IN THE MATTER OF T.L. (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4725-14T2
IN THE MATTER OF T.L.,
CORRECTION OFFICER RECRUIT
(S9988M), DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS.
___________________________
Submitted March 1, 2017 – Decided September 15, 2017
Before Judges Fuentes and Simonelli.
On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service
Commission, Docket No. 2014-1176.
Chatarpaul Law Offices, P.C., attorneys for
appellant T.L. (Jay J. Chatarpaul, on the
brief).
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent Civil Service
Commission (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Pamela N.
Ullman, Deputy Attorney General, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant T.L. seeks that this court reverse the decision of
the Civil Service Commission (Commission) that found her
psychologically unfit to perform the duties of a Corrections
Officer in the Department of Corrections and consequently removed
her name from the list of eligible candidates. Mindful of our
standard of review, we affirm.
Appellant's psychological fitness to perform the duties of a
Corrections Officer was first brought before the Medical Review
Panel on August 24, 2014. The Panel issued its report on August
28, 2014. The parties thereafter filed their exceptions and cross-
exceptions. The report included the psychological evaluation
report by Dr. Matthew Guller on behalf of the appointing authority
completed on August 2, 2013, based on a clinical interview he
conducted on July 31, 2013. "The purpose of the examination was
to determine the presence, if any, of emotional or intellectual
characteristics that would detrimentally affect the subject's
performance in the role of corrections officer."
Dr. Guller described appellant as a "twenty-six-year-old
single female." Appellant responded to the evaluation "on-time
and was well-groomed in a professional manner." Her demeanor was
"friendly and upbeat." She had been unemployed at the time for
seven months, but was taking four college courses. She had served
in the United States Marine Corps from August 2005 to December
2012. Appellant was deployed to Iraq for one tour of duty from
December 2006 to January 2008, and served another tour of duty in
Afghanistan from June 2010 to December 2010. She denied having
had any traumatic experiences while serving in the Marines.
2 A-4725-14T2
However, she was a passenger in a Humvee that "flipped" three
times. Appellant received an Honorable Discharge from the Marines
at the rank of E-5 and specialized in Supply Clerk Maintenance.
She was never disciplined.
In her life as a civilian, Dr. Guller noted that appellant
never had any problems with law enforcement. She confirmed that
she appeared in a police report when her roommate was murdered by
her fiancée while the victim was pregnant. Appellant was not a
suspect in the case. Dr. Guller nevertheless noted that appellant
"described this situation in a bizarrely nonchalant, almost joking
manner[.]" Appellant also told Dr. Guller that she was receiving
a disability pension from the military "but was quite vague" about
the reasons that rendered her eligible to receive this monetary
assistance. She believed it was connected to "her back, ankle and
knees." When Dr. Guller asked if the pension was related to Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), appellant responded: "I don't
recall . . . I think they said I had a mild case of that."
In response to Dr. Guller's request, appellant provided
documentation showing "she is collecting a 60% disability, with
10% assigned to each of the following: her back, right ankle, and
Tinnitus. There is an additional 30% disability assigned for
'Adjustment disorder with anxiety with dipsomania; non-specific.'"
According to Gullere, in the Career Occupational Preference System
3 A-4725-14T2
(COPS) test, appellant "scored extremely high on a number of
categories that suggest problems, including paranoid orientation
(99th Percentile), depression (95th percentile), authoritarianism
(94th percentile), integrity/dishonesty (99th percentile), and
aggression (95th percentile)." Based on these findings and
impressions, Dr. Guller did not recommend appellant for
appointment as a corrections officer.
Clinical forensic psychologist Dr. David Gomberg interviewed
appellant on October 5, 2013, and administered several
psychological examinations on February 6, 2014. She reported to
Dr. Gomberg the same experiences she discussed with Dr. Guller
involving the incident with the Humvee. Dr. Gomberg characterized
appellant as confident, hardworking, industrious, organized, and
responsible. He concluded that she was "eminently qualified" for
employment as a Corrections Officer. Both sides filed exceptions
to the psychologists' conclusions and findings.
The Medical Review Panel "is composed of professionals in the
medical or psychological field." N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.5(g). Here,
the Panel that reviewed appellant's appeal consisted of two
psychologists and one physician. The report the Medical Panel
submitted to the Commission "was concerned about the casual nature
of [appellant's] approach to both understanding of and responding
appropriately to her disability status." The Panel noted that
4 A-4725-14T2
appellant's willingness to continue to collect benefits based on
having sustained service-related injuries, while at the same time
claiming to be fit to work in a correctional institution, "was not
consistent with a role in law enforcement."
After reviewing the evaluations and reports of both Dr. Guller
and Dr. Gomberg, the Medical Review Panel concluded that "the
applicant is mentally unfit to perform effectively the duties of
the position sought, and therefore, the action of the hiring
authority should be upheld." The Commission was not persuaded by
appellant's exceptions and ultimately adopted the Medical Review
Panel's recommendations. Of particular concern to the Commission
was appellant's dipsomania, which it found was "not a good match
for working in a correctional environment." The Commission found
that appellant
has failed to provide any evidence that she
is now free from this disorder as she claims.
Further, the Commission has concerns that if
the appellant was free from dipsomania as she
claims, that she continues to collect pension
from the military for this condition. This,
in and of itself, raises integrity issues for
someone who aspires to a career in law
enforcement and would constitute sufficient
cause for her removal from consideration.
Appellant now argues before this court that the Commission's
decision was arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory. Appellant
claims the Commission wrongly upheld the Department of
5 A-4725-14T2
Correction's decision to discriminate against appellant based on
her disability. The Attorney General, on behalf of the Commission,
argues the Department of Corrections, as the appointing authority,
met its burden under N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) of proving that appellant
was psychologically unfit to effectively perform the duties of the
position.
The Commission has the authority to remove a candidate from
the eligible list if the evidence shows the person is
"psychologically unfit to perform effectively the duties of the
title." N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)(3). "The use of psychological tests
to predict or evaluate employee job performance is a recognized
part of the American workplace." In re Vey, 124 N.J. 534, 540
(1991). The judicial capacity to review an administrative agency's
decision is limited to three inquiries:
(1) whether the agency's action violates
express or implied legislative policies; (2)
whether the record contains substantial
evidence to support the findings on which the
agency based its action; and (3) whether, in
applying the legislative policies to the
facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a
conclusion that could not reasonably have been
made upon a showing of the relevant factors.
[R & R Mktg., L.L.C. v. Brown-Forman Corp.,
158 N.J. 170, 175 (1999).]
Here, the record shows the Commission carefully considered
the parties' presentations and the recommendations of the Medical
6 A-4725-14T2
Review Panel and reached a final determination about appellant's
psychological fitness that is well-supported by the evidence. We
discern no legal basis to disturb it.
Affirmed.
7 A-4725-14T2