IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH MAGLIONE, EWING TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT
Annotate this CaseNOT 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-4086-17T3
IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH
MAGLIONE, EWING TOWNSHIP
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
_______________________________
Argued October 3, 2019 – Decided October 24, 2019
Before Judges Fuentes, Mayer and Enright.
On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service
Commission, Docket No. 2018-1233.
Donald C. Barbati argued the cause for appellant
Joseph Maglione (Crivelli & Barbati, LLC, attorneys;
Donald C. Barbati and Frank Michael Crivelli, on the
briefs).
Susan Lynn Swatski argued the cause for respondent
Ewing Township Police Department (Hill Wallack,
LLP, attorneys; Susan Lynn Swatski, of counsel and on
the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent Civil Service Commission (Dominic Larue
Giova, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in
lieu of brief).
PER CURIAM
Joseph Maglione appeals from a final decision of the Civil Service
Commission (Commission), upholding his removal from employment with the
Ewing Township Police Department (Department) for numerous violations of
Departmental Rules and Regulations regarding a high-risk missing child
investigation. We affirm.
After a lengthy hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) accepted the
testimony from the Department's witnesses as credible. On the other hand, the
ALJ concluded Maglione's testimony, denying any violations of the
Departmental Rules and Regulations, was not credible. The ALJ found
Maglione's
actions or lack thereof, if not intentional, were grossly
negligent in the handling of a high-risk missing child.
This was compounded by his lack of candor in his
[Internal Affairs Department] interview and calls into
question his fitness to be a supervising officer. Such
conduct places not only the public[,] but the
Department at risk.
The ALJ affirmed the Department's termination of Maglione's employment.
The hearing testimony provided by the witnesses is recited at length in the
ALJ's initial decision. We provide a summary of the ALJ's factual findings.
On May 20, 2017, the Department received a telephone call, reporting a
missing eleven-year old child. Based on the child's age, he was deemed a "high-
A-4086-17T3
2
risk" missing person. Investigations of high-risk missing children require
officers to follow protocols set forth in the Department's Guidelines and the
Attorney General's Directives. Officers are required to search inside and outside
the residence of the missing child; treat the place where the child was last seen
as a crime scene; establish a command post; notify supervisors in the chain of
command; contact the on-call detective; notify the county's Child Abduction
Response Team (CART); and contact the K-9 unit in the Department.
Lieutenant Maglione, the on-duty supervisor on the date of the incident,
and Officer Paul Dorio responded to the missing child call. Both officers spoke
to the missing child's parents. However, neither officer searched the interior or
exterior of the child's home and did not establish a crime scene or command post
at the residence. Nor did the officers issue a "Be on the Look Out" (BOLO)
order to notify adjacent municipalities of the missing child.
Maglione told Dorio to call the Mercer County Prosecutor's Office and the
officer who worked in the child's school. Maglione did not instruct Dorio to
contact CART to ensure their involvement in the missing child investigation.
Nor did Maglione call his superiors regarding the child's disappearance.
The next day, the Department first learned the child was missing. The on-
call detective contacted CART. The staff at CART said they were not contacted
A-4086-17T3
3
the prior evening by either Maglione or Dorio. The on-call detective called the
child's school seeking to contact the missing child's friends. Within hours
thereafter, the juvenile was found unharmed.
The Department initiated an internal affairs investigation into the events
related to the child's disappearance. The investigation concluded Maglione
edited Dorio's incident report several times and determined significant
information was missing from Dorio's report despite Maglione's approval of th e
document. The internal affairs investigator found Maglione had been untruthful
many times during the course of the Department's investigation.
The ALJ upheld the Department's disciplinary charges in an April 3, 2018
Initial Decision. On May 4, 2018, the Commission accepted and adopted the
ALJ's thorough and comprehensive factual findings and legal conclusions.
Maglione presents the following arguments on appeal:
I. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ERRED IN
ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE INITIAL
DECISION OF THE ALJ. AS SUCH, THE
COMMISSION'S DECISION MUST BE REVERSED.
II. THE ALJ'S CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS
WERE ERRONEOUS AND INHERENTLY
INCONSISTENT. GIVEN THE DETERMINATIONS
SERVED AS THE UNDERPINNING FOR THE
INITIAL DECISION, THE INITIAL DECISION
SHOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE
COMMISSION.
A-4086-17T3
4
III. THE ALJ ERRED IN DETERMINING THE
DEPARTMENT MET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF TO
SUSTAIN THE DISCIPLINARY CHARGES
LODGED AGAINST MAGLIONE. THIS FURTHER
SUPPORTED REVERSAL OF THE INITIAL
DECISION.
1. The ALJ failed to recognize the Department failed
to prove Maglione should be responsible for Officer
Dorio's deficiencies in contacting CART and/or the On-
Call Detective.
2. The ALJ failed to recognize the Department failed
to prove Maglione should be responsible for Officer
Dorio's deficiencies in the search of the missing child's
residence.
3. The Department did not establish Maglione had an
imperative obligation to contact the On-Call Detective
and establish a command post and/or crime scene.
Moreover, the Department failed to establish Maglione
failed to send out the required BOLO message. As such,
the ALJ's determinations to sustain these charges
should have been reversed.
4. The ALJ erroneously determined the Department
established Maglione was untruthful.
IV. THE ALJ AND COMMISSION ERRED IN
AFFIRMING MAGLIONE'S REMOVAL FROM
EMPLOYMENT. SUCH A PENALTY DEFIES THE
PRINCIPLES OF PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE AND
IS "SHOCKING TO ONE'S SENSE OF FAIRNESS."
"An appellate court affords a 'strong presumption of reasonableness' to an
administrative agency's exercise of its statutorily delegated responsibilities."
A-4086-17T3
5
Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171-72 (2014) (quoting City of Newark v. Nat.
Res. Council, Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 82 N.J. 530, 539 (1980)). We will not
overturn an agency's decision "in the absence of a showing that it was arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable, or that it lacked fair support in the evidence . . . ."
Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963).
We give "due regard to the opportunity of the one who heard the witnesses
to judge their credibility." Logan v. Bd. of Review, 299 N.J. Super. 346, 348
(App. Div. 1997) (citing Jackson v. Concord Co., 54 N.J. 113, 117 (1969)). We
will not disturb an ALJ's credibility findings unless they were "arbitrary or not
based on sufficient credible evidence in the record as a whole." Cavalieri v. Bd.
of Trs. of PERS, 368 N.J. Super. 527, 537 (App. Div. 2004). After reviewing
the record, we find no basis to second-guess the ALJ's evaluation of witness
credibility.
We are further satisfied that the ALJ's findings are amply supported by
the credible testimony and documentary evidence adduced during the hearing.
On the date of the juvenile's disappearance, Maglione's actions, or lack thereof,
violated multiple protocols issued by the Department, warranting imposition of
a severe penalty.
A-4086-17T3
6
We next consider Maglione's argument that removal from office was an
inappropriate penalty and progressive discipline should have been imposed. Our
standard of review is whether the penalty "shocks one's sense of fairness." In re
Hendrickson, 235 N.J. 145, 150 (2018). "[N]either this court nor our Supreme
Court 'regard[] the theory of progressive discipline as a fixed and immutable
rule to be followed without question.'" In re Restrepo, 449 N.J. Super. 409, 425
(App. Div. 2017) (second alteration in original) (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J.
474, 484 (2007)). "[P]rogressive discipline is not a necessary consideration
when . . . the misconduct is severe, when it is unbecoming to the employee's
position or renders the employee unsuitable for continuation in the position, or
when application of the principle would be contrary to the public interest." In
re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 33 (2007). Even a single incident can be egregious
enough to warrant removal without reliance on progressive-discipline policies.
Ibid.
Several of these considerations are applicable here. In deciding to
terminate Maglione, the ALJ and the Commission emphasized his numerous
violations of the Department's Rules and Regulations, lack of veracity
throughout the internal affairs investigation and during the administrative
hearing, and refusal to take responsibility for his actions. The Commission
A-4086-17T3
7
concluded that the substantial evidence in the record regarding Maglione's
failure to follow rules, procedures, and guidelines in searching for the high -risk
missing child warranted his termination. There is no legal or factual basis to
disturb this decision. Moreover, Maglione's absence of judgment demonstrated
gross negligence and lack of fitness to continue working in the Department. The
public's interest would not be served by implementing progressive discipline
under these circumstances.
Having reviewed the ALJ's detailed findings, we discern no legal error in
the ALJ's decision to terminate Maglione's employment. Termination was not
disproportionate or unreasonable under the circumstances, and does not shock
our sense of fairness.
Affirmed.
A-4086-17T3
8
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
