New Jersey Public Safety Officers Law Blog : New Jersey Public Safety Employee Lawyer & Attorney : Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman Law Firm : Workers Compensation, Discipline Representation for Police & Firefighters : New Jersey

The Asbury Park Press published an article in today's Sunday edition addressing the ability of The State of New Jersey to honor its pension obligations to those public employees that have been paying into the retirement system since the start of their public employment .  The article, entitled "Can New Jersey Keep its Pension Promises?" unfortunately reiterated the same information that we have been hearing for the last several years.......The Pension System is Broke.

The article stated that as of June, 2009, the state's pension system faced unpaid liabilities in the amount of $45.8 billion dollars.  However, this is assuming that the state receives an annual 8.25% return on its pension investments.  At this point in time, everyone is aware that the State hasn't seen 8.25% for several years now.  Furthermore, many studies have demonstrated that the unfunded liability of $45.8 billion is a conservative estimate and the true unfunded liability is more along the lines of $173.9 billion, with unfunded health care costs reaching $55 billion dollars.  Eileen Norcross, a George Mason University researcher has been quoted as stating, "It's mathematically impossible to pay this out.  It's too large."

However, despite the fact that the public employment pension system is in dire straits, Governor Christie, has made the decision to "skip" the state's 2010 $3billion dollar pension payment. In reviewing the administration's decision to forgo the payment, one has to question if the Christie administration has already given up on attempting to save the state pension system and the countless amount of money that has been withheld from public employee's paychecks on a weekly basis since the inception of the system.  I bet many of you who are reading this article would like to skip a few pension payments or take a "pension holiday" the way that the state, county and local governments have over the last sever years. 

A year or two ago, myself and other attorneys representing public employee labor unions filed suit against the State of New Jersey for failing to fund the State Employee Pension Systems.  An argument was made that the state had a constitution mandate or obligation to fund the pension system.  Unfortunately all of the suits were dismissed under the notion that the state had very broad discretion in making decisions on how to appropriate funds concerning fiscal obligations.  However, the court did leave the door open and stated that a suit would be entertained if pension recipients did not receive payment due to the state's inability to pay.  With that being said, one has to ask the question:  "Wont it be to late at that point in time?"

We will continue to follow this issue on this blog.  You, the public employees of the State of New Jersey, and retired public employees of the  state of New Jersey need to take affirmative steps to attempt to revive your retirement system.  If you do not take immediate affirmative steps to protect your retirement income, unfortunately, it appears as if it will be lost due to government irresponsibility and mismanagement. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

www.state.nj.us/csc/

On July 20, 2010, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Latief Dickerson, Hudson County, Docket No.: A-1323-08T2. In the case, Latief Dickerson appealed from a final decision of the Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) terminating his employment as a corrections officer with the Hudson County Department of Corrections (“Department”).

On May 5, 2006, the Department served a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action on Dickerson charging him with: (1) incompetency, inefficiency or failure to perform duties; (2) insubordination; (3) conduct unbecoming an employee; and (4) neglect of duty. These charges stemmed from Dickerson’s failure to satisfy mandatory training requirements and to obtain permission for his outside employment, as well as his arrest in Tuxedo, New York for various motor vehicle violations and criminal possession of a firearm.

Following a departmental hearing, Dickerson received a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action on July 19, 2006, finding him guilty of the charges and ordering his removal from office effective immediately. Dickerson contested the decision and requested a hearing before the Office of Administrative Law. That hearing was held on January 2 and March 12, 2008, before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”).

After the hearings, the ALJ determined that the Department failed to sustain its burden in sustaining the charges against Dickerson with the exception of conduct unbecoming a public employee by driving a motor vehicle while unlicensed. However, given Dickerson’s extensive prior disciplinary history, the ALJ ordered that Dickerson be fined 90 working days’ pay.

The Commission, upon its de novo review of the record, disagreed with the ALJ’s decision and upheld the Department’s decision to terminate Dickerson’s employment. This appeal followed.

On appeal, Dickerson argued that the Commission erred in failing to affirm the decision of the ALJ. Specifically, Dickerson contended that the Commission imposed an improper standard of review when it stated that it did not “agree” with the ALJ’s determination. Rather, Dickerson argued the Commission has the authority to modify or reverse the decision of the ALJ if the decision was not supported by credible evidence in the record or was otherwise arbitrary.

After considering Dickerson’s arguments, the Appellate Division affirmed the Commission’s determination and sustained the removal. The Court found the Commission’s decision comported with the applicable law regarding the review of ALJ decisions and was supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. Specifically, the Court found, in rejecting and modifying the ALJ’s findings and conclusions, the Commission stated with particularity the reasons for doing so and made new findings supported by competent and credible evidence in the record.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 3, 2010, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Torres Mayfield, Docket No.: A-2969-08T1. In the case, Torres Mayfield appealed from the final decision of the Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) terminating him as an Atlantic City police officer for misconduct.

Mayfield was charged with violations of Atlantic City Police Department Rules and Regulations relating to a domestic dispute involving J.M., who is deaf. In the early morning hours on April 1, 2006, J.M. sought help from police complaining that she was assaulted by her boyfriend, Mayfield. She was bruised and beaten by Mayfield because he thought she was communicating on the computer with an old boyfriend. Mayfield punched her in the face and threatened to hang himself if she left him. That night J.M. was distraught, upset and scared. She was treated in the hospital and photographed.

J.M. eventually dismissed her municipal court charges against Mayfield. She refused to testify at the administrative hearing because Mayfield is the father of her child and they resided together. She was arrested and forced to appear at the administrative hearing. At the hearing, she was defiant and appeared distraught, upset and scared.

During the investigation, Mayfield said that on the night in question he was with Rodney Jamal Armstrong and Ali Cottrell. Mayfield told the investigating detective that when they arrived at his house, J.M. said she was hit by a boot thrown by Mayfield’s son. Armstrong testified he was at a club with Cottrell, but not Mayfield. Armstrong said Mayfield called him telling him and Cottrell about the boot.

The Administrative Law Judge disbelieved the testimony from J.M. that she was struck by a boot. The injuries were not consistent with being struck by a boot, and it was clear to the ALJ that J.M. did not want to contribute to the case against Mayfield. The ALJ found that Mayfield was untruthful by attempting to create an alibi and blame his son. As such, the ALJ found Mayfield assaulted J.M. and was untruthful in his response to the investigation. The Commission adopted the findings of fact made by the ALJ and found the termination of Mayfield as a police officer was justified. This appeal ensued.

On appeal, Mayfield contended the administrative decision was not based on legally competent evidence and that, even if the record supports a finding of guilt, his termination was not in accordance with the principles of progressive discipline.  The Appellate Division rejected his arguments and affirmed his termination. Specifically, the Court found that Mayfield failed to demonstrate that the ALJ’s decision was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Moreover, the Court agreed with the ALJ that Mayfield’s offenses in this case were severe enough to warrant his removal despite lack of a substantial prior disciplinary history.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 1, 2010, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Michael Sottilare, Department of Corrections Hudson County, Docket No.: A-4761-08T3. In the case, Michael Sottilare appealed from a Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) decision affirming the Hudson County Division of Personnel’s termination of his employment with the county’s Department of Corrections.

Sottilare, after more than ten years as a corrections officer, received four preliminary notices of disciplinary action arising from events commencing on November 30, 2005 and continuing through December 23, 2005. The final incident resulted in his termination.

While on leave due to an on-the-job injury, Sottilare was videotaped working at a construction site in contravention of Hudson County’s policy requiring persons on leave to remain at home unless they are receiving medical care or purchasing medication. A disciplinary charge of malingering issued as a result. Shortly thereafter, on December 23, 2005, Sottilare made a telephone call to the New Jersey Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local 109 office in order to obtain legal representation for the hearing scheduled on the malingering charge and to request a postponement. Officer Shaara Marie Green, then the Vice President of PBA Local 109, answered the phone call.

When Green testified before the Office of Administrative Law, she said she told Sottilare that the union could not provide him with legal representation because the Internal Affairs Unit (“IAU”) officers were no longer members. Sottilare had been assigned to IAU since 1995 or 1996. Green also told Sottialre to obtain his own attorney, and gave him the name of the person that his attorney should contact in order to request the postponement.

Green also testified that after she told Sottialre that PBA Local 109 could not provide him with counsel, Sottilare informed her that she was under investigation by IAU. Sottialre explained to Green that surveillance was being initiated because she was reportedly living with an ex-inmate in violation of departmental policy. 

Green immediately telephoned Ricardo Alves, Sottilare’s supervisor at IAU, to report the conversation. When Alves testified, he confirmed that he received a call from Green about the complaint that had been filed against her and that Sottilare had told her that she was the subject of an IAU investigation. Deputy Warden David Krusznis confirmed that Green was being investigated and said that disclosure of the existence of a pending IAU investigation is a violation of departmental policies and procedures, as well as of guidelines promulgated by the Office of the Attorney General.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 20, 2010, a New Jersey judge ruled that a new law requiring public employees to pay at least 1.5 percent of their salaries toward health insurance can go into effect on May 21, 2010.

As reported in the Asbury Park Press, unions for police and firefighters asked the Superior Court for a temporary restraining order that would have kept the law from taking effect in certain situations. The request was part of a larger lawsuit that seeks to block the new law, which is part of the State’s efforts to hold down costs by being tougher on public employees and their unions, including those working for local government.

The new law, championed by Governor Chris Christie, requires the contributions of employees once their current collective bargaining agreements expire. Many public employees already contribute at least 1.5 percent of their salaries to health coverage. Other locals have chosen smaller pay raises to keep free health care, or have switched to inferior insurance coverage to keep it free. 

The unions’ main contention was that the amount employees pay for their health insurance should be worked out in contract negotiations, not imposed by the State. According to the judge, “not every term and condition on which a collective bargaining unit would want to negotiate is fair play.” The judge also rejected the unions’ arguments that the law amounts to an unfair tax on the State’s roughly 400,000 public employees or that the law is vague.

The unions will get another chance to make their case in court later. While the unions ultimately hope to stop the law from being enforced entirely, the main concern in this case was narrow. Police and firefighters are prohibited by state law from going on strike. When their contract negotiations reach an impasse, they go to a lengthy arbitration process. In essence, the unions argued the 1.5 percent payment requirement should not apply to the 215 local unions currently in the arbitration process.

Please continue to check this blog periodically for updates regarding this litigation. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 18, 2010, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Linda Reid, Riverfront State Prison, Docket No.: A-3145-08T2. In the case, Linda Reid appealed from the final determination of the Civil Service Commission sustaining the charges of: (1) conduct unbecoming a public employee; and (2) filing a false report; and the sanction of removal from her position as a Senior Corrections Officer at Riverfront State Prison.

Reid began working as a corrections officer at Riverfront State Prison on July 26, 2002. As a result of an incident occurring on August 6, 2005, she was charged with assaulting an inmate and filing a false report in which she represented she had been the victim. The charges were sustained at a departmental hearing and on April 25, 2007, she was removed from employment. Following an appeal, the contested case was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law, wherein a hearing was conducted on April 30, 2008.

Testimony and evidence were presented by Captain Tommy Stahl regarding the internal affairs investigation, which concluded that Reid had assaulted an inmate and misrepresented that she was the victim; Officers Cherril Davis and Dyshella Kee who were eyewitnesses to the incident and reported that the inmate used profanity towards Reid but did not strike her, and that Reid beat the inmate and falsely claimed he assaulted her; and nurse Evelyn Mamuyac who observed only a slight swelling on Reid’s right cheek and lower lip. Reid testified on her own behalf stating that the inmate used profanities indicating he had to use the restroom after which an argument ensued and the inmate pushed her and hit her in the face, causing swelling to the right side of her face and lip and resulting in a scar under her right eye. She further testified to her exemplary performance assessment review from June 15, 2004 through June 15, 2005.

On November 14, 2008, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued an initial decision, making express credibility assessments and finding Reid engaged in the charged conduct. Based on several inconsistencies in Reid’s testimony, the ALJ discredited her version of the events as self-serving. In determining the appropriate sanction, the ALJ considered Reid’s status as a Senior Corrections Officer, which “subjects her to a higher standard of conduct and responsibility than is required of other public employees.” Consequently, the ALJ found this conduct so egregious as to warrant removal despite the absence of a disciplinary history. On January 16, 2009, the Commission issued a final determination adopting the ALJ’s initial decision as to the charges and the sanction of removal. This appeal ensued.

On appeal, Reid challenged the agency’s determination on the charges as not based on sufficient credible evidence in the record. She further contended the penalty of removal is not reflective of progressive discipline and, as such, the sanction should be reduced.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by various media outlets, Governor Chris Christie announced a 33-bill legislative package on May 10, 2010 that plans to place stricter limits on property tax increases and a put a permanent 2.5 percent limit on annual raises for public workers.

Christie also discussed several potential reforms, including raising the retirement age to 65 from 62; having public employees pay more toward their pensions and allowing towns to discard some civil service rules.

Union leaders have criticized many of the proposals, doubting that they will save much money. They also fear that allowing towns to opt-out of civil service will open the system to more hiring decisions based on patronage.

The proposed legislation includes: (1) a constitutional 2.5 percent cap on the annual increases in municipal, school, and county property tax levies; (2) a 2.5 percent limit on the annual increases of public employee contracts, including wages, health benefits, vacation time, and other perks; (3) limiting the amount of unused sick time that current employees can cash out at $15,000; and (4) allowing towns to opt-out of the civil service system through an ordinance or a petition by 15 percent of the voters.

These new legislative proposals have the potential to impact every public employee in the State of New Jersey. Specifically, the proposal regarding the 2.5 percent limit on the annual increases of public employee contracts, which would affect all public employees, seems to usurp the purpose behind the collective bargaining process and the concept of organized labor. As such, this legislation must be followed closely by all New Jersey Public Safety Officers. Please continue to check this blog periodically to ascertain updates regarding this legislation and its ultimate progression.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 23, 2010, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Keith Curry, Vernon Township, Docket No.: A-4662-07T2. In the case, Keith Curry, a police officer with the Vernon Township Police Department (“the Department”), appealed from a final decision of the Merit System Board (“the Board”) rejecting the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) initial decision reducing his suspension to 15 days and imposing a 30 day suspension for conduct unbecoming a public employee.

On March 31, 2005, a murder-suicide occurred in Vernon Township. Detective Sean Talt participated in the crime scene investigation and took a photograph of the suicide victim on his cellular telephone. Although not involved in the investigation, Curry asked Talt if he could view the photograph, as he had never been involved in such an investigation. Talt forwarded the photograph to Curry via cellular telephone and advised him not to share the photograph with anyone else, describing it as “for police eyes only.” Despite these instructions, Curry forwarded the photograph to a civilian female friend and told her to view it and delete it. However, before being deleted, this individual’s brother viewed the photograph, forwarded it to his own cellular phone, and shared it with several other members of the public.

Curry was charged with conduct unbecoming a public employee and violation of departmental rules and regulations. As to the latter, the ALJ concluded that the Department had not demonstrated a violation of a rule or regulation, but the ALJ concluded that “appellant’s conduct constituted conduct unbecoming a public employee, as it clearly signaled poor judgment.” 

On appeal, Curry does not challenge the finding, but argues that the 30 day suspension imposed by the Board was excessive. The Appellate Division rejected Curry’s argument and affirmed the Board’s determination. After carefully reviewing the record, the Court found no abuse of discretion and was satisfied the Board’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious and the suspension imposed was justified. According to the Court, the police investigation and the rights of the family may have been compromised by the unlawful distribution of the photograph.  Specifically, the Court indicated that there is a significant difference between sharing evidence with a fellow police officer and exposing the same evidence to the public for no good or valid reason.

The case illustrates the importance of law enforcement officers to not disseminate case evidence to the public and be guided in their use of cellular telephones. Though the technology age and the use of cellular telephones has no doubt aided law enforcement and streamlined certain investigations, they have also increased the exposure of law enforcement officers and increased the likelihood of investigations being compromised.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported in the Trentonian on March 12, 2010, Governor Chris Christie is looking privatize State jobs. Yesterday, Governor Christie created a task force to look at ways to privatize State jobs to save money as he tries to find a plug for a projected $11 billion budget deficit for the 2011 fiscal year.

Christie signed an executive order creating the five-person group to look at “every aspect of the way government does business.” He said privatization could narrow the scope of public services provided by the State’s nearly 75,000 workers and increase efficiency. Christie also stated that he would have ordered the audit even if New Jersey was not in dire economic need. Privatizing jobs would inevitably mean layoffs for State workers, but Christie said he had not asked the task force to come back with a specific level of savings.     

The creation of the task force comes just days after the new Republican Governor said he was wrong to think he could alter a deal Governor Corzine made with State workers that allowed them to keep pay raises and take furloughs in exchange for a no-layoff pledge. Democrats estimate that for every 1,000 workers laid off, the State would realize $30 million to $40 million in savings. However, according to Bob Master, spokesman for the Communications Workers of America District 1, privatization is a “failed tactic from the past that’s based on an ideological hostility to government.” Specifically, he indicated, “you get a real deterioration of services and you don’t save any money.” 

Governor Christie’s potential privatization could have an enormous impact upon New Jersey Public Safety Officers. As such, please continue to check this blog periodically to ascertain updates regarding privatization and the workers it will affect.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link