERS (CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION)
A-2623-14T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 9, 2017Background
- Saunders, a corrections officer recruit at New Jersey State Prison, faced a PNDA (Aug 28, 2013) charging incompetence, insubordination, conduct unbecoming, neglect of duty, and related violations.
- She filed an EED discrimination complaint alleging disability, color, and race discrimination; EED found no discrimination evidence.
- A FNDA dismissed some charges and upheld others, removing Saunders from employment after a departmental hearing.
- An ALJ conducted a hearing and upheld the charges; CSC adopted the ALJ’s findings and removal.
- Saunders appealed to CSC; CSC affirmed, adopting the ALJ’s findings and reasoning; this appeal followed.
- The court held that substantial credible evidence supported the agency’s removal and affirmed the sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Saunders’ removal supported by substantial credible evidence? | Saunders contends the decision was arbitrary and unsupported. | The agency found Saunders failed to conduct a thorough cell search and disobeyed orders, warranting removal. | Yes; the removal was supported by substantial credible evidence. |
| Should progressive discipline apply given the alleged misconduct? | Saunders argues progressive discipline should apply. | The level of seriousness warranted removal notwithstanding progressive discipline. | Progressive discipline not required when misconduct is egregious; removal upheld. |
| Did the ALJ and CSC properly evaluate the credibility and findings? | Saunders argues credibility determinations were flawed. | ALJ and CSC relied on credible testimony; findings supported by evidence. | Yes; credibility and findings supported by substantial evidence. |
| Was the EED discrimination finding properly considered? | Saunders argued discrimination influenced the outcome. | EED found no discrimination evidence; not central to the sanction. | EED finding did not alter the outcome; sanction sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474 (2007) (limited, deferential review of agency decisions; substantial evidence standard)
- Greenwood v. State Police Training Ctr., 127 N.J. 500 (1992) (deference to agency expertise; respect for agency specialization)
- In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19 (2007) (progressive discipline not mandatory where conduct is egregious)
- In re Polk, 90 N.J. 550 (1982) (principle of progressive discipline in agency penalties)