IN THE MATTER OF MARION WILSON, ETC. (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4951-16T3
IN THE MATTER OF MARION
WILSON, CAMDEN COUNTY,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
________________________________
Submitted January 24, 2019 – Decided February 8, 2019
Before Judges Vernoia and Moynihan.
On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service
Commission, Docket No. 2017-74.
William B. Hildebrand, attorney for appellant Marion
Wilson.
Christopher A. Orlando, Camden County Counsel,
attorney for respondent Camden County Department of
Corrections (Howard L. Goldberg, First Assistant
County Counsel, on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent Civil Service Commission (Pamela N.
Ullman, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in
lieu of brief).
PER CURIAM
Marion Wilson, a corrections officer with the Camden County Department
of Corrections (CCDC), appeals from a June 7, 2017 final agency decision of
the Civil Service Commission. The Commission adopted the initial decision of
the administrative law judge (ALJ), entered after a hearing, upholding the
CCDC's decision to demote Wilson from sergeant to corrections officer based
on her admitted violations of various rules, procedures and standards in her role
as a supervisor on September 10, 2015. 1
I.
Wilson does not challenge the Commission's adoption of the ALJ's
findings of fact. The ALJ found that on September 10, 2015, Wilson was
assigned duties as a supervisor of a "special needs/high risk unit" in the Camden
County Correctional Facility. Various written directives pertaining to the unit
require that corrections officers conduct "[c]lose [w]atch checks" of the inmates
in the unit "every [five] minutes" and record the inmates' names and the times
the checks were conducted in a logbook. The directives further require that the
assigned supervisors who are on duty when the checks are made review and sign
1
The Commission also adopted the ALJ's decision imposing a five-day
suspension for Wilson's December 7, 2015 violation of the CCDC's General
Orders #001, #073 and #074 by posting inappropriate comments in "pass on"
books used by the CCDC's staff in the Camden County Correctional Facility.
Wilson does not appeal that portion of the Commission's final agency decision.
A-4951-16T3
2
the logbooks. The logbook entries must be "turned in with the daily paperwork
for each shift."
The ALJ further found that on September 10, 2015, Wilson signed
paperwork showing two corrections officers conducted close watch checks
while Wilson was present in the unit, but a video recording revealed the officers
never conducted the checks.2 That same day, immediately after it was
determined the close watch checks had not been conducted, Wilson was directed
to turn over her "tour notes and post logs" from that morning, but she said she
did not have a post log and had thrown her tour notes in the garbage. Wilson's
trash was collected but no tour notes were found.
The evidence showed Wilson was in charge of the unit, responsible for
ensuring the corrections officers followed the required protocols and conducted
the close watch checks, and Wilson's actions constituted serious infractions in
violation of clear directives that caused a loss of confidence in Wilson as a
supervisor. A CCDC captain testified that she "felt that a demotion . . . was a
fair recommendation of discipline" because Wilson's "actions and [the]
2
The evidence also showed Wilson signed a logbook page that was blank. That
is, as the supervisor with the responsibility for signing off on the corrections
officers' entries documenting their close watch checks, Wilson signed a logbook
page before the officers had actually made any of their entries.
A-4951-16T3
3
[o]fficers not doing their [checks] in a [m]ental [h]ealth area . . . was dereliction
of her duties." The captain testified she "could not trust [Wilson] to supervise
staff" and "[does] not have confidence that [Wilson] could do her job as a
[s]upervisor."
The ALJ found Wilson committed each of the numerous offenses for
which she was charged: failure to perform her duties, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(1);
insubordination, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(2); conduct unbecoming a public
employee, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6); neglect of duty, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(7);
other sufficient cause, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(12); and violating the Camden
County Correctional Facility Rules of Conduct 1.1, violations in general; 1.2,
conduct unbecoming; 1.3, neglect of duty; 1.4, insubordination; 2.10,
inattentiveness to duty; 3.1, supervision; 3.2, security; and 3.6, departmental
reports, and Camden County Correctional Facility General Orders #073 and
#074 and Supervisor General Order #001.
The ALJ noted that Wilson did not dispute that she committed the offenses
charged and challenged only the reasonableness of the demotion as a sanction.
The ALJ noted Wilson's prior disciplinary history, consisting of "several similar
offenses committed within the preceding seventeen years," and including seven
A-4951-16T3
4
similar offenses and "approximately nine" instances of "minor disciplinary
charges" within the previous seven years.
The ALJ considered the concept of progressive discipline and explained
that a "failure to adhere to security precautions" in a correctional facility "could
have potentially serious consequences, which may give rise to a more serious
penalty regardless of the lack of any past disciplinary consequences." The ALJ
further found Wilson's offenses were "critical to [the] security and safety of
inmates and fellow employees." The ALJ rejected Wilson's contention that
demotion was too severe a sanction because it would impact Wilson 's pension
benefits when she retired, finding the argument "fallacious" because it ignored
that the CCDC's "utmost concern" is to provide a safe and secure facility for the
inmates and staff.
As noted, the ALJ concluded the demotion of Wilson was appropriate
under the circumstances presented. In its final agency decision, the Commission
adopted the ALJ's findings and recommendation. This appeal followed.
II.
On appeal, Wilson does not contest the Commission's determination that
she committed the various offenses with which she was charged. She focuses
solely on the discipline imposed and argues the demotion is too harsh. She
A-4951-16T3
5
reprises her claim that the demotion will have a substantial impact on the
pension benefits she will receive during her retirement. 3 Having reviewed the
record and those arguments in light of applicable law, we affirm.
Our review of administrative agency actions is limited. In re Herrmann,
192 N.J. 19, 27 (2007). We will not upset an agency's final quasi-judicial
decision absent a "clear showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable,
or that it lacks fair support in the record." Id. at 27-28. This same deferential
standard applies to our review of the agency's choice of a disciplinary sanction.
Id. at 28. We "accord substantial deference to an agency head's choice of remedy
or sanction." Id. at 34-35 (quoting Div. of State Police v. Jiras, 305 N.J. Super.
476, 482 (App. Div. 1997)).
We review discipline only to determine whether the "punishment is so
disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all of the circumstances, as to be
shocking to one's sense of fairness." In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 195 (2011)
(citation omitted). Moreover, as our Supreme Court has "cautioned, courts
should take care not to substitute their own views of whether a particular penalty
is correct for those of the body charged with making that decision." In re Carter,
191 N.J. 474, 486 (2007).
3
The record reflects that Wilson retired on March 1, 2017.
A-4951-16T3
6
Measured against this standard, we find no basis to reverse the ALJ's
findings and conclusion, which the Commission adopted. Our review makes
plain the Commission's decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence and
that the demotion is justified. Id. at 484; see R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). Wilson's
conduct related directly to her supervisory duties as a sergeant, constituted a
violation of clear and unequivocal directives related to the performance of her
duties and had the potential to affect the safety and security of high-risk inmates
and the corrections officers under Wilson's supervision. In addition, Wilson not
only neglected her clearly defined supervisory job responsibilities, she
intentionally created the false impression that two corrections officers she was
charged with supervising performed duties when they had not.
We reject Wilson's contention the demotion is inconsistent with the notion
of progressive discipline. There is no requirement that progressive discipline be
imposed in every case. Herrmann, 192 N.J. at 33. It is inapplicable "when the
misconduct is severe, when it is unbecoming to the employee's position or
renders the employee unsuitable for continuation in the position, or when
application of the principle would be contrary to the public interest." Ibid. Here,
the evidence supports the Commission's finding that Wilson's conduct
demonstrated she was unsuitable to continue in her role as a supervisor and her
A-4951-16T3
7
continuation in a supervisory position was inimical to the safety and security of
the inmates and staff.
Given the circumstances presented, and Wilson's prior disciplinary
history, the demotion does not "shock[] . . . [our] sense of fairness," Stallworth,
208 at 195 (quoting Carter, 191 N.J. at 484), and we find no basis warranting
reversal of the Commission's decision. Wilson's remaining arguments to the
contrary, including her claim the demotion is too harsh because it will result in
a reduction in her pension benefits, are without sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed.
A-4951-16T3
8