From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gaskill v. Mayor Comm'rs of Bor. of Avalon

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Apr 25, 1977
149 N.J. Super. 364 (App. Div. 1977)

Summary

noting that seniority "is but an additional factor to be considered on the merits of the evaluation of the individuals for promotion and not a mechanical rule which guarantees promotion to the senior employee"

Summary of this case from Polkowitz v. Twp. of Edison

Opinion

Argued April 4, 1977 —

Decided April 25, 1977.

Appeal from Superior Court, Law Division.

Before Judges CARTON, KOLE and LARNER.

Mr. Martin List argued the cause for plaintiffs-appellants ( Messrs. Schneider, Cohen Solomon, attorneys).

Mr. David Wallace argued the cause for defendants-respondents ( Mr. Gerald L. Dorf, attorney; Mr. Stanley Schwartz, on the brief).


We affirm the judgment below substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Staller reported at 143 N.J. Super. 391 (Law Div. 1976).

In view of plaintiffs' appellate argument we deem it appropriate to supplement that opinion by an additional facet of decision which supports the conclusion below. Plaintiffs place primary emphasis upon the statutory provision (N.J.S.A. 40A:14-129) that "preference shall be given according to seniority in service," and urge that this preference directive was not properly implemented by the appointing authority.

In our opinion this statutory preference to those who enjoy seniority in service is applicable where two or more candidates have approximately equal qualifications. It is but an additional factor to be considered on the merits of the evaluation of the individuals for promotion and not a mechanical rule which guarantees promotion to the senior employee.

On the record herein, the police chief found that Shaw was better qualified for the task involved in the position of detective sergeant than Gaskill or Anderson. The trial judge concluded that this determination was reasonably justified by the evidence, and we agree. Under such circumstances, the status of seniority in itself cannot serve as a legal basis for a finding of arbitrariness, which is the proper standard of review of the discretionary action of the appointing authority.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Gaskill v. Mayor Comm'rs of Bor. of Avalon

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Apr 25, 1977
149 N.J. Super. 364 (App. Div. 1977)

noting that seniority "is but an additional factor to be considered on the merits of the evaluation of the individuals for promotion and not a mechanical rule which guarantees promotion to the senior employee"

Summary of this case from Polkowitz v. Twp. of Edison
Case details for

Gaskill v. Mayor Comm'rs of Bor. of Avalon

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN GASKILL AND RAYMOND ANDERSON, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. MAYOR AND…

Court:Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Date published: Apr 25, 1977

Citations

149 N.J. Super. 364 (App. Div. 1977)
373 A.2d 1019

Citing Cases

California State Personnel Bd. v. California State Employees Assn., Local 1000, Seiu, Afl-Cio

To the extent this contention suggests seniority is not at all reflective of merit, we disagree and do not…

Polkowitz v. Twp. of Edison

We agree, as Formica argues, the unanimous recommendation from the command staff that Polkowitz be promoted…