IN THE MATTER OF SYLVESTER HENDERSON, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted March 12, 2013
On appeal from the Civil Service Commission, Docket No. 2011-3409.
Sylvester Henderson, appellant, pro se.
Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Civil Service Commission (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Pamela N. Ullman, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Before Judges Messano and Mantineo.
Sylvester Henderson appeals from the final decision of the Civil Service Commission (the Commission) regarding his requested review of appointments made to the positions of Medical Security Officer Recruit (Recruit) and Senior Medical Security Officer (Senior Officer) by the Department of Human Services (DHS). The following facts are discerned from the record.
Henderson took the open competitive exam for the Recruit position in March 2008. A list of eligibles was issued in April but Henderson's name was not on it. His name and others were added in May 2008, resulting in Henderson being ranked twenty-sixth on the resultant list certified in October 2008.
He was appointed to a part-time Recruit position on March 14, 2009. Henderson was subsequently charged with various offenses, including conduct unbecoming, and removed from his position. He appealed. At its meeting of July 21, 2010, the Commission acknowledged a settlement, pursuant to which DHS agreed to consider Henderson's separation from employment as "an approved leave of absence without pay." Henderson, in turn, agreed to serve "a new working test period upon his reinstatement."
Henderson returned to employment on September 25, 2010, and began a new twelve-month working test period effective that date. Henderson then lodged a number of objections to DHS's hiring practices that allegedly occurred over the course of several years. In its final decision, the Commission addressed each of Henderson's claims.
We need not review all the issues before the Commission because, on appeal, Henderson presents arguments only as to two specific claims. We deem any challenge to the balance of the Commission's decision to be waived. See, e.g., Sklodowsky v. Lushis, 417 N.J.Super. 648, 657 (App. Div. 2011) ("An issue not briefed on appeal is deemed waived.") (citations omitted).
Our review of decisions by administrative agencies is limited. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011). "In order to reverse an agency's judgment, an appellate court must find the agency's decision to be 'arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or  not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.'" Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)). In our review, we only determine:
(1) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a ...