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

On September 27, 2010, the Appellate Division decided Briane K. Washington v. Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen’s Retirement System, Docket No.: A-1857-08T1. In the case, Briane Washington (“Washington”), a former Essex County Correction Officer, applied for accidental disability retirement benefits as a result of an incident on February 21, 2005, when an inmate, who may have had HIV and/or AIDS, spit in his face on two separate occasions.

The Board of Trustees of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (“Board”) found that Washington was suffering post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) as a result of the incident and awarded him ordinary disability retirement benefits because he was permanently and totally disabled. However, the Board denied Washington’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits, concluding that he did not satisfy N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7, which requires an employee to be “permanently and totally disabled as a direct result of a traumatic event occurring during and as a result of the performance of his regular or assigned duties.”

Washington appealed the Board’s determination and was granted an administrative hearing. Based on the evidence presented, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined he was ineligible to receive an accidental disability pension. Specifically, the ALJ found there was no credible evidence that the inmate “was actually transmitting a life-threatening disease” and that Washington failed to satisfy the criteria set forth in Patterson for a disabling mental injury.

On appeal, Washington argued that he was entitled to an accidental disability pension because his disability resulted from “a traumatic event” on February 21, 2005. The Appellate Division rejected Washington’s contentions and affirmed the Board’s denial. Specifically, the Court found the Board correctly applied the law and its decision was supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. As such, the Court concluded that the Board’s denial was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.

This case illustrates the importance of a hiring an experienced attorney to assist in the filing of an application for accidental disability retirement benefits. As alluded to by the Court, the law regarding the grant of accidental disability benefits has been drastically altered over the past five (5) years. Consequently, it has become imperative for an applicant to hire an attorney who is familiar with these changes so as to ensure the application is properly considered and/or evaluated. Without doing so, one might fall short and never receive the benefits they are ultimately entitled to.

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

On December 24, 2009, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Eugene I. Otto, Police Department, Township of Irvington, Docket No.: A-1112-08T3. In the case, Eugene Otto appealed from a final decision of the Civil Service Commission finding that his removal as a member of the Irvington Police Department was justified and dismissing his appeal.

On February 1, 2006, Otto was served with fifteen separate disciplinary charges for violating various provisions of the Irvington Police Manual. Various offenses were alleged, including withholding information, failing to perform his duties, insubordination, using derogatory terms, and being untruthful. Following a departmental hearing, all the charges were sustained, and Otto was removed from the force. 

Otto appealed to the Merit System Board, now known as the Civil Service Commission, and a hearing was held before an administrative law judge who sustained the following charges: one count of conduct unbecoming a public employee, two counts of being untruthful, and one count of using derogatory terms. The administrative law judge also concluded that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the remaining charges and they were dismissed. He also concluded that the charge of using derogatory language was not of sufficient import to warrant significant discipline, but the remaining charges constituted “mutinous and disruptive behavior” that, in light of Otto’s disciplinary hearing, warranted his dismissal from the force. The Civil Service Commission agreed.  This appeal followed.

On appeal, Otto contended that the charges against him should have been dismissed as untimely, that certain evidence was insufficient to support the charges against him, and that the punishment of dismissal was arbitrary and capricious. The Appellate Division found: (1) the disciplinary charges were timely filed within 45 days of the prosecutor’s office advising the township that it had determined that Otto’s statements were not truthful; (2) Otto’s actions constituted conduct unbecoming a public employee; (3) Otto’s charges that that department chief had deliberately shirked his responsibilities and acted out of improper racial motivations was not protected speech and therefore was not speech for which he could not be disciplined; and (4) the sanction of removal was not unduly severe give Otto’s disciplinary record and the gravity of the offenses.  As such, the Court affirmed the Civil Service Commission’s decision.

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

Most recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court heard argument and deceided the case of Hemsey v. Police and Firemen's Retirement System, A-15 September 2008 Term, on Certification from the Appellate Division, 393 NJ Super 254 (App. Div. 2007).

Hemsey was hired as a police officer by the City of Trenton in 1973.  In 1998, he retired and began receiving retirement benefits from PFRS.  Most of his employment with the city was spent as a police dispatcher.  In the same year that he retired, Hemsey entered into a consulting contract with the City of Trenton in which he worked directly under the Department's commanding officer and evaluated and worked with police and fire communication center personnel.  In 1999, Hemsey was appointed to the position of Director of Communications.  This was a newly created civilian position of employment.

Thereafter, PFRS requested information from the City regarding Hemsey'e employment and called Hemsey before the board to answer questions regarding the same.  In October 2002, PFRS informed Hemsey that he was required to re-enroll in the reitement system due to the fact that the functions he was performing as a retiree were essentially the same duties that he was performing prior to retirement.  As a result of the ruling, Hemsey's retirement benefits were cancelled  retroactively to January 1, 1999.  Hemsey appealed and the case was sent to the Office of Administrative Law as a contested case. 

The OAL concluded that the retirement benefits were properly cancelled, with  the Appellate Division affirming the decision.  However, the Supreme Court for the State of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division and held that the retirement benefits were improperly cancelled because there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the duties of the two positions were the same and the position of civilian director of communications started six (6) months after Hemsey retired from employment with the police department. 

New Jersey law dictates that an individual who retires and then accepts employment in a PFRS covered position will lose retirement benefits and be required to re-enroll in PFRS, N.J.S.A. 43:16A-3.1.  Hemsey successfully argued that his new position of employment did not meet the statutory requirements that mandated re-enrollment in PFRS.  After a review of all of the credible evidence including testimony and the consulting contract itself, the Supreme Court agreed with Hemsey.

To simplify this case for retirees collecting a PFRS pension and still performing duties in a law enforcement capacity, you must be very careful that your new duties are not substantially the same or similar to the duties for which you are collecting the pension.  Furthermore, the duties associated with the new position of employment must not meet the statutory definition of a PFRS covered position.  Each case is different and will be evaluated on a case by case basis with a thorough evaluation of the facts.  Its always advisable to research and evaluate the facts before you accept re-employment.  It is much easier to draft an employment agreement that falls outside the statutory requirements of PFRS than to have your pension benefits cancelled, whereby you are left with no choice but to appeal the issue before the Office of Administrative Law. 

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