Thurber v. City of Burlington

• Decision Date: 20 June 2007
• Docket Number: A-66/67 September Term 2006
• Citation: 924 A.2d 533,191 N.J. 487
• Parties: Michelle THURBER, Appellant-Respondent, v. CITY OF BURLINGTON, Respondent-Appellant, and State of New Jersey Judiciary and The Honorable John A. Sweeney, A.J.S.C., Intervenors-Appellants.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

924 A.2d 533

191 N.J. 487

Michelle THURBER, Appellant-Respondent, v. CITY OF BURLINGTON, Respondent-Appellant, and State of New Jersey Judiciary and The Honorable John A. Sweeney, A.J.S.C., Intervenors-Appellants.

A-66/67 September Term 2006

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued May 1, 2007.

Decided June 20, 2007.

Steven W. Suflas argued the cause for intervenors-appellants (Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, attorneys; Mr. Suflas and John P. Mueller, Voorhees, on the brief).

Anthony Valenti argued the cause for appellant (Cureton Caplan, attorneys; Karen M. Murray, Delran, on the letter in lieu of brief).

Steven P. Weissman, New York, NY, argued the cause for respondent (Weissman & Mintz, attorneys).

Pamela N. Ullman, Deputy Attorney General, submitted a letter in lieu of brief on behalf of respondent Merit System Board (Stuart Rabner, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).

Justice HOENS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This appeal presents us with the opportunity to clarify the intersection between discipline of employees holding career service municipal court positions and the authority of Assignment Judges as this Court's constitutional designees for oversight of judiciary employees within the vicinages. Because we conclude that, under the circumstances presented here, this employee's job classification was allocated by the judiciary to the career service for disciplinary purposes, and because we further conclude that the penalty imposed upon the employee by the Merit System Board was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, we reject the suggestion that the Board's exercise of authority interfered with the constitutional prerogatives of the Judiciary or the Assignment Judge.

I.

The facts that gave rise to this matter are not in dispute. At the time of the events in question, plaintiff Michelle Thurber had been employed by defendant City of Burlington (City) as a deputy municipal court administrator for over ten years. Although the particulars are not germane to our consideration of the issues raised on appeal, early in the morning on Saturday, September 16, 2000, plaintiff was stopped by the police in Cherry Hill, taken into custody, and charged with several offenses. The following Monday morning, David Thompson, the City Administrator of Burlington, told plaintiff that he was aware of the incident and commented that her job was not in jeopardy. Approximately a month later, John A. Sweeney, the Assignment Judge of the Burlington Vicinage, wrote a letter about the incident to the Mayor and Council of the City. In his letter, the Assignment Judge advised the Mayor and Council that he was exercising his authority under Rule 1:33-4 to remove plaintiff temporarily from her position with the municipal court pending resolution of the charges in Cherry Hill. A few days later, based on a decision made by the Mayor and Council, plaintiff was suspended with pay.

In January 2001, plaintiff entered a plea of guilty to reckless driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-96, and disturbing the peace in violation of a municipal ordinance, which resulted in the suspension of her driver's license and the imposition of a fine, respectively. Three other charges, driving while intoxicated, resisting arrest, and criminal mischief, were dismissed. The City Solicitor then notified the Assignment Judge of the disposition of the matter in Cherry Hill, after which the Assignment Judge ordered plaintiff to show cause why she should not be removed from her position with the municipal court. He thereafter withdrew that order and wrote to the City Solicitor, directing that the Mayor and Council take disciplinary action against plaintiff.

On February 7, 2001, the City issued a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action, charging plaintiff with six acts constituting conduct unbecoming a public employee, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6), and with "other sufficient cause" for discipline, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(11). All of the specified acts related to the events surrounding plaintiff's arrest and guilty plea. At the same time, the City appointed a hearing officer, who conducted a departmental hearing. After hearing testimony from two police officers who had been involved in plaintiff's arrest and considering an expert report offered on plaintiff's behalf, the hearing officer issued a written report. He found that plaintiff had engaged in conduct unbecoming a public employee and concluded that termination was appropriate.

At the Assignment Judge's urging, the City served plaintiff with a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action terminating her employment effective May 14, 2001. Plaintiff's appeal to the Merit System Board (Board), challenging her termination,¹ was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing. See N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c). The City moved for summary decision, asserting that the Board lacked the authority to review the Assignment Judge's decision to remove plaintiff. That motion was denied, and the matter proceeded to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

Two police officers, plaintiff, and plaintiff's expert witness testified about the events surrounding plaintiff's arrest. After hearing and considering the testimony and evidence, the ALJ found that plaintiff's behavior following her arrest was caused by a panic attack. However, the ALJ also found that plaintiff's actions leading up to her arrest constituted conduct unbecoming a public employee for which discipline was warranted. In light of plaintiff's unblemished disciplinary record, the absence of evidence relating to certain of the more serious allegations against her, and considerations relating to progressive discipline, the ALJ concluded that termination was not warranted. Instead, the ALJ recommended that a six-month suspension be imposed. However, the ALJ also concluded that, even though he considered termination to be inappropriate, he was without authority to order plaintiff's reinstatement to her position over the objection of the Assignment Judge.

Plaintiff appealed the ALJ's decision to the Board, arguing both that the six-month suspension was too severe and that she was entitled to be reinstated to her position with the municipal court. In its written decision of May 5, 2005, the Board adopted the ALJ's findings of fact, concluded that the six-month suspension was an appropriate penalty, and also concluded that it had the authority to order that plaintiff be reinstated to her position notwithstanding the objection of the Assignment Judge. The City's application for a stay was denied by the Board and the Appellate Division.

Prior to plaintiff's reinstatement, the Appellate Division granted leave to the Judiciary of the State of New Jersey and the Assignment Judge to intervene in the appeal, see R. 4:33-1, and then stayed the enforcement of the Board's directive that plaintiff be permitted to return to her municipal court position. In a published decision, Thurber v. City of Burlington, 387 N.J.Super. 279, 903 A.2d 1079 (App.Div. 2006), the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Board. We granted the separate petitions for certification filed by the City and the Intervenors, 188 N.J. 579, 911 A.2d 70 (2006).

II.

The New Jersey Constitution vests this Court with the authority to "make rules governing the administration of all courts in the State and, subject to the law, the practice and procedure in all such courts." N.J. Const. art. VI, § 2, ¶ 3. Pursuant to our constitutional mandate, this Court has promulgated rules providing that "[t]he Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall be responsible for the administration of all courts in the State" and that "[t]o assist in those duties[,] the Chief Justice shall appoint an Administrative Director of the Courts . . ." R. 1:33-1. In addition, in each vicinage the Chief Justice appoints a Superior Court judge, who reports directly to the Chief Justice, to serve as the Assignment Judge. R. 1:33-2(b). The responsibilities of an Assignment Judge are set forth in Rule 1:33-4 which provides, in relevant part, as follows:

(a) The Assignment Judge shall be the chief judicial officer within the vicinage and shall have plenary responsibility for the administration of all courts therein, subject to the direction of the Chief Justice and the rules of the Supreme Court. The Assignment Judge shall be responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the rules, policies and directives of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice and the Administrative Director.

(b) The Assignment Judge shall be the authorized representative of the Chief Justice for the efficient and economic management of all courts within the vicinage. The responsibilities of the Assignment Judge also shall include all such matters affecting county and municipal governments, including but not limited to budgets, personnel, and facilities.

. . . .

(e) Subject to uniform minimum standards and conditions promulgated by the Administrative Director, the Assignment Judge may appoint and discharge judicial support personnel within the vicinage.

[(emphasis added).]

Although this Rule grants broad powers to the Assignment Judge to ensure the efficient administration of the courts, that authority is limited by its terms so as to be "[s]ubject to uniform minimum standards and conditions promulgated by the Administrative Director," including his or her administrative directives. R. 1:33-4(e).

Notwithstanding our broad constitutional authority for administration of all courts and the apparent breadth of the Rule's delegation of powers to the Assignment Judge, the history surrounding subsection e of Rule 1:33-4 and its relationship to judiciary employee positions is instructive. The predecessor rule, originally found at R. 1:33-3, granted assignment judges greater discretion over employees, particularly those who were viewed as working closely with judges. See Supreme Court Committee to Review Trial Court Personnel Policies, Initial Report 3 ...