- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
ENGLISH v. COLLEGE OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF N.J
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff, Donald J. English, served as supervisor of the morgue section of the Department of Anatomy at the College of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. He was discharged by the College's Board of Trustees due to misconduct related to his duties, specifically failing to maintain proper identification and accurate records of bodies in the morgue. English was formally charged, given notice, and afforded a hearing before Dr. Harold Logan in December 1971. After the hearing, the President of the College found English guilty and recommended dismissal. English appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the misconduct finding but reduced the penalty to a one-year suspension without pay. The College then sought further review by this Court.
While the appeal was pending, the matter was remanded for a new independent hearing before retired Judge Victor S. Kilkenny in June 1974. The parties stipulated to use the prior hearing record. Judge Kilkenny sustained the charge of serious neglect of duty and recommended discharge. The Board of Trustees adopted these findings and permanently terminated English’s appointment effective January 28, 1972.
Evidence showed English conceded the lack of proper identification and record-keeping but disputed responsibility. Prior to October 1970, English personally maintained these duties as Senior Morgue Technician. After October 1970, although asked to assist another department, he retained supervisory responsibility and knew his assistant was incapable of properly performing these tasks, yet neglected them. The Board’s findings were supported by ample evidence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Board of Trustees acted within its discretion in terminating English’s employment for misconduct related to his supervisory duties.
- Whether the penalty of dismissal was excessive or whether a lesser sanction, such as suspension, was appropriate.
- Whether English, as a non-civil service employee without statutory tenure or collective bargaining protections, was entitled to any restrictions on termination beyond constitutional protections.
- Whether the general principle of at-will employment applies to public employees in this context, and if so, whether just cause is required for discharge.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| College of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey v. Morrison, 141 N.J. Super. 104 (App. Div. 1976) | Affirmed the Board of Trustees’ broad managerial control over employees of the College. | Supported the conclusion that English’s employment was terminable at will by the Board of Trustees. |
| Schlenk v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 1 N.J. 131 (1948) | Common law principle that an employer may discharge an employee with or without cause absent contractual or statutory restrictions. | Confirmed the at-will employment doctrine applies absent protections. |
| Jorgensen v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 25 N.J. 541 (1958) | Accord to the principle of at-will employment for public employees without statutory or contractual protection. | Reinforced the general principle of employer discretion in discharge. |
| Zimmerman v. Board of Education of Newark, 38 N.J. 65 (1962), cert. denied 371 U.S. 956 | Recognition that many public employees lack protected employment status and may be discharged without cause. | Supported the conclusion that English had no inherent tenure or protection against discharge. |
| Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972) | Limitations on discharge arise only from constitutionally protected interests such as freedom of speech. | Clarified that constitutional protections are the only restrictions on discharge in this context. |
| Williams v. Civil Service Commission, 66 N.J. 152 (1974) | Same as above regarding constitutional protections for public employees. | Affirmed that no further protections applied to English’s employment status. |
| Donaldson v. Board of Education of No. Wildwood, 65 N.J. 236 (1974) | Constitutional limits on discharge of public employees. | Reinforced the principle that only constitutional interests limit discharge. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the nature of English’s employment relationship, emphasizing that he was not a civil service employee and lacked statutory tenure or collective bargaining protections. The Board of Trustees possessed broad managerial authority under N.J.S.A. 18A:64G-6 to appoint and remove employees and assign duties, which generally allowed for at-will termination.
The Court reviewed the factual record, noting English’s concession of deficient identification and record-keeping in the morgue and the evidence that he neglected supervisory duties despite knowing his assistant’s incapacity. The Court found ample support for the Board’s conclusion of serious neglect of duty.
Drawing on established New Jersey precedents, the Court affirmed the principle that absent contractual or statutory restrictions, public employees may be discharged without cause. The Court recognized constitutional protections as the only limits on discharge and found no such protections applicable here. Although English urged the Court to require just cause for discharge, the Court declined to modify the general at-will principle but noted that even if just cause were required, it was clearly present.
Accordingly, the Court held that the Board’s decision to terminate English’s employment was within its discretion and prerogative, rejecting the Appellate Division’s reduction of the penalty to suspension.
Holding and Implications
The Court modified and affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Division to reinstate the Board of Trustees’ original decision to discharge English.
The direct effect is that English’s discharge for misconduct is upheld. The Court clarified that, for non-civil service public employees without statutory tenure or collective bargaining protections, the principle of at-will employment applies, subject only to constitutional limitations. No new precedent altering the at-will doctrine or imposing a just-cause requirement was established. The decision reinforces the broad managerial authority of the Board of Trustees over its employees in this context.
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff, Donald J. English, supervisor of the morgue section of the Department of Anatomy of the College of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, was discharged by the College's Board of Trustees because of misconduct in the performance of his duties. On appeal the Appellate Division affirmed the finding of misconduct, but held that the penalty was too harsh. It concluded a one year suspension without pay was appropriate. One Appellate Division judge dissented, finding that the sanction did not constitute an abuse of the Board's discretion. The College appealed to this Court pursuant to R. 2:2-1(a).
The formal charge submitted to English specified that he had failed to maintain proper identification of and accurate records with respect to the bodies in the morgue section of the Department of Anatomy. He was advised that he would be given a hearing at which the College would present testimony to support the charge, and he might adduce evidence in his own behalf. English accepted the offer. Hearings were held before Dr. Harold Logan, Associate Dean of the College, on December 2 and 3, 1971. After receipt of the hearing officer's report, the President of the College delineated findings of fact and found English guilty of the charge. He determined that dismissal was warranted. English appealed to the Appellate Division. While this appeal was pending, the College's motion that the matter be remanded and presented to a new independent hearing officer was granted.
A de novo hearing was held on June 4, 1974 before retired Judge Victor S. Kilkenny. The parties stipulated that the record consist of the testimony and evidence presented at the prior hearing. Judge Kilkenny sustained the charge of serious neglect of duty and recommended discharge. The Board of Trustees affirmed and adopted his findings. It permanently terminated English's appointment as of January 28, 1972.
The record is abundantly clear, indeed English conceded, that there was a lack of proper identification of bodies and failure of record keeping. The factual dispute concerned the question of who was responsible for performing those functions. Prior to October 1970, English, who had been the Senior Morgue Technician in charge of the morgue, maintained all records and identification. In October, English was requested to assist the Audio Visual Department. Although he was not relieved of his duties as Senior Morgue Technician, and he knew that his assistant was incapable of maintaining the necessary identification and record keeping, English neglected these responsibilities. Ample evidence supported the conclusions of both hearing officers and the Board of Trustees that English failed to perform his duties during the period in question as supervisor of the morgue.
But in any case, under the circumstances here English's status was such that he cannot complain. As an employee of the College of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, a state institution, N.J.S.A. 18A:64G-3, he was not in a civil service classification. Nor did he enjoy any statutory tenure or the benefits of any collective bargaining agreement. Moreover, the Legislature has vested the Board of Trustees with broad general managerial control over the College's employees. In this respect, N.J.S.A. 18A:64G-6 provides that the Board of Trustees "shall have the power and duty to . . . appoint, remove, promote and transfer . . . officers, agents, or employees . . . and assign their duties. . . ." It would appear that generally English's employee relationship could be terminated at will by the Board of Trustees. See College of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey v. Morrison, 141 N.J. Super. 104 , 111 (App.Div. 197 6).
At common law an employer had the unbridled authority to discharge, with or without cause, an employee in the absence of contractual statutory restrictions. Schlenk v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 1 N.J. 131 , 135 (1948). Accord, Jorgensen v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 25 N.J. 541 , 554 (1958). The same situation had existed with respect to public employees. In Zimmerman v. Board of Education of Newark, 38 N.J. 65 , 70 (1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 956, 83 S.Ct. 508, 9 L.Ed. 2d 502 (1963), the Court commented "that such an unprotected employee relationship is not uncommon in our State today for many public employees are still in such an unprotected and uncertain employment status."
The only limitations (other than contractual or statutory) upon the right to discharge public employees are founded on constitutionally protected interests — such as freedom of speech. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972); Williams v. Civil Service Commission, 66 N.J. 152, 157-158 (1974); Donaldson v. Bd. of Ed. of No. Wildwood, 65 N.J. 236 , 239-240 (1974). The plaintiff urges that we modify the general principle to require that just cause be shown. But, even if we were to add that element, which we do not, the record here would amply justify the Board of Trustees' judgment, in which the Appellate Division agreed, that just cause existed. The action of the Board of Trustees in discharging the plaintiff was within its prerogative.
The judgment of the Appellate Division is modified in accordance with this opinion, and as modified, is affirmed.
For modification and affirmance — Chief Justice HUGHES, Justices MOUNTAIN, SULLIVAN, PASHMAN, CLIFFORD and SCHREIBER and Judge CONFORD — 7.
For reversal — None.
Alert