Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0664-14T1 DOCKET NO. A-2757-14T4
04-26-2016
IN THE MATTERS OF WERFY FERNANDEZ AND WANDA FERNANDEZ, CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES
Werfy Fernandez, appellant pro se in A-0664-14. Wanda Fernandez, appellant pro se in A-2757-14. Sharon Conway Faber, attorney for respondent Camden County Board of Social Services. Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent New Jersey Civil Service Commission (Todd A. Wigder, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in lieu of brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner and Leone. On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service Commission, Docket Nos. 2012-1931 and 2012-1932. Werfy Fernandez, appellant pro se in A-0664-14. Wanda Fernandez, appellant pro se in A-2757-14. Sharon Conway Faber, attorney for respondent Camden County Board of Social Services. Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent New Jersey Civil Service Commission (Todd A. Wigder, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in lieu of brief). PER CURIAM
Wanda Fernandez and Werfy Fernandez filed separate appeals from a June 20, 2014 final decision of the Civil Service Commission, affirming their termination from employment on charges of incompetency, inefficiency or failure to perform duties, conduct unbecoming a public employee, neglect of duty, and misuse of public property. We have consolidated the appeals for purposes of this opinion. We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Susan M. Scarola in her May 8, 2014 initial decision, which the Commission adopted in its final determination.
Appellants are sisters. For clarity, and meaning no disrespect, we will refer to them by their first names. --------
The evidence was discussed at length in the initial decision. To summarize the ALJ's findings, appellants, who were responsible for assisting indigent clients of the Camden County Board of Social Services, instead spent many hours making personal international phone calls on work time, using the employer's telephones. The calls "frequently exceeded an hour in length." As a result, they neglected their work duties and caused the employer to incur thousands of dollars in telephone bills. The ALJ found that "between January 2010 and August 2011, Wanda made more than 41 hours' worth of personal telephone calls to the Dominican Republic during work hours, causing the Board to incur charges of $6,496.67." During that same period of time, "Werfy made 147 hours' worth of personal telephone calls to the Dominican Republic during work hours, causing the Board to incur charges of $22,426.28." The ALJ found that appellants "received compensation, including salary and benefits, while stealing Board time, as they were paid for their hours on the phone on personal calls, rather than on serving their clients." The ALJ determined, and the Commission agreed, that appellants' conduct was sufficiently egregious that progressive discipline was not required and termination was appropriate.
In their appeals, appellants contend that the penalty of removal was excessive and unfair. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the Commission's decision is supported by substantial credible evidence, and the penalty of termination was not so disproportionate to the offenses committed as to be shocking to our sense of fairness. See In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194-95 (2011); In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27-29 (2007); In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 484 (2007).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION