IN THE MATTER OF TAKIA JOHNSON, CAMDEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS(CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION), A-1899-15T1

Takia Johnson, hired in 2003 as a Camden County corrections officer, was found to have brought and used a personal cellphone while on duty, including at the jail and while supervising prisoners at a hospital.
During an internal investigation into another officer, texts between Johnson and that officer were discovered; Johnson admitted sending messages, calls, photos, and photographing a partially naked fellow officer without his knowledge and sending it to the other officer.
CCDC issued a preliminary notice charging insubordination, conduct unbecoming, neglect of duty, other sufficient cause, and rule violations; after a departmental hearing Johnson was removed effective June 29, 2015.
Johnson appealed to the Civil Service Commission; an ALJ sustained the charges and recommended removal, the Commission adopted the ALJ’s findings, and Johnson appealed to the Appellate Division.
Johnson argued removal was excessive and that progressive discipline should have mitigated the penalty; the agency relied on both the egregiousness of conduct and Johnson’s prior disciplinary history (17 prior formal disciplinary actions).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether removal was excessive for a cellphone violation	Johnson: first cellphone offense; removal disproportionate; progressive discipline required	CCDC: conduct was knowing, ongoing, breached security, and past disciplinary history supports removal	Removal affirmed — not shocking or disproportionate
Whether progressive discipline was required	Johnson: agency should have mitigated penalty due to limited offense history	CCDC: progressive discipline may be bypassed for severe misconduct and for employees with prior discipline	Court: progressive discipline not absolute; severe misconduct and prior record justify removal
Whether findings were supported by substantial evidence	Johnson: disputes severity and sanction	CCDC/Commission: record contains admissions and corroborating evidence (texts, photos)	Findings upheld as supported by credible substantial evidence
Standard of review for agency sanction	Johnson: asks appellate intervention on penalty	Commission: deference to agency; reversal only if arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by evidence	Appellate Division applied deferential standard and affirmed

In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182 (discusses deference to agency and progressive discipline)
In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19 (supports bypassing progressive discipline for severe misconduct affecting public safety)
In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429 (articulates presumption of reasonableness for agency decisions)
In re Vey, 272 N.J. Super. 199 (agency deference precedent cited)
In re Polk, 90 N.J. 550 (test for punishment being shocking to sense of fairness)
In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474 (progressive discipline context and limits)
In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644 (standard that agency factfindings bind if supported by sufficient credible evidence)
Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (standard for reversing agency decisions)
A.B. v. Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., 407 N.J. Super. 330 (legal conclusions reviewed de novo)