Articles Tagged with New Jersey civil service attorneys

Published on:

by

New Jersey Civil Service Law provides an effective appeals process for employees to use when challenging discipline imposed by their employers.  This was recently illustrated in the case of In the Matter of Sherman Abrams, Northern State Prison, Department of Corrections.us-1978465__340-300x200

 

Background: The Abrams Case

Sherman Abrams was, and apparently still is, an operating engineer working for the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) at Northern State Prison.  He did not report to work on October 31, November 1, and November 2, 2017.  He received a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action (a “PNDA,” a Civil Service Commission Form 31-A) for excessive absenteeism and unauthorized absences.  The DOC thereafter issued a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action (a “FNDA,” a Civil Service Commission Form 31-B) terminating his employment.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

In my last post I wrote about the Appellate Division case of In the Matter of Ambroise, which demonstrated that employees will get a fair hearing before the New Jersey Civil Service Commission and in appeals to state appellate Courts.  Another recent Appellate Division opinion columns-round-300x201in the case of In the Matter of Christopher Dunlap, Fire Fighter (M1838W), Township of Hillside shows that the Civil Service Commission and Appellate Division are not afraid to call B.S. on employers when the situation warrants.

Background

Christopher Dunlap passed the civil service examination for firefighter, and his name was placed on the eligible list.  His name was certified for employment with Hillside Township.  He completed the application process, but was rejected by the Township for allegedly making a “material misrepresentation” on his application.  Making any “material misrepresentation” in the hiring process will cause an applicant to be removed from the eligible list.  The Township said that he failed to disclose juvenile charges against him.  Facts are everything, so I will quote at length from the Appellate Division’s decision.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

A recent appellate opinion in the case of In the Matter of Ambroise demonstrates that New Jersey civil service employees will receive a fair hearing in appeals with the New Jersey’s Civil Service Commission and appeals courts.us-supreme-court-300x200

Background

Ambroise was terminated as a senior correctional police officer (SCPO) by the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC).  The DOC alleged that Ambroise engaged in oral sex with an inmate at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

New Jersey employment law in the public sector contains few more contentious areas than the confidentiality of the disciplinary and personnel records of law enforcement officers.  A trio of published New Jersey State and Federal court opinions have shed light on this contentious and evolving area of the law.police-1714956__340-300x200

In re Attorney General Law Enforcement Directives: Disciplinary Records

The Legislature has tasked the New Jersey Attorney General with supervising law enforcement throughout the state.  In 2020, in the midst of the George Floyd protests, the New Jersey Attorney General used that authority to issue two directives which would release the names of law enforcement officers who have committed violations resulting in “major discipline,” and to issue summaries of the underlying complaints and discipline imposed. Although the directives apply to all State and local jurisdictions, they define “major discipline” similarly to New Jersey civil service law: suspension of greater than five days, demotion, or termination.  The Attorney General’s given reasons for the directives were to “promote trust, transparency and accountability.”

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Progressive discipline is a concept used in New Jersey civil service discipline law and teacher tenure charges.  It can serve to increase or decrease the severity of a penalty based on the employee’s prior disciplinary record.  Recently, an appellate opinion examined the concept ofbully-3233568__340-300x272 progressive discipline in the context of a civil service discipline appeal in the case of Matter of Stuiso, Bergen County Department of Public Works.

Background

Ronald Stuiso was a maintenance worker for Bergen County. He filled out two repair forms reporting unsafe conditions.   He directed another employee, Francesco Azzollinni, to submit the forms.  Azzollinni met with Vincent Rothenburger, a department supervisor.  Rothenburger raised his voice at Azzollinni, leading Stuiso to intervene and raise his voice at Rothenburger while getting in his face.  The two continued yelling until separated by co-workers.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

New Jersey employment law affords civil service employees with many due process protections when their employer seeks to impose discipline.  The Appellate Division’s recent decision in a civil service discipline appeal in the case of In the Matter of Figueroa, Camden County, Department of Parks examines one of the fundamental principles of these protections – the notice required to be received by thesupreme-administrative-court-3565618_960_720-300x200 employee before discipline may be imposed.

Background

Adrian Figueroa, Jr., was a laborer for Camden County, a civil service jurisdiction, for 5 years.  He was charged with second-degree sexual assault and spent several days in jail after his arrest.  While he was in jail someone, it is unclear who, called and said he was out sick.  Eventually the County learned of the charges and served him with preliminary and then final notice of disciplinary action (a “PNDA” and “FNDA,” Forms 31-A and 31-B) suspending him pending  the resolution of the charges.  They were eventually downgraded and Figueroa pled guilty to harassment, a petty disorderly office.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

A recent New Jersey employment law decision examined the procedures for reopening a Civil Service disciplinary appeal because of newly discovered evidence.

The Newsom Case

In the case of In the Matter of Kevin Newsom, New Jersey State Prison, Kevin Newsom, a civil service employee, was terminated as a corrections sergeant by the Newdc-court-appeals-district-columbia-building-abraham-lincoln-statue-74985350 Jersey State Prison.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

New Jersey Civil Service law give a hiring preference to “veterans” which ranks them higher on eligible lists if they otherwise meet the eligibility requirements.  This is known as the Civil Service veterans preference.

However, not everyone who is considered a “veteran” by the Federal Government, military, or Veterans Administration is eligible for the civil service veterans preference.No photo description available.  Eligible veterans include only those who received a discharge not characterized as dishonorable and who served at least 90 days in World War I and World War II, or who served at least 14 days in the operations area in the following conflicts: the Korean War; the Vietnam War; the Lebanon Crisis of 1958; the Lebanon peacekeeping mission in the 1980s; the Grenada peacekeeping mission in 1983; the Panama peacekeeping mission; Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm; Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch; Operation Restore Hope in Somalia; Operations Joint Endeavor and Joint Guard in Bosnia; Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti (if the veteran received the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for their Haitian service); Operation Enduring Freedom; and Operation Iraqi Freedom. “Veterans” also include service members receiving injuries in those operations regardless of the length of their service in them.

Disabled veterans” are “veterans” of those conflicts who receive compensation of at least ten percent for a service-connected disability arising out of those defined operations.  Certain spouses and parents are also eligible if the veteran or disabled veteran does not or cannot use the preference.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

New Jersey’s Civil Service System was enacted to keep politics, discrimination, favoritism out of employment decisions.  Therefore, civil service employees may only be disciplined for “just cause.”  The New Jersey and Federal Constitutions require that before any  government body may take action against anyone they must receive due process, which is notice, the right to be heard, and fundamental fairness.  Since government employers, even acting in their role as employers, are still the government, tenure-thumb-170x110-48818 employees must receive due process before they can be disciplined.  The New Jersey Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Commission’s regulations implementing it provide that due process to employees.

Written Notice and the Opportunity for a Hearing 

When a government employer wants to discipline a civil service a permanent, career service employee or an employee in a working test period, it must give the employee written notice of the charges and specifications alleged against her (specifications are a statement of the facts underlying the charges) and the opportunity for a hearing at the employer level by the governmental jurisdiction or its designee.  The employer must hold the hearing within 30 days of the notice unless the employee waives her right it.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Under the New Jersey public employment law and Title 18A of New Jersey statute, which governs New Jersey employment law for public school and public college employees, if an employee is actually performing the work of a particular position, even though they are designated in another, they must receive the compensation for the job they are working in.  In other words, public employers can’t underpay employeesbully-3233568__340-300x272 by having them fill a higher or more difficult position while paying them for a lower or less difficult one.  The Appellate Division recently examined these statutes.

The De Facto Employee Laws

Title 18A provides that:

Continue reading
Contact Information
37 Vreeland Ave
Totowa, NJ 07512
Phone: (973) 890-0004
Fax: (973) 256-3641

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2024, McLaughlin & Nardi, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design