Civil Service Law

Published on: January 25, 2023

New Jersey Civil Service Disciplinary Appeal Decision Examines Progressive Discipline

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 of bully-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.

Published on: January 11, 2023

New Jersey Civil Service Law Provides Employees With Strong Due Process Rights, Appellate Division Explains

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

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 the supreme-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.

Published on: January 5, 2023

New Jersey Age Discrimination in Employment Protections Strengthened

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

New Jersey employment law has long been at the forefront of prohibiting discrimination. Indeed, the Legislature adopted New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination in 1945, long before the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 first banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, and even before the President Harry Truman’s Executive Order desegregating the Armed Forces in 1948. The Law Against Discrimination has been amended many times since then to expand the protections against discrimination in employment, and decisions by New Jersey courts have interpreted the Law to provide much broader protections than those provided by similar Federal statutes such as the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (known as the “ADEA”). However, the Law Against Discrimination is not without its flaws. The New Jersey Legislature acted in 2021 to fix one of these flaws by strengthening the protections against age discrimination.

Prior Loopholes in Age Discrimination Protections

Published on: January 3, 2023

New Jersey Employment Law Decision Examines Arbitrator’s Powers in Principal and Teacher Tenure Hearing Appeals

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

In many areas of New Jersey employment law, the scope of an arbitrator’s powers is a significant question. This is particularly true in the adjudication of tenure charges against New Jersey teachers and principals. The Appellate Division of New Jersey’s Superior Court squarely addressed this issue in the recently published decision in the case of Sanjuan v. School District of West New York.

The Sanjuan Case: Background

The Court explained that Amada Sanjuan was an assistant principal with the West New York Board of Education, after having been hired as a teacher in 1997. On February 12, 2020, she fell down a flight of stairs. Video of the scene showed that after she fell, she removed a piece of paper from her purse and placed it at the top of the stairs. She pointed out the paper to a custodian and teacher who came to help her and explained that the paper caused her fall. Sanjuan was out of work thereafter, but confirmed this version in a signed injury report.

Published on: June 20, 2022

Appellate Division Addresses Notice Required Before Teacher Waives Her New Jersey Tenure Rights

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey employment law provides many protections to employees. One of the strongest of these is the tenure rights afforded to public school teachers. Even with such strong protections, for many reasons employees sometimes decide to forgo these rights. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey recently addressed a question about what notice is required when a full-time teacher voluntarily moves to a part-time position before she will be deemed to have waived her tenure rights to a back-to-school-1576791__340-300x200 full-time position in the case of Parsells v. Board of Education of the Borough of Somerville.

Background

Catherine Parsells was a tenured teacher with the Somerville, New Jersey, Board of Education. She began working there in 2010. In May 2016, a part-time teaching position with benefits became available. She applied so that she could spend more time with her young son, and her application was approved. Thereafter, Parsells went out on maternity leave on February 2, 2017. She advised the superintendent that she intended to return to the part-time job the following year; he advised that she could, but the job would no longer have benefits, and that if she wanted befits she would have to work in a full-time position. She continued part-time and later declined a new full-time position for family reasons. She extended her maternity leave to include the entire 2017-2018 school year.

Published on: May 5, 2022

New Jersey Civil Service Law Allows for Reopening Disciplinary Appeal Based on Newly Discovered Evidence, Appellate Division Explains

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

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 New dc-court-appeals-district-columbia-building-abraham-lincoln-statue-74985350 Jersey State Prison.

Published on: May 2, 2022

The Veterans Preference and Disabled Veterans Preference in New Jersey Civil Service

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

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.

Published on: March 7, 2022

New Jersey Civil Service Examination Appeals

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The bedrock principle of New Jersey Civil Service law is that merit and fitness should be the only factor considered in employment decisions, and discrimination, nepotism, cronyism, politics and bribery should be eliminated in public sector employment. The gateway to this system is the New Jersey Civil Service examination process, which ensures that hiring and promotion are based on merit, not other impermissible considerations. Indeed, the New Jersey Constitution requires that whenever national-gallery-of-art-1380105-m-300x248 possible, merit and fitness for hiring and promotions be determined by examination. The New Jersey Civil Service Act and Regulations implement this constitutional principle. Therefore, the principal means for determining merit and fitness for hiring and promotion of classified, career, permanent civil service employees is the New Jersey Civil Service examination process, which is administered by the New Jersey Civil Service Commission.

Obviously, then, civil service examinations are extremely important to applicants for hiring and promotion. But the human condition is that mistakes occur, and the New Jersey Civil Service system is administered by humans, and so mistakes are made. Therefore there is a process for appeals. Our New Jersey civil service attorneys represent state and local government employees in all aspects of New Jersey employment law, including civil service appeals.

Below is an overview of the New Jersey Civil Service examination system, and how candidates for hiring or promotion can appeal when a mistake is made.

Published on: February 22, 2022

New Jersey Civil Service Disciplinary Procedures at the Employer Level

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

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, 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.

Published on: February 16, 2022

New Jersey Civil Service Discipline

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Background. New Jersey Civil Service exists remove favoritism, nepotism, politics and other improper considerations from employment decisions. This includes Civil Service discipline. Because Civil Service employers are governmental entities, due process and fundamental fairness protections govern discipline. supreme-administrative-court-3565618_960_720-300x200

As far back as 1961, the Appellate Division gave a good summary of Civil Service disciplinary procedures.

Disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant are not only an attempt to determine the status of a particular individual; they are a statutorily authorized action to redress a wrong committed against the people of the State by one in whom the public trust has been officially reposed. The proceedings are therefore penal, or at least quasi-penal, in nature, and deeply embedded constructional principles, supported by fundamental notions of fairness, dictate that in such an action the statute or regulation defining the alleged violation be construed to comport with the fair meaning of the language used. The theme of fairness threads its way through the notice, hearing, and right of appeal provisions of our Civil Service Act, and finds particular pertinence in those sections requiring that the causes for removal constituting ‘just cause’ be enumerated with specificity. The governing consideration, that one be fairly and completely advised of the nature of the charges against him, loses all effectiveness if it is not reinforced by a requirement that the proscribed activities and contingencies warranting disciplinary proceedings be set forth with reasonable particularity and construed accordingly.