In the Matter of Frank James, Etc.

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: October 20, 2025
• Docket: A-2840-23
• Status: Unpublished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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2840-23

IN THE MATTER OF FRANK JAMES, ESSEX COUNTY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. _________________________

Argued September 16, 2025 – Decided October 20, 2025

Before Judges Gilson and Firko.

On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service Commission, Docket No. 2024-415.

Luretha M. Stribling argued the cause for appellant Frank James.

Jennifer A. Cacchioli, Assistant County Counsel, argued the cause for respondent Essex County Department of Corrections (Jerome M. St. John, Essex County Counsel, attorney; Jennifer A. Cacchioli, on the brief).

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent New Jersey Civil Service Commission (Brian D. Ragunan, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in lieu of brief).

PER CURIAM Frank James appeals from an April 10, 2024 final agency decision by the

Civil Service Commission (the Commission). The Commission denied James'

request for adjustments to a back pay award that James received in 2022 , when

he was reinstated to his position as an Essex County correctional police officer.

The Commission determined that James' request for pay-step adjustments was

not timely and, even if it had been timely, the Commission lacked jurisdiction

over the issue because it was a salary dispute. Additionally, the Commission

ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to consider James' request for an

adjustment to account for the tax consequences of a lump sum payment and to

change how his pension contributions were being withheld. Having reviewed

the record and the applicable law, we discern nothing arbitrary, capricious , or

unreasonable in the Commission's decision and, therefore, we affirm the

decision.

I.

This appeal arises out of an earlier administrative proceeding concerning

James' removal and subsequent reinstatement to his position as a county

correctional officer. We discern the facts and procedural history from the

administrative record provided to us on this appeal.

A-2840-23 2 James is a correctional officer for the Essex County Department of

Corrections (the Department). In March 2020, the Department served James

with a preliminary notice of disciplinary action, charging him with:

incompetency, inefficiency, or failure to perform duties; conduct unbecoming

of a public employee; neglect of duty; and other sufficient cause. The

Department suspended James without pay and sought to permanently remove

him from his position.

James waived his right to a departmental hearing. Thus, on February 26,

2021, the Department issued a final notice of disciplinary action and removed

James from his position as a correctional officer, effective March 9, 2020.

In March 2021, James administratively appealed his termination to the

Commission, and the matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law

for a contested hearing. Following the hearing, an Administrative Law Judge

(ALJ) found that the Department had not proven the charges against James and

ordered the Department to reinstate him to his position.

On June 20, 2022, following a supplemental hearing before the ALJ, the

Commission adopted the findings of facts and conclusions made by the ALJ.

Accordingly, the Commission directed the Department to reinstate James to his

position and give him "back pay, benefits, [and] seniority from the first day of

A-2840-23 3 separation to the actual day of reinstatement." The Commission also awarded

James counsel fees for the administrative appeal.

Additionally, the Commission directed James and the Department to

"make good faith efforts to resolve any disputes as to the amount of back pay or

counsel fees." Furthermore, the Commission informed the parties that any

dispute concerning back pay or counsel fees had to be raised with the

Commission "in writing . . . within [sixty] days of issuance of this decision."

The Commission's decision concluded: "In the absence of [the sixty-day written

notice], the Commission will assume that all outstanding issues have been

amicably resolved by the parties and this decision shall become a final

administrative determination pursuant to [Rule] 2:2-3(a)(2)."

James was reinstated as a correctional officer on July 28, 2022. Thus, the

back pay period was from March 9, 2020 through July 27, 2022. On November

10, 2022, the Department paid James $198,617.00 in back pay.

Nine months later, on August 10, 2023, James filed a letter with the

Commission requesting that it direct the Department to adjust his back pay

award. Specifically, James asked the Commission to direct the Department to

(1) increase his back pay award to account for two pay-step salary increases that

James claims he should have received on September 1, 2018 and September 1,

A-2840-23 4 2022; (2) adjust his back pay award to account for taxes that had been taken out

of the lump sum payment; (3) take his pension payments from his biweekly

salary rather than as a lump sum repayment; and (4) award him additional

attorneys' fees for this new appeal.

The Commission allowed the parties to submit documents and written

arguments on James' request for adjustments. Thereafter, on April 10, 2024, the

Commission issued its final agency decision denying James' request to adjust

his back pay award.

The Commission first addressed James' request for pay-step increases.

The Commission found the request was untimely because James was seeking

pay-step increases that took effect on September 1, 2018 and September 1, 2022,

but he first raised the claim with the Commission in August 2023. The

Commission, therefore, concluded that the pay-step issue was raised outside the

time for an appeal to the Commission. In support of that ruling, the Commission

cited N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.1(b).

Alternatively, the Commission ruled that even if James had raised the pay-

step issue timely, it lacked jurisdiction to address the claim. In that regard, the

Commission explained that the pay-step issue was a salary dispute and did not

directly relate to the back pay award it had granted on June 20, 2022.

A-2840-23 5 Addressing James' tax and pension claims, the Commission ruled it lacked

jurisdiction to grant James relief. It explained that it had no authority to award

damages for alleged adverse tax consequences and it did not have jurisdiction

to address pension payment issues. Given those rulings, the Commission also

denied James' request for additional attorneys' fees related to his adjustment

request.

II.

James now appeals from the Commission's April 10, 2024 final agency

decision. He contends that the Commission erred in (1) denying his request for

pay-step increases as part of his back pay award; (2) not addressing the tax

consequences of the lump sum payment; and (3) not addressing the way pension

payments were being withheld.

An appellate court's review of an administrative agency's final decision is

limited. Seago v. Bd. of Trs., Tchrs.' Pension & Annuity Fund, 257 N.J. 381,

391 (2024) (citing Allstars Auto Grp., Inc. v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n, 234

N.J. 150, 157 (2018)). An agency decision will not be reversed unless that

decision is "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable" or "not supported by

substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." In re Ambroise, 258

N.J. 180, 197 (2024) (quoting In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011)). In

A-2840-23 6 making those determinations, a court will examine: "(1) whether the agency's

action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency

follow the law; (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." Ibid. (citing In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 482 (2007)). An appellate

court, however, reviews de novo an agency's interpretation of a statute or law.

In re Proposed Constr. of Compressor Station (CS327), 258 N.J. 312, 234

(2024).

A. The Pay-Step Increases.

James argues that he was entitled to pay-step salary increases as part of

the back pay award the Commission granted in its final agency decision issued

on June 20, 2022. We discern nothing arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in

the Commission's determination that the issue was not timely raised and the

issue was a salary dispute rather than a back pay dispute.

In its June 20, 2022 final agency decision, the Commission expressly

informed James that any dispute concerning the back pay award had to be raised

with the Commission in writing within sixty days of June 20, 2022. The record

establishes that James first raised the pay-step dispute with the Commission in

A-2840-23 7 August 2023. Accordingly, that issue was time-barred. See N.J.A.C. 4A:2-

1.1(b) (explaining that any appeal to the Commission "must be filed within

twenty days after either the appellant has notice or should reasonably have

known of the decision, situation, or action being appealed").1

James argues that Essex County's delay in carrying out the order prevented

him from making a timely filing. The record does not support this argument.

James' communications with Essex County to resolve his back pay issue

concluded in November 2022.

Even if the issue was not time-barred, the pay-step claim is not part of the

back pay award. Normally, salary increases that occur when a government

employee is suspended and then reinstated would be included. See N.J.A.C.

4A:2-2.10(d) (stating that "[b]ack pay shall include unpaid salary, including

regular wages, overlap shift time, increments[,] and across-the-board

adjustments"); N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10(g)(1) (explaining that the Commission's

review includes consideration of "increments and across-the-board adjustments

that the employee would have received during the separation period"); N.J.A.C.

1 We note that the regulatory limitation period was expanded to sixty days during the COVID-19 pandemic but thereafter was amended back to twenty days.

A-2840-23 8 17:1-2.18 (interpreting back pay to include "normal salary increases" for the

purpose of calculating pension benefits following successful appeal of employee

termination). However, only pay-step increases occurring during the employee's

period of suspension will be considered for back pay. N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10(e)

("[A]n award of back pay, benefits[,] and seniority shall be calculated from the

effective date of the appointing authority's improper action to the date of the

employee's actual reinstatement to the payroll").

In this situation, James is seeking pay-step increases that became effective

on September 1, 2018 and September 1, 2022. Those pay-step increases were

not during the time that James was suspended from his position. His suspension

covered the period from March 9, 2020 through July 27, 2022. Thus, the first

salary increase was before his suspension. 2 The second pay-step increase was

in effect on September 1, 2022, after James had been reinstated to his position.

Consequently, there is nothing arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in the

Commission's determination that the pay-step increases were not related to the

back pay award and instead were salary disputes.

2 We note that there are references in the record that James had been previously suspended for other disciplinary charges. Any prior suspensions of James are not before us and were not before the Commission as it relates to the Commission's decisions issued on June 20, 2022 or April 10, 2024. A-2840-23 9 B. The Tax Consequences.

James contends that his back pay was substantially reduced by taxes

because taxes were taken based on the lump sum payment he received. In that

regard, he contends that the overall tax consequences resulted in a fifty -seven

percent reduction of the award.

Initially, we note there is no support in the record for the contention that

taxes reduced the award by fifty-seven percent. James cited a letter his prior

counsel sent, but that letter does not explain how the fifty-seven percent was

calculated, nor does it attach supporting documents showing the lump sum

payment was reduced by fifty-seven percent.

In terms of the substance, we discern nothing arbitrary, capricious, or

unreasonable in the Commission's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to

address tax consequences arising from a lump sum payment. James cited no law

to support his claim that the Commission has jurisdiction to address tax

consequences of a back pay award.

James cites two cases, Eschelman v. Agere Sys., 554 F.3d 426, 440 (3rd

Cir. 2009) and Sears v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., Co., 749 F.2d 1451,

1456 (10th Cir. 1984), to support his proposition that he was entitled to equitable

relief in the form of prejudgment interest or compensatory damages. These

A-2840-23 10 cases do not address whether the Commission has jurisdiction over adverse tax

consequences and are otherwise inapplicable because they involve awards for

anti-discrimination claims.

C. The Pension Payment.

Finally, James argues that the Department is not properly withholding his

pension payments for the repayment amount, requiring him to pay into the

pension fund directly at a higher rate. James acknowledges that he withdrew his

pension contribution after he was terminated, effective March 9, 2020. He now

argues the repayment of that part of his pension contribution should not be based

on his current salary; rather it should be based on the salary that he was receiving

when those pension contributions were initially made.

The Commission concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to address this issue

and referred James to the Division of Pensions and Benefits. Disputes involving

pension credit related to back pay awards are typically handled by the Division

of Pensions and Benefits. See Welsh v. Bd. of Trs., 443 N.J. Super. 367, 374-

75 (2016) (appeal of Division of Pensions' denial to merge pension accounts

following employee's suspension period and back repayment award, citing

N.J.A.C. 17:1-2.18 for application of pension credit). We discern nothing

A-2840-23 11 arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in the Commission's determination that it

did not have jurisdiction over this pension issue.

In summary, having considered James' arguments on this appeal, we reject

them and affirm the Commission's final agency decision on April 10, 2024.

Affirmed.

A-2840-23 12