IN THE MATTER OF JUAREZ HILL, ETC. (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2956-18T1
IN THE MATTER OF JUAREZ
HILL, CITY OF NEWARK
DEPARTMENT OF
NEIGHBORHOOD AND
RECREATIONAL SERVICES.
______________________________
Submitted May 26, 2020 – Decided June 9, 2020
Before Judges Fasciale and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service
Commission, Docket No. 2016-1885.
Cynthia Hughes Hardaway, attorney for appellant
Juarez Hill.
John J. Zidziunas and Associates, LLC, attorneys for
respondent City of Newark, Department of
Neighborhood and Recreational Services (John J.
Zidziunas and Jeff V. Fucci, on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent New Jersey Civil Service Commission
(Jonathan S. Sussman, Deputy Attorney General, on the
statement in lieu of brief).
PER CURIAM
Juarez Hill appeals from a final agency decision by the Civil Service
Commission (the Commission), upholding his termination as a code
enforcement officer for the City of Newark Code Enforcement Department on
charges of conduct unbecoming of a public employee, misuse of public property,
and other sufficient cause, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6), (8), and (12). Hill primarily
argues that the City of Newark, Department of Neighborhood and Recreational
Services (City), failed to establish its burden that Hill stole a computer.
Hill worked for the City in the Code Enforcement Department for
approximately fourteen years. On December 30, 2014, City officials discovered
that a work computer was missing. Video surveillance outside of City Hall,
where Hill worked, showed him leaving the building at 6:01 p.m. on December
29, 2014, pushing a cooler that contained a computer. At that time, Hill was on
vacation and did not have a computer assigned to him.
The City immediately suspended Hill. After conducting a disciplinary
hearing, the City sustained the charges and terminated Hill's employment. Hill
appealed his termination to the Commission, and an administrative law judge
(ALJ) heard the matter as a contested case. The ALJ heard witness testimony,
viewed the surveillance video, reviewed other documentary evidence, and she
A-2956-18T1
2
upheld the City's decision. The Commission ultimately adopted the ALJ's
recommendation.
We conclude that Hill's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add the following brief
remarks.
This court gives "substantial deference to an agency's imposition of a
disciplinary sanction, based on its 'expertise and superior knowledge of a
particular field.'" In re Hendrickson, 235 N.J. 145, 158-59 (2018) (quoting In
re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 28 (2007)). We owe an agency decision a "strong
presumption of reasonableness." In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429, 437 (App.
Div. 2001) (quoting In re Vey, 272 N.J. Super. 199, 205 (App. Div. 1993), aff'd,
135 N.J. 306 (1994)). We will not substitute our judgment for that of the
administrative agency. Clowes v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 109 N.J. 575, 587 (1988).
This court also "will not upset a determination by the Commission in the absence
of a showing that it was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable . . . that it lacked
fair support in the evidence, or that it violated legislative policies expressed or
implicit in the civil service act." Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556,
562 (1963); Hendrickson, 235 N.J. at 160.
A-2956-18T1
3
Multiple witnesses testified before the ALJ, and they identified the
computer in the cooler that Hill was wheeling out of City Hall. The ALJ found
certain witnesses credible, stating that they were City employees⸻familiar with
Hill and the equipment⸻and that they had no motivation to lie. The Commission
independently reviewed the record, evaluated the parties' submissions, and
determined—like the ALJ—that the City appropriately terminated Hill. The
Commission's decision is reasonable and supported by adequate evidence in the
record.
Affirmed.
A-2956-18T1
4