New Jersey civil service attorneys

Published on: February 6, 2022

Some Administrative Details About the New Jersey Civil Service System

The Civil Service Commission

The New Jersey Civil Service System is governed by the Civil Service Act and Civil Service Regulations. Chapter 2 of Title 11A of the Civil Service Act, N.J.S.A. 11A:2-1, et seq., establishes the New Jersey Civil Service Commission (the “Commission”). The Commission is a department of the executive branch of the New Jersey State Government. Administratively it is part of the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Nonetheless, it operates as an independent agency. It is free from control of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development.

The Commission has five members. Three members are required for a forum. This has led to a backlog of cases when less than three have been appointed.

Published on: January 26, 2022

New Jersey’s Civil Service System – Merit, Not Politics

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Some complain that civil service hinders efficient government. Managers object that it limits their ability to run their organizations by hiring, firing and imposing discipline as they believe best. Citizens argue it makes it too hard to get rid of “bad apples.” Employees believe it makes promotions and transfers too difficult. Applicants think the system makes it too hard to get hired. All these criticisms are valid, to a point. megaphone-1480342__340-300x200 However, they miss the mark because they focus on the trees but miss the forest. Life is a series of tradeoffs; every decision is a cost/benefit analysis.

New Jersey’s Civil Service System was adopted to combat grave problems with state and local government. New Jersey has a long history of government corruption; it is by no means a new phenomenon. This history includes a “spoils system” which gave election winners the power to award jobs to their supporters, bribery, favoritism, nepotism, cronyism and discrimination in hiring and keeping government jobs. It was a disgrace. New Jersey was – and is – hardly alone in these problems, but New Jersey took it to another level. Without civil service these problems would continue unchecked. It’s not perfect, but New Jersey is a far better place because of civil service.

In 1908, the early Twentieth Century Progressive Movement led New Jersey to adopt its first civil service laws, and to establish the Civil Service Commission to regulate civil service practices. Then, in 1947, a constitutional convention was held at Rutgers University, in which a new Constitution was adopted. The goal of the constitutional convention was to reform many areas of New Jersey’s state and local government. Article VII, section 1 of the New Jersey Constitution of 1947 provided that:

Published on: January 4, 2022

Employment Law Decision Shows Law Enforcement Applicants Get a Fair Hearing From the New Jersey Civil Service Commission in Psychological List Removal Appeals

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

A recent appellate New Jersey employment law decision in the case of In the Matter of F.S., Police Officer (S9999U), City of Jersey City outlines the procedures for appeals by applicants who were removed from a list of eligible candidates for civil service law enforcement or joe-b-300x200 firefighter positions for psychological reasons. While the candidate lost his appeal, the Appellate Division’s opinion should give candidates faith that they will receive a fair shake before the Medical Review Panel and New Jersey Civil Service Commission.

F.S.’s Application with the Jersey City Police Department

F.S. passed the civil service test and received a conditional offer of employment to become a police officer with the Jersey City Police Department, a civil service employer. The offer was conditioned upon F.S.’s successful completion of a psychological examination.

Published on: October 15, 2021

Appellate Division Reminds Us That Progressive Discipline Doesn’t Always Apply in New Jersey Civil Service Discipline

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The Appellate Division recently issued a decision exploring the limits of progressive discipline in New Jersey civil service discipline in the police-officer-829628_640-300x199 case of Matter of Collins.

Background

Darius Collins was a senior corrections officer at Norther State Prison. He had been a corrections officer for more than two years and had no prior discipline. On January 6, 2019, he was the patrolling supervisor of prisoners in a high security unit. Collins admitted that he left a gate between two floors open. This allowed two prisoners to leave their tier to take unauthorized showers. When they got back the contents of their cells had been destroyed. The prisoners then became out of control and a ten man extraction team was required to get the two inmates back under control.

Published on: August 30, 2021

Appellate Division Reviews Law Enforcement Officer Discipline Under New Jersey Civil Service Law

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The law invests law enforcement officers with significant authority. New Jersey employment law therefore imposes on them a high standard of conduct. And while progressive discipline governs the review of disciplinary infractions, particularly in the civil service context, serious offenses can result in termination even for a first offense. Sometimes these cases are close calls; some are not. A New Jersey appeals court recently examined these principles in the case of In the Matter of Ruiz, City of Perth Amboy, Department of Public Safety. The case is a good examination of some of these legal principles, even though the court found that it wasn’t a close call.

Background

Benjamin Ruiz was police chief for Perth Amboy, New Jersey, a civil service jurisdiction. After being charged in 2014, he was indicted on February 6, 2015 for official misconduct, theft of services and witness tampering. He was suspended with pay and required to turn in his badge and gun. He was acquitted by a jury of all charges on September 20, 2016.

Published on: March 9, 2021

Federal Appeals Court Rules that Psychological Examinations for Applicants for Law Enforcement Officer Positions Cannot Be Used to Discriminate Against Qualified Applicants

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

A Federal Appeals Court’s recent precedential decision in the case of Gibbs v. City of Pittsburgh may have profound implications for New Jersey civil service appeals from psychological disqualification of law enforcement officer applicants.

Background

Christopher Gibbs applied to be a police officer with the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Police Department. He was an honorably discharged Marine and had been accepted for employment with five other law enforcement agencies. Similar to the practice in New Jersey and as required by Pennsylvania state law, after he was found otherwise qualified Pittsburgh offered Gibbs an offer of employment conditioned upon passing an examination to determine whether he was cop psychologically fit for the job. Gibbs had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”). The examining doctor found him unfit because of his ADHD. The psychologists conducting the examination ignored the fact that Gibbs’s ADHD was under control, that five other departments had found him psychologically fit, that he had unblemished records as a police officer and a Marine, and they never explained how Gibbs’s ADHD would interfere with his ability to perform his duties as a police officer.

Published on: December 21, 2020

New Jersey Civil Service Appeal Process is a Two Way Street

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

As we have explained here before, the New Jersey Civil Service appeal process gives civil service employees a meaningful avenue for appealing discipline imposed by their government employers. However, a recent appellate opinion is a good reminder that this meaningful avenue for appeal is a two-way street. police-1714956__340-300x200

The New Jersey Civil Service Appeal Process

When a governmental employer wants to discipline employees with civil service protections, it must first give them a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action (a “PNDA”) listing the charges and specifications against them. Employee then have the right to elect to have a hearing, and whether they do nor not, when final discipline is imposed, the employer must then give the employee a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action (an “FNDA”). For major discipline (a fine or suspension of more than five days, or termination), the employee has 20 days to file an appeal.

Published on: November 19, 2020

Appellate Division Rules that New Jersey Civil Service Appeals Must be Decided Based on Independent Fact-Finding by Administrative Law Judge

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The State and Federal Constitutions require that when the government takes action against someone that person must receive due process. For Civil Service employees, that process is the disciplinary appeals process. Therefore, in the case of In re Smith, Irvington Township, Department of Public Safety, the Appellate Division ruled that an administrative law judge and the Civil Service Commission could not rely on fact findings in a related but separate criminal trial. This is an cop important New Jersey employment law decision, because to meet the constitutional requirements of due process and fundamental fairness, the New Jersey Civil Service disciplinary appeals process must give a meaningful hearing to effected civil service employees.

Monique Smith was a career officer with the Irvington Police Department. On the day that she was promoted to captain, her boyfriend broke up with her by email. Captain Smith went to his apartment after the ceremony, and followed him when she saw him leaving in his car. Smith admitted driving over a center island during her drive. Smith was charged with eight traffic violations for this drive, including leaving the scene of an accident and reckless driving. The Department suspended Smith because of the charges. Based on this incident, Smith was also criminally charged with second degree aggravated assault, fourth degree unlawful possession of a weapon, third degree possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes, and fourth degree criminal mischief. The aggravated assault was dismissed by the State, and the criminal mischief charge was amended to a disorderly persons offense (a misdemeanor). A jury found Captain Smith not guilty of all the charges. The trial judge also heard the traffic offenses and found Smith guilty of reckless driving.

Prior to the decision, administrative disciplinary charges were filed against Smith for conduct unbecoming a public employee and five other violations stemming from the same conduct. A departmental disciplinary hearing was held and a six month working day suspension without pay was imposed. Smith appealed to the New Jersey Civil Service Commission. The Commission referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (the “OAL”) as a contested case. An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) held a two day hearing. The ALJ issued a recommended decision that the charges be upheld but that the penalty be reduced to a ninety day suspension. The ALJ also recommended that Irvington pay half of Smith’s attorneys fees as she was the prevailing party. However, the ALJ based her findings not on the evidence produced at the hearing, but rather wholly on the evidence and findings of fact from the criminal trial. Despite Smith’s exceptions, the Commission adopted the ALJ’s recommended decision, except that the ninety days would be ninety working days and it rejected the award of attorneys fees.

Published on: October 29, 2020

Terminated Firefighter Wins Reinstatement in New Jersey Civil Service Appeal

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

A recent appellate decision in the case In the Matter of Christopher D’Amico, City of Plainfield Fire Department demonstrated once again that New Jersey civil service employees have an effect means of redress for when they are wrongfully disciplined.

civil-servcie
The D’Amico Case

Christopher D’Amico passed the New Jersey Civil Service test and was hired to be a firefighter by the City of Plainfield, a civil service jurisdiction. As part of his application, D’Amico was required to prove their residency. D’Amico submitted several documents, including an insurance card. He admitted that he modified the card to list his actual residence in Plainfield. Plainfield’s hiring committee recommended against hiring D’Amico because of the alteration, but the Fire Chief hired him anyway. D’Amico attended the fire academy. A citizen questioned several cadets’ residencies. The concern about D’Amico was determined to be unfounded, but the City reexamined his application. Even though the address was accurate and the change was known by the City when it hired him – and was admitted by D’Amico – the Director of Public Safety ordered the Chief to terminate D’Amico’s employment. When D’Amico and two other cadets reported to the Department for their first day of work they were fired, in D’Amico’s case not because of his residence, but because of the alteration.

Published on: August 17, 2020

Appellate Division Issues Opinion on Promotion Bypass Appeals Under New Jersey Civil Service Act’s Rule of Three

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Our employment attorneys represent employees in New Jersey Civil Service appeals and disciplinary proceedings. One frequent matter of contention in the New Jersey Civil Service System is bypassing candidates for selection or promotion under the “Rule of Three.”

The Rule of Three

The New Jersey Civil Service Act requires that hiring and promotion must be based on fitness and merit, determined by competitive Civil Service examinations wherever possible. After a test, the New Jersey Civil Service Commission will issue a list of eligible candidates ranked in order of their scores. Hiring and cop promotion must be made according to the eligible candidates’ ranks on the list. However, an exception exists. The Rule of Three allows New Jersey Civil Service employers to bypass eligible candidates ranked higher on hiring and promotion lists in favor of lower ranked candidates so long as they select one of the top three eligible candidates remaining on the list. After each decision to hire or promote, the Rule of Three evaluation begins all over again. So, for example, if the first candidate is selected, the employer may then select any of the candidates ranked second through fourth for the second spot.