"As a general rule, the reviewing court should give 'due regard to the opportunity of the one who heard the witnesses to judge of their credibility.'"
How later courts described this case
- "As a general rule, the reviewing court should give 'due regard to the opportunity of the one who heard the witnesses to judge of their credibility.'"
- holding that "[t]he burden of showing the agency's action was arbitrary, unreasonable[,] or capricious rests upon the appellant "
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2588-22
IN THE MATTER OF MINA
EKLADIOUS, JERSEY CITY,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY.
_____________________________
Argued March 5, 2024 – Decided July 2, 2024
Before Judges Smith and Perez Friscia.
On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service
Commission, Docket No. 2023-922.
Kyle J. Trent argued the cause for appellant
(Apruzzese, McDermott, Mastro & Murphy P.C.,
attorneys; Arthur R. Thibault Jr., of counsel and on the
briefs; Kyle J. Trent, on the briefs).
Adam W. Marshall argued the cause for respondent
Mina Ekladious (Lebson & Prigoff, LLC, attorneys;
Michael L. Prigoff on the brief).
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorneys for
respondent The New Jersey Civil Service Commission
(Adam W. Marshall, Deputy Attorney General, on the
statement in lieu of brief).
PER CURIAM
After Jersey City removed firefighter Mina Ekladious for failing the fire
academy physical examination, he appealed. An administrative law judge (ALJ)
conducted a hearing and ordered Ekladious be reinstated and assigned to a
different fire academy for retesting. The Civil Service Commission issued a
final administrative decision (FAD) adopting the ALJ's findings of fact and
conclusions of law. On appeal, Jersey City argues that the Commission issued
its FAD in error because it was arbitrary and capricious. In the alternative, the
city contends, for the first time before us, that the matter should be remanded to
reconstruct the record, because a portion of the hearing transcript was lost. We
affirm.
We summarize the following facts from the record. On September 9,
2019, the Jersey City Department of Public Safety conditionally hired Mina
Ekladious. The job was conditioned upon successful completion of a firefighter
training course at the Morris County Fire Academy. At the time the city hired
him, Ekladious already had nine years' prior experience as a firefighter in
Wellington, and he had earned a Firefighter I certification while working there.
A-2588-22
2
The Morris County Fire Academy is Jersey City's designated academy for
training firefighter recruits, and it is considered a "Tier-1 organization." 1 Jersey
City Fire Department Battalion Chief Joseph Vallo was chief of training at
academy in the Fall of 2019, and Captain David Hamilton was the lead instructor
for Ekladious's class.
The academy had several graduation requirements. Recruits were
required to complete a five-part physical assessment consisting of: a fifteen-
inch vertical jump; twenty-eight sit-ups within one minute; a 300-meter sprint
within 70.1 seconds; a mile and one-half run in 15:55 minutes on a track or
pavement; and twenty-four push-ups within one minute. Recruits who failed a
component were given an opportunity to pass during a reassessment. If unable
to successfully complete any component, a recruit would be dismissed from the
training course.
1
Training academies are grouped by a three-tier system that is detailed in
N.J.A.C. 5:73-2.2. To qualify as Tier-1, an academy must adhere to the
standards outlined in N.J.A.C. 5:73-2.2(c). When an academy is designated as
Tier-1, it may establish additional local jurisdictional requirements. However,
those requirements must not conflict with the intent of the training procedures
adopted by the Office of Training and Certification, a branch within the Division
of Fire Safety. N.J.A.C. 5:73-4.2(d)(5).
A-2588-22
3
Ekladious testified Capt. Hamilton called him "fatty" at the academy,
among other derogatory and insulting names. At the administrative hearing,
Dominick Ciccarelli, a recruit in the same training class, testified based on his
observations that Ekladious was treated poorly by the instructors. Ciccarelli
further testified that many instructors made demeaning remarks to Ekladious
about his weight. 2
Academy trainers wrote up Ekladious for failing to properly shave, and
they gave him a written warning for sleeping in class. Ekladious testified that
he was clean shaven every day, and he denied sleeping in class. In addition,
Ekladious scored well on the various fire related exercises, despite trainers not
issuing him a protective uniform in his size.
Witnesses gave conflicting testimony about Ekladious's first physical
assessment on October 18. His instructors failed him for four of the five
assessments. Ekladious countered, testifying that he and a recruit who was
assisting him counted four more sit-ups than required to pass—even though the
instructor only gave him credit for twelve. Ekladious was also failed for the
push-ups, even though he testified he did forty, while Capt. Hamilton advised
2
The hearing transcript omits Ciccarelli's testimony due to the lost audio
recording of that part of the hearing.
A-2588-22
4
the instructor to "give him a zero." Next, the record shows Ekladious failed the
300-meter sprint and the mile and a half run. Ekladious testified that he was
improperly and unfairly timed in each of these tests.
On October 21, 2019 the city issued Ekladious a "Notice of Failure to
Fully Participate," stating that he had failed to pass the physical assessment. He
was instructed that his reassessment would be conducted on November 1, and
that failure to pass would result in dismissal. On November 1, 2019, Ekladious
took the reassessment test. Running in poor weather conditions, he allegedly
failed the sprint test and was therefore barred from taking the mile run or push-
up retests. On December 26, 2019 the city issued Ekladious a Final Notice of
Disciplinary Action (FDNA), and it charged him with: conduct not becoming a
Firefighter; incompetency and incapacity, mentally or physically; and not
properly performing duty. Ekladious appealed, and the matter was transferred
to the Office of Administrative Law as a contested case. An ALJ conducted a
hearing in December 2021.
The ALJ issued an initial decision, making findings, including: Ekladious
testified credibly regarding his own academy performance; the corroborating
witness, fellow recruit Ciccarelli, was credible; and that Ekladious was treated
improperly by the academy instructors. The ALJ also found that "the criticism
A-2588-22
5
[of Ekladious] came primarily from the only person holding the stopwatch."
Overall, the ALJ found the testimony of Ciccarelli and Ekladious "more
credible" than the testimony of the city witnesses. The ALJ concluded that the
city "failed to prove, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that
[Ekladious] failed academy's physical assessments," and dismissed the charges.
The Commission issued an FAD adopting the initial decision. The Commission
reinstated Ekladious' employment, ordered that he be re-enrolled at the next
available firefighter class at a different academy, and granted him back pay,
benefits, and seniority. The Commission denied the city' motion for
reconsideration, concluding:
[T]he Commission did not reverse Ekladious'[s]
removal due to the Academy's 'meanness' or 'unfairness'
as [the city] contends. Instead[,] the Commission
reversed the removal because [the city] did not meet its
burden to prove that the determination that Ekladious
did not meet the Academy's physical assessment
standards was reliably accurate based on the credible
testimony in the record.
The city appealed.
Our scope of review of an administrative agency's final determination is
limited. In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27 (2007). "[A] strong presumption of
reasonableness attaches" to the agency's decision. In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super.
429, 437 (App. Div. 2001) (quoting In re Vey, 272 N.J. Super. 199, 205 (App.
A-2588-22
6
Div. 1993), aff'd, 135 N.J. 306 (1994)). Additionally, we give "due regard to
the opportunity of the one who heard the witnesses to judge . . . their credibility."
In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999) (quoting Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J.
589, 599 (1965)).
The burden is on the appealing party to demonstrate grounds for reversal.
In re State & Sch. Emps.' Health Benefits Comm'ns' Implementation of Yucht,
233 N.J. 267, 285 (2018); see also Bowden v. Bayside Prison, 268 N.J. Super.
301, 304 (App. Div. 1993) (holding that "[t]he burden of showing the agency's
action was arbitrary, unreasonable[,] or capricious rests upon the appellant ").
Using the arbitrary and capricious standard, our scope of review is guided
by three inquiries: (1) whether the agency's decision conforms with relevant
law; (2) whether the decision is supported by substantial credible evidence in
the record; and (3) whether in applying the law to the facts, the agency clearly
erred in reaching a result that was either arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.
In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474,
482-83 (2007)). When an agency decision satisfies these criteria, we accord
substantial deference to the agency's fact-findings and legal conclusions, being
mindful of the agency's "expertise and superior knowledge of a particular field."
A-2588-22
7
Circus Liquors, Inc., v. Middletown Twp., 199 N.J. 1, 10 (2009) (quoting
Greenwood v. State Police Training Ctr., 127 N.J. 500, 513 (1992)).
The city argues that the Commissioner's FAD was arbitrary, capricious,
and unreasonable. As part of that argument, the city posits they met their burden
of proof to show that Ekladious failed to complete the academy's training
requirements.
In an appeal from a disciplinary action or ruling by an appointing
authority, the appointing authority bears the burden of proof to show, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the action taken was appropriate. N.J.S.A.
11A:2-21; N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.4(a); In re Polk, 90 N.J. 550, 560 (1982). Here,
Jersey City fired Ekladious based on the Morris County Fire Academy's failure
to pass him on its physical assessment. Ekladious's performance was a disputed
material fact that was resolved by conflicting testimony. The Commission
resolved the parties' factual dispute about Ekladious' test performances when it
found Ekladious and Ciccarelli more credible than the academy instructors. We
defer to the Commission's credibility findings. See Clowes v. Terminix Int'l,
Inc., 109 N.J. 575, 587 (1988) ("As a general rule, the reviewing court should
give 'due regard to the opportunity of the one who heard the witnesses to judge
of their credibility.'"). It follows that where the Commission's FAD was based
A-2588-22
8
on its credibility findings and its conclusion that the city didn't prove Ekladious
failed the tests, its FAD was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
We briefly comment upon the city's argument that we should remand the
matter to the OAL to reopen and reconstruct the record to address the missing
transcript testimony of Ciccarelli. We are not persuaded.
"We have, on occasion, reviewed a 'reconstructed' record when necessity
required." Carteret Bd. of Educ. v. Radwan, 347 N.J. Super. 451, 454 (App.
Div. 2002) (quoting State v. Kozarski, 143 N.J. Super. 12, 16, (1976)).
However, "existence of gaps in the record below do not automatically justify a
reversal." Ibid. For example, "[w]here the transcripts of a . . . trial are
incomplete because they omit portions of the trial proceedings, such omissions
do not mandate reversal unless the [party] demonstrates specific prejudice."
Ibid.
The city has not shown how the absence of Ciccarelli's testimony from the
hearing transcript prejudiced the result. Indeed, Ciccarelli's testimony was
summarized in the initial decision by the ALJ, which was adopted by the
Commission in its FAD.
Affirmed.
A-2588-22
9