Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4858-12T4
04-15-2015
IN THE MATTER OF SHARON DEL VALLE, UNION COUNTY.
Sharon Del Valle, appellant pro se. Bauch Zucker Hatfield LLC, attorneys for respondent County of Union (Evan M. Lison, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Civil Service Commission (Pamela N. Ullman, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in lieu of brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Messano and Hayden. On appeal from the Civil Service Commission. Sharon Del Valle, appellant pro se. Bauch Zucker Hatfield LLC, attorneys for respondent County of Union (Evan M. Lison, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Civil Service Commission (Pamela N. Ullman, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in lieu of brief). PER CURIAM
Sharon Del Valle appeals from the May 2, 2013 final decision of the Civil Service Commission, which determined that she did not have displacement rights to a former job title after being laid off from her current position. After reviewing the record in light of the applicable legal principles, we affirm.
Del Valle worked for the Union County Department of Human Services from June 27, 1994 until June 1, 2012. While employed by the County, she held five different titles: Income Maintenance Technician, classified as Bilingual in Spanish and English (IMT-Bilingual); Income Maintenance Worker (IMW); IMW, classified as Bilingual in Spanish and English (IMW-Bilingual); Human Services Specialist 2, classified as Bilingual in Spanish and English (HSS2-Bilingual); and Investigator County Welfare Agency (Investigator). She held the position of Investigator from August 6, 2000 until her layoff on June 1, 2012.
In 2012, the County submitted a layoff plan to the Division of State and Local Operations (SLO) designating the employees to be laid off effective June 1, 2012. The SLO approved the plan, and the County sent layoff notices to the affected employees, including Del Valle. The County also advised affected employees whether they had any right to displace employees in other positions. Del Valle's notice stated that she did not have any displacement rights.
Del Valle challenged that determination. In support of her claim, she pointed to a copy of a memo dated September 7, 1999, by the then Director of Human Resource Management for the Department of Personnel, stating that the of the Human Services Specialist (HSS) series was intended to consolidate several titles, including the Income Maintenance (IM) series and the Family Service Worker, and replace them with the new series while the old titles would go inactive after June 30, 2000. In a letter dated October 29, 1999, the Human Resources Department responded to the County Director's inquiry regarding layoff rights of an IM supervisor as follows:
All rights and seniority held by an employee at the time of the title change will be automatically transferred to the new title. The decision on the implementation of the new title series is final and in line with our overall plan for title consolidation. We envision no return to the old titles.
But to answer your question specifically, seniority accrued by an employee in the new title will be added to the seniority he/she brought forward from the old title and be counted as total seniority to be carried forward to any title change or layoff that may occur in the future.
Del Valle appealed the SLO's determination to the Written Record Appeals Unit, claiming that her displacement rights were incorrectly determined. Specifically, Del Valle asserted that another employee, Rita Steed, who was given displacement rights over the HSS2 title, should not have had preference over Del Valle because Del Valle had five years more seniority than Steed. On September 24, 2012, the Appeals Unit responded by letter that Del Valle's rights were properly recorded. The Appeals Unit explicitly rejected Del Valle's claim, because Steed had previously worked as an HSS2, while Del Valle had never held that specific classification. Del Valle was previously classified as a HSS2- Bilingual, a different classification than HSS2, and thus did not have displacement rights in the HSS2 classification.
In response, Del Valle appealed to the Commission. On May 2, 2013, the Commission entered its final order denying her appeal. The Commission found that Del Valle was not entitled to greater displacement rights than Steed to the HSS2 classification because Del Valle never held that title. The Commission further determined that Del Valle's experience in the IM title series did not give her displacement rights against positions in the HSS title series. According to the Commission
Prior to the Commission's decision, Del Valle was re-hired as an Investigator on February 19, 2013 under a special re-employment list.
The HSS title series was established on July 2, 1999 and is not the same as the Income Maintenance Worker title series. The HSS title series was developed to be more reflective of the duties demanded by the Work First New Jersey Legislation. The base title used to develop the HSS series was the Income Maintenance series with extractions from the Family Services, Interviewer, and Child Support title series. Therefore, Ms. DelValle cannot be afforded a prior held title right to the HSS2 title. Layoff determinations are based on the official records at the time of the layoff. Accordingly, in the present matter, Ms. DelValle has not established any error or evidence of misapplication of the pertinent uniform regulatory criteria in determining layoff rights.This appeal followed.
Before us, Del Valle maintains that the agency erred in failing to accord her displacement rights in the HSS2 title. First, she maintains that the IMW title she held was abolished and consolidated into the title of HSS2, so her displacement rights to the IMW title should be applied to the HSS2 title. Second, she contends that at the time of the consolidation former IMW employees were given lateral transfers to the HSS2 title, thus giving her, as a former IMW, displacement rights to the HSS2 title. Finally, Del Valle asserts that in 1999, she received and signed a personnel form titled "request for personnel/interim profile," that identified her job title as HSS2. This form, according to Del Valle, demonstrated that she held the HSS2 job title and had displacement rights to that title. We find these arguments unpersuasive.
An appellate court's role in reviewing an agency decision is limited. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (citing Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579 (1980)). An agency's decision will be reversed "only in those rare circumstances in which an agency action is clearly inconsistent with its statutory mission or other state policy." In re Musick, 143 N.J. 206, 216 (1996). The reviewing court "should not disturb an administrative agency's determinations or findings unless there is a clear showing that (1) the agency did not follow the law; (2) the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; or (3) the decision was not supported by substantial evidence." In re Virtua-West Jersey Hosp. Voorhees, 194 N.J. 413, 422 (2008) (citing In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 28 (2007)). The party challenging the agency's action has the burden of proving that the action was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. DiNapoli v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. of Verona, 434 N.J. Super. 233, 236 (App. Div.) (citing In re Arenas, 385 N.J. Super. 440, 443-44 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 188 N.J. 219 (2006)), certif. denied, 217 N.J. 589 (2014).
The authority to promulgate rules to implement New Jersey's civil service laws and to adjudicate appeals has been delegated to the Commission. N.J.S.A. 11A:2-6. State employees may be laid off for "economy, efficiency, or other related reason," N.J.S.A. 11A:8-1(a), but layoffs are to occur in the "inverse order of seniority." N.J.S.A. 11A:8-1(b). For jobs not involving police or firefighting titles, seniority is defined as the length of continuous permanent service in the jurisdiction regardless of the title held. N.J.S.A. 11A:8-1(b).
When an employee's position is targeted for layoff, he or she is provided applicable lateral and demotional title rights. N.J.S.A. 11A:8-1(f). A lateral title right is the right to displace employees holding a title determined to be the same or comparable to that of the affected employee. N.J.A.C. 4A:8-2.1(a). Demotional title rights, on the other hand, are the right of a targeted employee to displace an employee holding a title determined to be lower but related to the affected title. N.J.A.C. 4A:8-2.1(b).
In addition to lateral and demotional rights, which are based on an employee's current job title, employees also have displacement rights to "any title previously held on a permanent basis within current continuous service." N.J.A.C. 4A:8-2.2(f). For these rights, "[d]isplacement may be made only on the basis of a greater permanent continuous service . . . ." N.J.A.C. 4A:8-2.2(f). These further rights "shall not be granted when the employee has either lateral title rights options, or demotional title rights options to a title with a higher class code than the previously held title, within the selected job locations." N.J.A.C. 4A:8-2.2(f)(1).
An employee may appeal an initial determination on layoff rights or seniority. N.J.A.C. 4A:8-2.6(a)(2). An appeal from a displacement rights determination does not involve a hearing but consists of a review of the written record with a right to further appeal to the Commissioner. N.J.A.C. 4A:8-2.6(a)(2).
From our independent review of the record, we do not discern any arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable action by the agency in denying Del Valle's appeal. The record shows that Del Valle never held the title of HSS2, but held only the separate title of HSS2-Bilingual. Del Valle's reliance on a personnel form she signed in 1999 listing her title as HSS2 is misplaced since that form contained the job code for her actual position of HSS2-Bilingual. Moreover, this form was not part of her official employment record, and the agency's practice of resolving title dispute appeals through reference to official employment records is plainly reasonable.
Del Valle also contends that she is entitled to displacement rights over the HSS2 title because the IMW title was consolidated into the HSS title. Here, the agency rationally found that the IM job title series was not the same as the HHS series, pointing to the multiple job title series used to create the HSS series and the fact that the IMW title still exists. Indeed, the record does not demonstrate that the IMW job title was completely eliminated at the time of Del Valle's layoff. We defer to an agency's factual determinations when they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Virtua-West Jersey Hosp., supra, 194 N.J. at 422. Consequently, Del Valle has not met her burden of proving that she is entitled to displacement rights.
Del Valle included in her appendix correspondence she received after the Commission's final decision. However, such items will not be considered as appellate review is limited to the record as it existed before the body whose decision is under review. See N.J. Div. of Youth and Fam. Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 278 (2007).
--------
In sum, the Commission did not act arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably in denying Del Valle's claim for displacement rights to the HSS2 job title, and its decision is fairly supported by the record.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION