Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Holland

September 7, 2007


On appeal from a Final Administrative Decision of the Merit System Board, DOP Docket No. 1998-3414.

Per curiam.


Submitted July 10, 2007

Before Judges R. B. Coleman and Sapp-Peterson.

Appellant Richard Holland, a groundskeeper employed by Rowan University (Rowan), appeals from a Final Administrative Action of the Merit System Board (Board) issued on August 11, 2005, removing him from his position. The Board's decision reversed an earlier ruling by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). We agree with the OAL's interpretation of "conduct unbecoming a public employee" and, therefore, we reverse the decision of the Board.

This matter arises out of Holland's arrest on August 19, 1995, in Glassboro, for possession of over fifty grams of marijuana in a school zone; possession with intent to distribute marijuana; and operation of a controlled dangerous substance manufacturing facility. Several weeks after the arrest, Holland submitted an employment application to Rowan. Rowan's employment application requested information on criminal convictions but did not request information regarding pending criminal charges against the applicant, although public employers have the right to do so. Rowan's employment application included the question "Have you been convicted of a crime? (Conviction will not necessarily disqualify applicant from consideration of employment.) If Yes, please explain." When Holland submitted his employment application on September 7, 1995, he responded "No", a correct answer as of the date of application and as of the date Holland began employment.

On May 13, 1997, Holland was hired by Rowan as a groundskeeper and was told his salary would be $18,413 per year and that he must serve a four-month working test period. On June 3, 1997, a jury found Holland guilty of possession of fifty grams of marijuana with intent to distribute. On June 13, 1997, Rowan issued a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action (PNDA) suspending Holland based on his criminal conviction and conduct unbecoming a public employee. A judgment of conviction was entered against Holland on November 7, 1997. Thereafter, Rowan issued the Final Notice of Disciplinary Action to Holland, removing him from his employment effective November 7, 1997, on charges of conviction of a crime in violation of N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(5) and conduct unbecoming a public employee in violation of N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6).

Holland filed an appeal, challenging his removal; however, the hearing was postponed by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) while Holland pursued appeals of his criminal conviction. His appeals took approximately five years but, ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction for possession of marijuana. The Court found that the evidence against Holland had to be suppressed as fruit of a prior impermissible warrantless search. State v. Holland, 176 N.J. 344, 363-65 (2003). The local prosecutor then declined to pursue the matter further and the criminal indictment was dismissed.*fn1

Thereafter, Holland's appeal of his removal was heard before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Joseph L. Martone on November 30, 2004. At the conclusion of the hearing, the matter was left open to afford the parties an opportunity to submit written closing arguments, and the record was closed on January 31, 2005. On April 29, 2005, the ALJ issued his Initial Decision, concluding that Holland should not be found guilty of "conduct unbecoming a public employee" because he was not "actually engaged in public employment" on August 19, 1995, when the conduct occurred. The ALJ found that, based on the plain meaning of N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3, "conduct unbecoming a public employee" requires the employee to be in the actual employment of the public entity at the time of the conduct. The ALJ concluded that Holland was entitled to reinstatement to his position at Rowan, plus mitigated back pay, seniority, and counsel fees.

On appeal to the Board, the ALJ's decision was reversed. The Board adopted the ALJ's findings of fact, but did not adopt his interpretation of N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6). Instead, the Board upheld Holland's removal from his employment for conduct unbecoming an employee, concluding that, under these circumstances, it was appropriate for the State employer to remove a newly hired employee for unbecoming conduct which occurred prior to his employment but was not known to the employer until a month after the start of work. For the following reasons, we reverse the Board's Final Administrative Action.

As the Court reiterated, "[g]enerally courts afford substantial deference to an agency's interpretation of a statute that it is charged with enforcing. An appellate court, however, is in no way bound by the agency's interpretation of a statute or its determination of a strictly legal issue." Shim v. Rutgers-State Univ. of New Jersey, 191 N.J. 374, 384 (2007) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The controlling issue in this case is purely one of statutory interpretation.

"If the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the court need not look beyond its terms to determine legislative intent. [I]f the statutory language is plain and clearly reveals the statute's meaning, the [reviewing tribunal's] sole function is to enforce the statute in accordance with those terms." Hubbard v. Reed, 331 N.J. Super. 283 (App. Div. 2000), rev'd on other grounds, 168 N.J. 387 (2001); Neptune Bd. of Educ. v. Neptune Educ. Ass'n, 144 N.J. 16, 25 (1996). Thus, the words of the statute are to be given their ordinary and well-understood meaning in absence of any explicit indication of special meaning. Levin v. Parsippany-Troy Hills, 82 N.J. 174, 182 (1980). The rules of statutory interpretation and construction also apply to the Administrative Code. State Dep't of Health v. Tegnazian, 205 N.J. Super. 160, 175 (App. Div. 1985). The regulation at issue here is clear and unambiguous, and should be enforced as such.

N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3 provides:

(a) An employee may be subject to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.