IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS CURTIS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6001-03T56001-03T5

__________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS CURTIS

__________________________________

 

Argued December 7, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Wecker and Graves.

On appeal from a Final Administrative

Decision of the Merit System Board,

Docket No. CSV-03157-02.

Roosevelt Porter argued the cause for

appellant (Mets & Schiro, attorneys;

James M. Mets, on the brief).

Cindy Nan Vogelman argued the cause for

respondent County of Hudson (Chasan,

Leyner & Lamparello, attorneys; Ms.

Vogelman, of counsel; Ms. Vogelman and

Nichole R. Chhabria, on the brief).

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney

for respondent Merit System Board (Todd A.

Wigder, Deputy Attorney General, filed a

statement in lieu of a brief).

PER CURIAM

Thomas Curtis was a Hudson County Sheriff's officer who was assigned to operate the prisoner transport elevator in the Hudson County Administration Building. After his supervisor found him apparently asleep at his post, she ordered a "fitness for duty" test, which included a urine drug screening. The test result came back positive for cocaine. Curtis was cited for several violations of the New Jersey Administrative Code, the Sheriff's Department Rules, and the Hudson County Employee Handbook, including instances of abuse of sick time and failure to report for duty; the primary violation that led to his termination, however, was the result of the drug test.

Curtis filed an administrative appeal with the Department of Personnel of the Merit System Board, which referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Law as a contested case. After a full hearing, Administrative Law Judge Sandra Ann Robinson wrote a detailed written decision upholding the termination. The Board adopted the judge's decision.

We have carefully reviewed the record, the briefs, and the arguments of counsel, and we are satisfied that Curtis's contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant extended discussion in a written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D) and (E). The findings of fact and conclusions of law adopted by the Board are fully supported by the record. We therefore affirm, adding only these brief comments. Whereas Curtis contends that the drug-screen did not comply with the Attorney General's Drug Screening Guidelines for law enforcement officers, those Guidelines by their own terms do not govern "fitness for duty" exams. See II.C.3: "Urine specimens may be collected from law enforcement officers during a regularly scheduled and announced medical examination or a fitness for duty examination. However, the collection and analysis of these specimens are not governed by this policy."

 
The scope of our review of an agency decision, whether viewed as an adjudicative action or the interpretation and application of a statute, is limited. There is a presumption of validity to be accorded to the agency's decision, which will be sustained unless it is "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable [or] . . . clearly inconsistent with its statutory mission or with other state policy." Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997); see also Matturri v. Bd. of Trs. of the Judicial Ret. Sys., 173 N.J. 368, 382-83 (2002); Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980); see generally, Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, Comment 3.2 and Comment 5 on R. 2:10-1 (2006). The decision appealed from is not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.

Affirmed.

Curtis was charged with violating Rules Governing the Conduct of Employees of the Hudson County Sheriff's Department Topics 2.11 (Sleeping on Duty), 2.6 (Reporting for Duty), 1.9 (Possession and Use of Drugs), 2.2 (Failure to Call or Late Call for Illness), and 2.1 (Abuse of Sick Leave). He was also charged with violating N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a) and the County of Hudson Employee Handbook.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-6001-03T5

December 21, 2005