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

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: October 17, 2017
• Docket: A-5684-14T1
• Status: Unpublished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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-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