May 5, 2009
IN THE MATTER OF APRIL WILSON.
On appeal from a Final Administrative Decision of the Merit System Board, Docket No. 2005-748.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued January 13, 2009
Before Judges Fuentes, Gilroy and Chambers.
Appellant April Wilson appeals from the final decision of the Merit System Board (Board) dated October 15, 2007, affirming her removal from her position as a clerk with the Essex County Prosecutor's Office, a position protected by the Civil Service Laws. N.J.S.A. 11A:1-1 to 11A:12-6; N.J.A.C. 4A:1-1.1 to 4A:10-3.2. Wilson contends that the decision of the Board was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable and not supported by the credible evidence, that the County had the burden of proving the charges by clear and convincing evidence, and that her conduct did not warrant termination.
Our review of an administrative agency action is limited. In re Musick, 143 N.J. 206, 216 (1996). The administrative agency is presumed to have acted reasonably. In re Vey, 272 N.J. Super. 199, 205 (App. Div. 1993), aff'd, 135 N.J. 306 (1994). The agency's decision will be sustained unless an appellant makes "a clear showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the record." In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27-28 (2007). In this inquiry, we look to whether the agency followed the law in light of the express or implied legislative policies involved, whether the agency's findings are supported by substantial evidence, and "whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors." Id. at 28 (quoting Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995)).
In light of this standard of review, we find no error here. Substantial credible evidence presented at the administrative law hearing supported the findings of the Board that Wilson was unfit for the job and that her insubordination and conduct unbecoming a public employee on September 30, 2003, warranted termination. The issues raised in this appeal are not of sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D) and (E).
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.