JERSEY CITY — An appellate court docket has upheld the elimination of a former Hudson County Corrections officer from a listing of candidates vying to grow to be a sheriff’s officer as a result of she had a relationship with an inmate on the jail and different infractions.
Christie Monserrate labored as a corrections officer from 2001 to 2011 and was disciplined six occasions throughout that interval, together with separate suspensions of 20 and 45 days, in accordance a New Jersey Superior Court docket Appellate Division resolution rendered Wednesday.
Monserrate couldn’t be reached for touch upon the ruling.
In 2010, the county charged her with insubordination, conduct unbecoming an worker, and neglect of responsibility after an investigation revealed she was having a prohibited relationship with an inmate on the Hudson County jail, the choice states.
It was additionally revealed that Monserrate gave the inmate’s mom practically $500 so she may pay a positive for him. In one other incident, Monserrate failed to finish experiences, leading to three inmates being incorrectly launched from custody, based on the appellate resolution.
She was finally allowed to resign from the county’s division of corrections in good standing.
In November 2013, Monserrate took the take a look at to grow to be a sheriff’s officer and handed, however when Hudson County requested the Civil Service Fee to take away her identify from the listing, due to her previous as a corrections officer. Monserrate challenged the request.
The fee’s Division of Appeals and Regulatory Affairs finally upheld her elimination from the listing in November 2016, discovering that Monserrate’s historical past “displays poorly on the appellant’s capacity to carry out [the] regulation enforcement duties,” the choice states.
The fee cited Monserrate’s “extraordinarily poor prior employment historical past within the felony justice subject” in its resolution to uphold her elimination from the listing.
Monserrate then took her case to the state’s Appellate Division and represented herself.
“This resolution was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, is supported by substantial credible proof, and is entitled to our deference,” the appellate resolution states.