City of Linwood v. Jay Loder

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: A-0148-24
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0148-24

CITY OF LINWOOD,

Respondent-Respondent,

and

JAY LODER,

Petitioner-Appellant.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION,

Respondent.

Submitted September 16, 2025 – Decided September 29, 2025

Before Judges Currier and Jablonski.

On appeal from the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission, PERC No. 2025-001.

O'Brien, Belland & Bushinsky, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Kevin D. Jarvis, on the briefs). Youngblood, Franklin & Sampoli, PA, attorneys for respondent City of Linwood (Joseph L. Youngblood, Jr., on the brief).

Christine Lucarelli-Carneiro, General Counsel, attorney for respondent Public Employment Relations Commission (William J. Campbell, IV, Deputy General Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Jay Loder was terminated in a written notice on May 10, 2024,

from his firefighter position with the City of Linwood (City) after it investigated

numerous allegations made against Loder by members of the Linwood Fire

Department. The investigation found Loder violated the City Code in his

inappropriate use of a City computer to access unauthorized sites; paid cash to

another firefighter to cover a shift for him; and "numerous other administrative

issues and problems caused by [his] failure to perform the duties of [his] job in

an efficient and safe manner."

Thereafter, Loder commenced a grievance procedure under his union's

Collective Negotiations Agreement (CNA). The grievance was denied on July

11, 2024.

On July 23, 2024, Loder submitted a Special Disciplinary Arbitration

Request through the Public Employee Relations Commission (PERC) regarding

his termination. The City moved to dismiss the arbitration request as untimely

A-0148-24 2 under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-210(b) and PERC regulation N.J.A.C. 19:12-6.3(b),

which require a non-civil service firefighter to file an arbitration request within

twenty days of their termination. PERC granted the motion and dismissed the

arbitration request as untimely in a final decision on August 5, 2024.

On appeal, Loder contends PERC erred in finding his twenty-day time

period to file an arbitration request began on May 10, 2024, as the filing deadline

should be equitably tolled since Loder relied on the grievance process in the

CNA.

Our review of an administrative agency's action is limited. Russo v. Bd.

of Trs., Police and Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011). "An

administrative agency's final quasi-judicial decision will be sustained unless

there is a clear showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that

it lacks fair support in the record." Ibid. (quoting In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19,

27-28 (2007)). Although we review an agency's interpretation of a statute de

novo, In re Civil Commitment of W.W., 245 N.J. 438, 448 (2021), and are "in

no way bound by [an] agency's interpretation of a statute or its determination of

a strictly legal issue," Mayflower Securities Co., v. Bureau of Securities, 64 N.J.

85, 93 (1973), "deference . . . should be afforded to the interpretation of the

A-0148-24 3 agency charged with applying and enforcing a statutory scheme." Hargrove v.

Sleepy's, LLC, 220 N.J. 289, 301 (2015).

Loder does not dispute his request for arbitration was untimely under the

governing statute and regulation but instead urges this court to consider his

request under the civil service rules or apply equitable principles. We will do

neither.

The City is not a civil service jurisdiction. Those laws are not applicable

to Loder. Nor are equitable considerations. There is a statute and regulation

specific to these circumstances. Loder did not comply with the requisite time

frame articulated under those rules. Moreover, under N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3, a

grievance procedure in a CNA "may not replace or be inconsistent with any

alternate statutory appeal procedure . . . ."

Therefore, PERC did not act unreasonably nor arbitrarily in comporting

with the pertinent statute and regulation and dismissing Loder's arbitration

request as untimely.

Affirmed.

A-0148-24 4