In In the Matter of Brian Ambroise (A-10-23/088042) (Decided July 24, 2024), the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that the Civil Service Commission’s decision to impose a six-month suspension upon a correctional officer, who failed to report kissing an inmate and passed messages on her behalf ,was disproportionate to the serious and highly concerning offenses.
Facts of In the Matter of Brian Ambroise
Respondent Senior Correctional Police Officer Brian Ambroise has been employed by petitioner the Department of Corrections (DOC) since 2013. Ambroise spent his entire career at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women (EMCF), where he was a correctional officer with a previously unblemished record.
In December 2020, the DOC issued final disciplinary charges against Ambroise seeking his removal for conduct unbecoming a public employee and other sufficient cause. Additionally, the DOC charged Ambroise with violations of two DOC policies: conduct unbecoming a public employee and undue familiarity with inmates, parolees, their families, or friends. The policies permitted disciplinary sanctions up to and including removal.
The facts underlying those charges stem from information received by the EMCF’s Special Investigation Division in 2016 from J.O., an inmate who reported that she was having a sexual relationship with Ambroise. J.O. additionally alleged that she and Ambroise had a close personal relationship and that he would perform favors for her, such as bringing in contraband and passing a written message between her and another inmate at her request. Ambroise admitted — and never retracted — that he kissed J.O. and that he failed to report the kiss, despite knowing DOC’s mandatory reporting policy of unusual incidents.
At a hearing on the charges before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Ambroise additionally confirmed that J.O. requested that he bring contraband into the prison, that he did not report the request, and that not reporting J.O.’s request violated the DOC’s mandatory reporting policy for unusual incidents. Moreover, Ambroise conceded that he delivered a personal message from J.O. to another inmate.
The ALJ modified the DOC’s penalty from removal to a twenty-day suspension, sustained one charge — Ambroise’s failure to report that J.O. kissed him — and dismissed the others.
The DOC appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Commission. The Commission affirmed the finding that Ambroise violated the DOC’s reporting policy by not reporting J.O.’s kiss. It reversed the ALJ’s dismissal of the undue familiarity charge, finding that Ambroise’s admission to passing a message between J.O. and another inmate “establishe[d] that he was unduly familiar.”
The Commission remarked that regardless of the message’s content or context, Ambroise’s simple act of facilitating the transfer was highly inappropriate and that at least two inmates knew Ambroise was willing to violate DOC policy on their behalf. The Commission accordingly determined that this act could have affected the safety and security of the facility. In fashioning the appropriate penalty for Ambroise, the Commission utilized the concept of progressive discipline and ordered Ambroise’s suspension to be modified to six months with back pay, benefits, and seniority.
The DOC appealed the Commission’s final administrative determination to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, finding that the Commission “considered the nature and circumstances of the charges” against Ambroise and reasonably determined that removal was not warranted in light of his previously unblemished employment record.
NJ Supreme Court’s Decision in In the Matter of Brian Ambroise
The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed. It held that that the Commission acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably for failing to credit the Department of Corrections’ view that the sustained charges against the officer undermined prison security and touched directly at the heart of his ability to obey the protocols pertaining to his employment at a correctional facility.
In support of its decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court cited that progressive discipline is not a fixed and immutable rule to be followed without question because some disciplinary infractions are so serious that removal is appropriate notwithstanding a largely unblemished prior record. It further emphasized that the dismissal of an officer is especially warranted for those infractions that go to the heart of the officer’s ability to be trusted to function appropriately in his position.
“We agree with the DOC that there is no situation more severe and contrary to the public interest than when a correctional officer tarnishes the institution by knowingly compromising the safety and security of himself, his fellow officers, and the inmates,” Justice Michael Noriega wrote on behalf of the Court.
The New Jersey went on to conclude that the reduction of Ambroise’s penalty was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. “Intimate contact between an inmate and a corrections officer whether initiated by the inmate or the officer can never be anything but unusual,” Justice Noriega wrote. “In this regard, Ambroise had no choice but to report that incident.”
The Court agreed with the DOC that the effect of Ambroise’s withholding of information about the incident, along with his admission that he passed a personal message to another inmate at J.O.’s request, directly implicates his ability to be trusted as a correctional officer, and it adversely affects prison security, discipline, and order.
“His affirmative obligation — indeed, his duty — was simply to report the incident. His failure to do so risks the safety and security of the inmates, his fellow officers, and the institution,” Noriega wrote. “It amounts, in short, to an offense warranting termination of the officer’s employment.”
The New Jersey Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Civil Service Commission “to redetermine the officer’s penalty in accordance” with its decision.