IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY CALDARISE, ETC. (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1768-16T2
IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY
CALDARISE, NEW JERSEY STATE
PRISON, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
__________________________________
Submitted March 21, 2018 – Decided June 20, 2018
Before Judges Fuentes and Suter.
On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service
Commission, Docket No. 2016-1439.
Fusco & Macaluso Partners, LLC, attorneys for
appellant Anthony Caldarise (Anthony J. Fusco,
Jr., on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
for respondent Department of Corrections
(Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Jana R. DiCosmo, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
for respondent New Jersey Civil Service
Commission (Pamela N. Ullman, Deputy Attorney
General, on the statement in lieu of brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Anthony Caldarise appeals from the November 28,
2016 final agency decision of the Civil Service Commission that
affirmed the termination of his employment by the New Jersey
Department of Corrections (DOC) for conduct unbecoming a public
employee, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6), after his urine test was
positive for anabolic steroids. We affirm the final agency
decision because it was supported by the evidence and was not
arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.
Caldarise was employed by the DOC as a senior corrections
officer. On July 13, 2015, the police were called to his house
on a matter unrelated to this case. His girlfriend told the police
Caldarise was using steroids and showed them where the vials and
syringes were kept. The police contacted the DOC. Caldarise was
directed to provide a urine sample to test for anabolic steroids.
He provided the sample; it was forwarded to Aegis Sciences
Corporation (Aegis) in Nashville, Tennessee for testing. The
sample tested positive for "exogenous testosterone," meaning that
its origin was "synthetic."1
The DOC's preliminary notice of disciplinary action sought
Caldarise's removal as a corrections officer. It charged him with
conduct unbecoming a public employee, in violation of N.J.A.C.
4A:2-2.3(a)(6). A Final Notice of Disciplinary action sustained
this charge, following a departmental hearing. Caldarise appealed
1
The sample exceeded the testosterone to epitestosterone ratio
(T/E ratio) of six, which was the reporting threshold. Caldarise's
sample reported a T/E ratio of 54.1.
2 A-1768-16T2
to the Civil Service Commission. The case was transmitted to the
Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a hearing.
At the September 12, 2016 OAL hearing, Caldarise testified
that he had taken "a host of different supplements" since playing
football in high school twenty-five years ago. These were non-
prescription health food supplements that he described as
"testosterone boosters, [to] help you cut weight, help your body
heal, different types of supplements to help your body." Caldarise
submitted a letter from Dr. John A. Ricci, M.D., who did not
testify, but said in the letter, that "certain [over the counter]
supplements can cause elevated testosterone in particular Tribulis
[t]errestris, Maca and DHEA. All have been studied and shown in
sufficient dosing to raise testosterone." Caldarise also relied
on journal articles, but he did not call any expert witnesses at
the hearing to testify about the articles.2
Dr. Melinda Shelby, a Senior Scientist with Aegis, testified
for the DOC that DHEA could increase the T/E ratio but not "so
much that it looks like testosterone abuse."3 Caldarise's T/E
ratio of 54 was not indicative of DHEA administration. Shelby
testified that DHEA had "little or no effect on the T/E ratio."
2
The journal articles were not included in the record.
3
The DOC expert witnesses relied on their certifications. These
certifications were not included in the record.
3 A-1768-16T2
According to Dr. Shelby, herbal substances such as Tribulus
terrestris and Maca did not significantly increase serum
testosterone and they would be endogenous or natural, not the
synthetic substance found in Caldarise's urine sample. Another
study cited by Dr. Shelby showed that Maca did not affect "serum
hormones, including testosterone."
Lora McCord, a Lead Scientist with Aegis, testified the tests
performed on the sample were consistent with the protocols of
their laboratories. Caldarise's urine sample tested positive for
the anabolic steroid testosterone, using two different metrics.
His T/E ratio indicated the presence of synthetic testosterone.
The administrative law judge's (ALJ) initial decision on
October 12, 2016, affirmed Caldarise's removal as a senior
corrections officer, concluding that Caldarise "violated the rules
and regulations as charged" and also that his removal from
employment was "the appropriate penalty." The ALJ found that the
DOC had provided the "preponderating credible evidence" and that
both expert witnesses for the DOC provided "credible" testimony.
He did not give any weight to Dr. Ricci's letter because the doctor
did not testify nor to the journal articles, because they were not
supported by expert testimony. Caldarise did not "explain away
the preponderating scientific evidence supplied by Aegis, both in
test results and in testimony." The ALJ found "the factual record
4 A-1768-16T2
fits within the charges and rule and regulation violations cited
in the final notice of disciplinary action." Caldarise's removal
as a senior correction's officer was warranted because of the
"higher standard imposed on sworn law enforcement personnel."
On November 28, 2016, the Civil Service Commission's final
administrative action affirmed termination of Caldarise's
employment, finding it to be justified. Caldarise appeals from
the final agency decision.
On appeal Caldarise argues that the urine tests should have
been barred because of the failure to follow internal affairs
guidelines, to advise Caldarise of his Miranda4 warnings and to
apprise him of his rights under Weingarten.5 He contends the final
agency decision was not supported by the record and the ALJ's
actions were arbitrary and capricious. He argues that removal
from employment was disproportionate in light of all the
circumstances. We find no merit in these arguments.
We will not set aside an agency's action unless "there is a
clear showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable,
or that it lacks fair support in the record." In re Herrmann, 192
N.J. 19, 27-28 (2007); see also Karins v. City of Atl. City, 152
4
See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
5
See NLRB v. Weingarten, 420 U.S. 251 (1975).
5 A-1768-16T2
N.J. 532, 540 (1998). We have applied such deference when
reviewing determinations of the Commission, or of its predecessor
agencies that have administered the civil service laws. See,
e.g., Campbell v. Dep't. of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562, 578
(1963); Falcey v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 16 N.J. 117, 125 (1954); In
re Sheriff's Officer (PC2209J), 226 N.J. Super. 17, 21-22 (App.
Div. 1988).
There was substantial evidence to support the Commission's
final agency decision. The urine test results showed synthetic
rather than natural substances. Expert witnesses for the DOC
testified the sample was positive for anabolic steroids. No one
questioned the actual testing methodology or the chain of custody.
Dr. Shelby testified without rebuttal that the levels detected
could not have been the result of the supplements cited by Dr.
Ricci. Although Caldarise claimed that these results were due to
over the counter non-prescription substances, he never countered
the testimony by the DOC's experts that the results did not come
from supplements. The court was correct to give no weight to Dr.
Ricci's letter or the journals because there was no expert
testimony to support these documents.
Caldarise contends that the Attorney General's Internal
Affairs Policy & Procedures were not followed or that he should
have received Miranda warnings and Weingarten rights. The Attorney
6 A-1768-16T2
General's Internal Affairs guidelines state that drug testing of
law enforcement officers is governed by the Attorney General's Law
Enforcement Drug Testing Policy. Attorney General's Internal
Affairs Policy & Procedures, at 26 (Nov. 2017),
http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/internalaffairs2000v1_2.pdf.
That policy requires law enforcement officers to submit a drug
test when "there exists reasonable suspicion to believe that the
officer is illegally using drugs." Attorney General's Law
Enforcement Drug Testing Policy, at 3 (April 2018),
http://www.nj.gov/lps/dcj/njpdresources/pdfs/Drug-Test-
Policy_2018-05.pdf. These guidelines do not preclude disciplinary
action. Miranda did not apply because Caldarise was not in custody
nor subject to interrogation. 384 U.S. at 444. Weingarten did
not apply because the required testing was not an "investigatory
interview." 420 U.S. at 261-62.
Caldarise argues that his termination from employment was
disproportionate to the offense. Under the Attorney General's
Drug Testing Policy, illegal drug use is grounds for termination.
Attorney General's Law Enforcement Drug Testing Policy, at 5.
Given his role as a correction's officer, his termination from
employment for illegal drug use was not disproportionate. See In
re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 486 (2007) (citing Twp. of Moorestown v.
Armstrong, 89 N.J. Super. 560, 566 (App. Div. 1965)) (providing
7 A-1768-16T2
that a police officer is a "special kind of public employee" who
represents the law and order to the citizenry and "must present
an image of personal integrity and dependability in order to have
the respect of the public"). The Civil Service Commission's
decision was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.
Affirmed.
8 A-1768-16T2