NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1677-15T2
IN THE MATTER OF NARESH RAJRAM,
MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY.
Argued May 9, 2017 - Decided May 26, 2017
Before Judges Reisner and Mayer.
On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service
Commission, Docket No. 2015-1669.
Eugenie F. Temmler argued the cause for
appellant Naresh Rajram (Rabner Baumgart Ben-
Asher & Nirenberg, P.C., attorneys; Ms.
Temmler, of counsel and on the briefs).
Beth N. Shore, Deputy Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent Montclair State
University (Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney
General, attorney; Melissa Dutton Schaffer,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms.
Shore, on the brief).
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent Civil Service
Commission (Pamela N. Ullman, Deputy Attorney
General, on the statement in lieu of brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Naresh Rajram appeals the determination of the
Civil Service Commission (Commission) upholding the decision of
the administrative law judge (ALJ) terminating his employment with
Montclair State University (University). We affirm.
The facts giving rise to the termination of petitioner's
employment with the University are detailed in the ALJ's written
decision dated October 1, 2015. We summarize the ALJ's findings
to explain our disposition of this appeal.
Petitioner was a senior building maintenance worker employed
by the University. He was accused of unbecoming conduct toward a
female student, A.P., who resided in a University dormitory.1 A.P.
reported petitioner's unwelcome and harassing behavior to the
University, which issued a notice of disciplinary action.
Petitioner requested a hearing and the matter was referred to the
Office of Administrative Law (OAL).
At the OAL hearing, A.P. described the improper conversations
and unwelcome conduct initiated by petitioner. A.P. alleged that
petitioner took her cellphone without permission and used it to
call his phone in order to obtain her cellphone number; sent text
messages to A.P. without her consent; and asked A.P. to go with
1
We shall refer to the female student as A.P. to protect her
privacy.
2 A-1677-15T2
him to a bar and for ice cream. A.P. declined petitioner's
overtures and ignored his unwanted text messages. Petitioner also
allegedly asked A.P. personal questions about her relationship
with a former boyfriend and made other inappropriate inquiries.
A.P. testified that she had an exam on the evening she received
petitioner's text messages. She was scared and upset by
petitioner's text messages, rendering her unable to focus on the
exam, which she failed.
In response to A.P.'s accusations during the hearing,
petitioner claimed A.P. made up the allegations and text messages.
In addition to the testimony of A.P. and petitioner, the ALJ heard
from several University employees. He also reviewed screen shots
of the text messages allegedly sent to A.P. by petitioner.
In his decision, the ALJ described the demeanor of the
witnesses and made meticulous credibility determinations as to
testimony of each witness. In assessing credibility, the ALJ
found that A.P. had no reason to fabricate her story. The ALJ
disbelieved the argument advanced by petitioner's attorney that
A.P. invented the incidents and text messages to justify her
failing the exam. He also found it improbable that an otherwise
"A" student would have failed and exam, but for the unpleasant and
distressing encounters with petitioner. The ALJ further noted
A.P.'s reluctance to ruin petitioner's career and reputation by
3 A-1677-15T2
reporting the incidents to the University and filing criminal
charges. Overall, the ALJ deemed the testimony of A.P. to be more
credible than petitioner's testimony.
Based on his credibility findings, the ALJ concluded
petitioner violated University policy by harassing A.P. in
violation of N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6) (conduct unbecoming a public
employee). The ALJ determined that asking an underage student to
a bar, taking a student's cellphone without permission, and seeking
personal information about a student constituted conduct
unbecoming a public employee. The ALJ reasoned that public
employees are required to act in a professional manner and refrain
from overly personal and harassing behavior. The ALJ found
petitioner's conduct toward A.P.:
[M]ore reprehensible [because] an employee
such as [petitioner] has access to the dorms
where this female student live[d]. Such
employees have a heightened responsibility of
acting in a professional manner and refrain
from acting in an overly personal and
harassing behavior. [Petitioner] breached
that responsibility. The effect on [A.P.] was
palpable as she was frightened and disturbed
by the incident. No student, especially as
young and impressible as [A.P.] was, should
have to be the victim of such harassing
behavior.
Having determined that petitioner violated University policy,
the ALJ then considered the imposition of an appropriate
punishment. In assessing the penalty against petitioner, the ALJ
4 A-1677-15T2
found petitioner's "reprehensible" conduct warranted petitioner's
termination.
The Commission adopted the ALJ's findings and conclusions and
affirmed petitioner's termination as a University employee.
On appeal, petitioner argues that the ALJ's findings were
unsupported by the evidence. Petitioner also contends the
punishment of termination was arbitrary, capricious and
disproportionate to the charge.
Appellate courts have "a limited role" in reviewing
administrative agency decisions. Henry v. Rahway State Prison,
81 N.J. 571, 579 (1980). We give deference to an agency's
determination unless the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or is
unsupported by substantial credible evidence in the record. In
re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27-28 (2007); Campbell v. Dep't. of
Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963). We defer to an agency's
findings if they could reasonably have been reached on sufficient
credible evidence in the record, "considering 'the proofs as a
whole,' with 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)).
This deferential standard applies to imposition of
disciplinary sanctions as well. Herrmann, supra, 192 N.J. at 28
5 A-1677-15T2
(citing Knoble v. Waterfront Comm'n of N.Y. Harbor, 67 N.J. 427,
431-32 (1975)). When reviewing sanctions imposed by an
administrative agency, "appellate courts should consider whether
the 'punishment is so disproportionate to the offense, in the
light of all of the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's
sense of fairness.'" In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 195 (2011)
(citing In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 484 (2007)).
The ALJ's findings were based on his detailed credibility
determinations. The ALJ concluded that A.P.'s version of the
events was more credible than petitioner's version of the events.
The ALJ determined that A.P.'s written statement to the police and
her oral statements to University employees regarding the
incidents did not differ significantly from A.P.'s testimony
during the hearing. Additionally, the ALJ found A.P. did not
demonstrate animus toward petitioner. Rather, the ALJ found A.P.
was concerned about petitioner's career and personal well-being.
On the other hand, the ALJ found petitioner's testimony
incredible. If petitioner was truly inquiring about "cricket
bats," as he claimed, the ALJ questioned why petitioner would have
contacted A.P. late at night. In assessing petitioner's demeanor
during the hearing and his explanation of his encounters with
A.P., the ALJ concluded petitioner was less credible than A.P.
6 A-1677-15T2
The Commission's termination of petitioner's employment was
based upon the ALJ's detailed findings that petitioner engaged in
conduct unbecoming an employee and that petitioner's behavior was
sufficiently egregious. Petitioner's behavior toward A.P.
violated implicit standards of good behavior. See Hartmann v.
Police Dep't of Ridgewood, 258 N.J. Super. 32, 40 (App. Div. 1992).
His conduct was especially egregious given A.P.'s age and the fact
that petitioner confronted A.P. alone near A.P.'s dormitory room.
Petitioner's conduct made A.P. feel unsafe. The University has a
responsibility to ensure the safety of its students. Because
petitioner never acknowledged any impropriety concerning his
contacts with A.P., he failed to understand the importance of the
University's policy limiting employee interactions with students.
Based upon petitioner's severe and egregious conduct, the
Commission concluded that petitioner was unsuitable for employment
at a public university, see In re Herrmann, supra, 192 N.J. at 33,
and termination was appropriate.
Having reviewed the record, we conclude the Commission's
decision was based upon substantial credible evidence in the
record. The Commission adopted the ALJ's detailed credibility
determinations and fact-findings. We further conclude that
petitioner's termination from the University was not so
7 A-1677-15T2
disproportionate to the offense in this case as to shock our sense
of fairness. Stallworth, supra, 208 N.J. at 195.
Affirmed.
8 A-1677-15T2