Dispute centers on whether disciplinary charges qualify as criminal conduct under state law.
Trenton, NJ – A former Clinton Township police officer is asking a New Jersey appellate court to overturn a state agency decision that blocked him from pursuing arbitration after his termination, arguing officials wrongly labeled his conduct as criminal.
The case involves Stephen Hars, who was fired in 2024 following internal disciplinary findings that he falsified official police reports related to firearm discharges during two incidents. After his termination, Hars sought to challenge the decision through special disciplinary arbitration, a process available to non-civil service officers under certain conditions.
However, the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) denied that request, determining the charges against Hars were tied to conduct that “would constitute a violation of the criminal laws of New Jersey,” making him ineligible for arbitration under state statute.
Dispute over what qualifies as criminal conduct
At the center of the appeal is whether Hars’ actions—specifically, allegedly misstating the number of rounds fired in official reports—rise to the level of criminal conduct, even though no criminal charges were ever filed.
PERC relied on findings from a departmental hearing that concluded Hars made false entries in official records, conduct comparable to violations of state law governing falsification of public documents.
Hars, however, argues that prosecutors reviewed the case and declined to pursue charges, determining that “criminal prosecution is not warranted.” He also points to testimony from the township’s police chief acknowledging the case lacked sufficient evidence for criminal charges.
His legal team contends that without an active investigation or formal charges, the disciplinary allegations should not be treated as criminal in nature, and therefore should not disqualify him from arbitration.
Prior rulings and legal standards
PERC rejected those arguments, citing precedent that the statute does not require an actual criminal charge or conviction—only that the alleged conduct could constitute a criminal offense.
The agency also denied Hars’ motion for reconsideration, stating its rules do not provide for reconsideration in these types of arbitration eligibility decisions and noting that new evidence was submitted without explanation.
In response, Hars argues that PERC acted arbitrarily by refusing to reconsider and by relying on an overly broad interpretation of what constitutes criminal conduct.
Appeal also raises procedural issues
The township has also challenged the appeal itself, arguing it was not properly filed within required deadlines. Hars disputes that claim, maintaining the appeal was submitted within the 45-day window required for administrative appeals.
The appellate court is now tasked with deciding whether PERC correctly applied state law in denying arbitration and whether the agency’s actions were “arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable,” a key standard in reviewing administrative decisions.
Key Points
- Former NJ officer challenges denial of arbitration after termination
- State agency ruled alleged misconduct was equivalent to criminal conduct
- Appeal hinges on whether charges qualify as criminal without prosecution