Court rejects Guller opinion and
reverses officer’s termination
The Appellate Division recently affirmed a trial
court’s decision reinstating a law enforcement, but
denying the officer back pay and attorney fees. The
decision is interesting on several grounds, one of
which is that the court rejected the expert opinions
offered by Dr. Matthew Guller of the Institute for
Forensic Psychology and Dr. David Gallina, both of
whom found the officer unfit for duty. The court
also rejected the township’s argument that the case
should have been dismissed because it was not
filed in a timely fashion.
Saul v. Manchester Township involved a non-civil service
jurisdiction. The township filed 20 charges against the officer,
including allegations of inaccurate reports, dishonesty, failure
to report an injury, making misrepresentations and untruthful
statements as well as incapacity to fulfill his duties as a law
enforcement officer. Prior to the filing of charges, the officer
was sent for a psychological evaluation by Dr. Guller, who found
him unfit for duty. After the filing of the charges, the officer had
three additional evaluations by three different doctors, two of
which found him fit for duty. One, by Dr. Gallina, determined
that he was unfit for duty.
Following six days of hearings, the hearing officer recom-
mended that the officer be terminated. He received
his notice of termination on July 2, 2012. After settlement discussions, the township notified the officer on
July 12 that settlement was not possible. The officer
notified the township that he intended to appeal, and
then filed his Superior Court appeal on Aug. 2 – 21
days later.
The township moved to dismiss the officer’s complaint for failure to file within the 10-day deadline
imposed by N.J.S.A. 40A:14-150. The trial judge denied
the township’s motio