IN THE MATTER OF JUSTIN VOIGTSBERGER (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5684-14T1
IN THE MATTER OF JUSTIN
VOIGTSBERGER.
_____________________________
Submitted October 3, 2017 - Decided October 17, 2017
Before Judges Gilson and Mayer.
On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service
Commission, Docket Nos. 2014-1493 and 2015-
3197.
Justin Voigtsberger, appellant pro se.
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent Civil Service
Commission (Pamela N. Ullman, Deputy Attorney
General, on the statement in lieu of brief).
Christopher A. Orlando, Camden County Counsel,
attorney for respondent Camden County (Emeshe
Arzón, Assistant County Counsel and Howard L.
Goldberg, First Assistant County Counsel, on
the brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Justin Voigtsberger appeals from the determination
of the Civil Service Commission (Commission) upholding the
decision of the Camden County Department of Corrections to
terminate his employment. We affirm.
Voigtsberger was hired as a corrections officer to serve at
the Camden County Correctional Facility (CCCF). Voigtsberger
began a one-year working test period at the CCCF. During a working
test period, corrections officers are evaluated three times.1
During his working test period, Voigtsberger received three
unsatisfactory performance evaluations. The negative evaluations
noted deficiencies in Voigtsberger's performance including, poor
judgment, constant need for supervision, negative interaction with
inmates, and inability to accept responsibility or understand the
consequences of his actions. In addition to the poor evaluations,
the CCCF disciplined Voigtsberger for violations of its rules and
regulations and occurrences of conduct unbecoming a public
employee. The punishments for the disciplinary incidents included
counseling sessions, reprimands, and suspensions.
At the conclusion of his working test period, after reviewing
Voigtsberger's unsatisfactory performance evaluations and multiple
disciplinary incidents and taking into account the training and
1
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 11A:4-15, "[t]he purpose of the working
test period is to permit an appointing authority to determine
whether an employee satisfactorily performs the duties of a title.
A working test period is part of the examination process which
shall be served in the title to which the certification was issued
and the appointment made."
2 A-5684-14T1
counseling offered to Voigtsberger to improve his performance, the
CCCF recommended that that Voigtsberger not be hired. As a result
of that recommendation, Voigtsberger was not retained as a
corrections officer at the CCCF.
Voigtsberger appealed his termination to the Commission,
which referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Law for
a hearing. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) heard testimony from
Voigtsberger, as well as the individuals who evaluated
Voigtsberger's performance during his working test period. The
CCCF evaluators described incidents demonstrating Voigtsberger's
poor judgment, including a specific incident during which
Voigtsberger placed other corrections officers and inmates at risk
of injury by entering a pod without authorization in response to
a confrontational inmate. Other incidents recounted during the
hearings included an episode when Voigtsberger spit into an
inmate's food tray, as well as occasions when Voigtsberger would
be overly friendly and then overly aggressive toward inmates and
co-workers.
During the hearings, Voigtsberger expressed his belief that
the CCCF engaged in retaliatory conduct resulting in his
termination. Voigtsberger testified that the CCCF had knowledge
of a prior medical condition and improperly considered his medical
condition in issuing negative performance evaluations.
3 A-5684-14T1
Voigtsberger also cited a reported dispute with his superior
officer at the CCCF as a reason for his poor performance
evaluations.
After considering the testimony, the ALJ determined
Voigtsberger violated numerous rules and regulations at the CCCF,
including failing to perform an inmate head count when directed,
failing to deliver food trays to inmates, spitting into an inmate's
food tray, and making excessive noise when performing cell
searches. Based on the testimony, the ALJ found that Voigtsberger
refused to accept responsibility for his actions, had inadequate
knowledge of his job function, and had poor work judgment.
Moreover, the ALJ determined that the CCCF's witnesses did
not act in bad faith as they did not exhibit malice or ill will
toward Voigtsberger. To the contrary, the ALJ found the CCCF made
a good faith determination that if Voigtsberger was hired as a
permanent corrections officer, he would cause harm to himself, his
co-workers and inmates due to his poor judgment and lack of
knowledge as to his job function.
The ALJ also noted Voigtsberger's selective memory when
testifying about his negative performance evaluations and the
discussions with his supervisors regarding efforts to improve his
performance. Based on his limited recall of facts during the
hearings, the ALJ found Voigtsberger's testimony was not credible.
4 A-5684-14T1
After considering the reliable and credible testimony proffered
by the CCCF witnesses, the ALJ upheld Voigtsberger's termination.
The Commission affirmed the ALJ's decision. Voigtsberger
filed a motion for reconsideration which the Commission denied.
In reviewing administrative agency decisions, appellate
courts have a "limited" role. Catholic Family & Cmty. Servs. v.
State-Operated Sch. Dist., 412 N.J. Super. 426, 436 (App. Div.
2010). A "strong presumption of reasonableness attaches to the
actions of the administrative agencies." In re Carroll, 339 N.J.
Super. 429, 437 (App. Div.) (citing In re Vey, 272 N.J. Super 199,
205, aff'd, 135 N.J. 306 (1994)), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 85(2001). We give deference to an agency's determination unless the
decision is arbitrary, capricious, or is unsupported by
substantial credible evidence in the record. In re Herrmann, 192
N.J. 19, 27-28 (2007); Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J.
556, 562 (1963). We defer to an agency's findings if they could
reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence in
the record, "considering 'the proofs as a whole,' with due regard
to the opportunity of the one who heard the witnesses to judge . . .
their credibility." In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999)
(quoting Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965)).
The rationale of the working test period is to "permit an
appointing authority to determine whether an employee
5 A-5684-14T1
satisfactorily performs the duties of [his or her] title."
N.J.S.A. 11A:4-15. "The whole purpose of a probationary or working
test period under the Civil Service system is to supplement the
examining process by providing a means for testing an employee's
fitness through observed job performance under actual working
conditions." Dodd v. Van Riper, 135 N.J.L. 167, 171 (1947).
During the working test period, "the employee must demonstrate
that he is competent to discharge the duties of the position."
Briggs v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 64 N.J. Super. 351, 355 (App. Div.
1960). Termination at the end of the working test period may
occur for unsatisfactory performance. See N.J.S.A. 11A:2-6a (4);
N.J.A.C. 4A:2-4 and 4A:4-5.4(a).
The ALJ's decision was based on the substantial, credible
testimony and the exhibits admitted into evidence. The Commission
adopted the ALJ's detailed credibility determination and fact-
findings. While Voigtsberger disputes the ALJ's findings, he
offers no evidence, other than his own opinion, that his
performance during the working test period was satisfactory.
Voigtsberger's subjective beliefs are insufficient to prove that
the findings of the Commission, were arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable. Having reviewed the record, we conclude the
Commission's adoption of the ALJ's detailed credibility
6 A-5684-14T1
determinations and fact-findings was appropriate and based upon
substantial credible evidence in the record.
Affirmed.
7 A-5684-14T1