The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that police officers at public colleges and universities, like Officer Gregory DiGuglielmo from the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), can appeal their terminations through a specific form of arbitration. This decision, issued on November 28, 2022, clarifies the rights of campus police officers and could significantly impact how disciplinary actions are handled within public university law enforcement agencies.
The ruling matters because it establishes that campus police officers are not excluded from special disciplinary arbitration, a process previously thought to be limited to municipal police officers. This decision could influence future cases involving police officers at public universities across New Jersey.
Background
Officer Gregory DiGuglielmo was a police officer with NJIT's Department of Public Safety. He was suspended with pay and later terminated following an incident where he used physical force to restrain a juvenile bicyclist. After his termination, DiGuglielmo sought to challenge the decision through special disciplinary arbitration, as permitted by New Jersey law under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-210.
However, NJIT contested his eligibility for this arbitration, arguing that it was only available to municipal police officers and that DiGuglielmo's paid suspension disqualified him. The New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) initially sided with DiGuglielmo, stating he was eligible for arbitration. NJIT appealed this decision, leading to a ruling from the Appellate Division that reversed PERC's decision.
The Ruling
The New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the case and ultimately reversed the Appellate Division's ruling. The court determined that special disciplinary arbitration is available to public university police officers, not just municipal officers. The opinion, delivered by Justice Pierre-Louis, stated, "A plain reading of the relevant statutes dictates that special disciplinary arbitration is not limited to municipal officers, so arbitration is available to public university police officers like Officer DiGuglielmo."
Furthermore, the court clarified that an officer suspended with pay is still eligible for special disciplinary arbitration. This ruling reinstated PERC's decision, allowing DiGuglielmo to proceed with his appeal against his termination.
Impact
This ruling is significant as it expands the rights of police officers at public universities in New Jersey, allowing them to challenge terminations and suspensions through arbitration. The decision may set a precedent for similar cases involving campus police officers, ensuring they have access to the same protections as municipal police officers when facing disciplinary actions.
The ruling also underscores the importance of clear statutory interpretation, as the court emphasized the need to read the relevant laws in their entirety. This could lead to more cases being reviewed under the same framework, potentially affecting how disciplinary procedures are implemented across various law enforcement agencies in New Jersey.
What's Next
Officer DiGuglielmo's case will now return to PERC for arbitration. There is no indication that this ruling will be appealed further, but it may prompt discussions about the rights of police officers in other jurisdictions. The outcome of DiGuglielmo's arbitration could also influence future cases involving disciplinary actions against campus police officers.