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

As reported by nj.com, unions representing Jersey City municipal employees have filed an appeal with the state Civil Service Commission, challenging some 100 layoffs the administration has carried out so far this year.

The city changed titles of politically-connected employees to avoid laying them off, kept temporary employees on staff for longer than it is supposed to, and generally made it impossible for state officials to determine whether the city’s layoff plan was the result of good-faith efforts, the appeal alleges. The city has laid off nearly 100 workers this year and is scheduled to lay off an additional 16 workers in the next few weeks.

City officials have “been doing so many egregious things for years,” according to Chuck Carroll, president of the Jersey City Public Employee Inc. Local 246, one of three unions that filed the appeal. “They are like the gang that couldn’t shoot straight,” Carroll said of city officials.

The appeal doesn’t seem likely to save the jobs of any recently laid-off employees, according to a source that did not want to be identified.   The city defended the layoffs. “While difficult, the layoffs were necessary due to loss of revenue and were properly implemented for reasons of economy and efficiency and approved by the Civil Service Commission, pursuant to state statute,” said city spokeswoman Jennifer Morrill.

Morrill said she couldn’t comment further since the matter is now in litigation. But a city official who asked not to be named made it clear what the city thinks of Carroll’s allegations. “They’re false,” the official said. “They’re (unions members) upset, they’re angry, but they’re not pointing to any specific examples because there are none.” Carroll said he has plenty of examples he has submitted with the appeal.

According to Civil Service Commission spokesman Peter Lyden, the appeal will be sent to the Office of Administrative Law, where it will go before an OAL judge. After a hearing, the judge will forward a recommendation to the CSC, which will then make a final decision on the appeal. Since July 2010, 748 appeals similar to Jersey City’s have been filed with the CSC, Lyden said.

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

As reported in the Star Ledger on November 10, 2010, hundreds of Newark city police officers, firefighters, and civilian employees, barring a last-minute reprieve, will be laid off on Friday, November 12, 2010 after a judge dismissed a lawsuit aimed at blocking the city’s cost-cutting measures.

Superior Court Judge Patricia Costello told lawyers for the unions filing suit that she did not have the authority to issue a temporary stay to prevent 167 city police officers, 24 firefighters, and several hundred civilian employees from losing their jobs. While the Judge appeared sympathetic to the plaintiff’s claim that layoffs might adversely affect public safety and that the city had not engaged in meaningful negotiations, she said only the state Civil Service Commission can hear such a request.

Judge Costello also voiced frustration that the Commission, which had earlier approved the city’s layoff plan, is now one member short of the minimum needed to hold another hearing. “While the case law is completely clear, it’s hollow if the CSC is not meeting,” she said of the Commission, which is a defendant in the lawsuit along with Newark Mayor Cory Booker. The Appellate Division, however, can rule on the request for a temporary stay, Judge Costello said, and can issue a decision itself or return the case to her with that authority.

Facing an $83 million deficit, the Newark City Council approved the mayor’s budget last month, which includes a total of 866 layoffs and a 16 percent property tax hike. The Commission had earlier approved the city’s layoff plan and deemed an earlier appeal “not ripe” until the layoffs occur.

It is expected the unions will be filing a similar request for a temporary injunction with the Appellate Division. Therefore, please continue to check this blog periodically to ascertain any updates that become available.

• 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