A New Jersey corrections officer’s claims that he was unlawfully disciplined for social media posts criticizing his employer’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives and that his procedural rights were violated during an internal interview were dismissed by the New Jersey PERC’s Director of Unfair Practices. The Director, however, allowed a separate retaliation claim to proceed, finding sufficient grounds to issue a formal complaint on allegations the officer was punished for making safety complaints and assisting his union.
New Jersey corrections officer, S.B., filed an unfair practice charge against the New Jersey Department of Corrections. He claimed that the Department violated his Weingarten rights by failing to provide a detailed explanation of the investigation’s subject matter before a July 2023 interview. He also claimed he received a preliminary notice of a 30-day suspension in December 2023 in retaliation for protected activities, which he identified as his Facebook posts opposing DEI programs and his efforts to complain about unsafe conditions and assist his union with a grievance.
The Director dismissed the Weingarten claim, finding that the DOC had fulfilled its legal obligations. The record showed S.B. was informed he was being investigated for “alleged misconduct,” was given the opportunity to meet with his union representative beforehand, and had that representative present during the interview. The Director held that an employer need only provide “a general statement as to the subject matter of the interview,” not the specifics of its case or the evidence gathered.
Regarding the social media posts, the Director concluded they did not constitute protected, concerted activity under the law. S.B. admitted to posting internal Department emails on his personal Facebook account to protest a “Black Leadership Conference” he deemed discriminatory. He argued he was attempting to rally coworkers for mutual aid. The Director rejected this, reasoning his actions were “in no way connected to collective negotiations, contract administration, or related activity.” Instead, they were merely “personal griping,” which is not protected. The Director further noted that PERC lacks jurisdiction over civil rights or discrimination claims, which would fall to the state’s Division on Civil Rights.
The dismissal was not total. The Director found that S.B.’s allegations that he was disciplined for complaining about unsafe prison conditions and for helping his union file a grievance did, in fact, meet the standard for issuing a formal unfair practice complaint. These activities are recognized as protected under the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act. The Director ordered a complaint to be issued on these grounds, allowing the case to advance to a hearing where the Department will have the opportunity to prove it would have taken the same disciplinary action regardless of this protected conduct.
State of New Jersey (Department of Corrections), 52 NJPER ¶ 38 (NJ PERC 2025).