01-2-9647 In the Matter of A.D., App. Div. (per curiam) (12 pp.) A.D. appealed from a final decision of the Civil Service Commission ordering that her name be removed from the list of eligible candidates for the position of police officer in Plainfield. The panel affirmed, finding there was sufficient credible evidence to support the commission’s finding that A.D. was psychologically unfit to perform the duties of a police officer. It said the commission’s decision to obtain an independent professional evaluation of A.D. after receiving the medical review panel’s report finding A.D. was not unfit—which was based on conflicting psychological evaluations—was authorized by N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.5(g)(4) and was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable in light of the evidence supporting its concerns regarding her overall credibility and suitability for the position. The panel also found that the independent evaluator’s evaluation and findings provided sufficient credible evidence supporting the commission’s decision to remove A.D. from the eligibility list. It found no merit in A.D.’s contention that the commission could not properly rely upon those findings because the evaluator had previously examined her in connection with an application for a different position for which he found her unsuitable and that it was not improper for him to consider his knowledge of her prior conduct as a source of information upon which he based, in part, his assessment of her psychological fitness for the position of police officer.
03-2-9648 Matahen v. Sehwail, App. Div. (per curiam) (11 pp.) Plaintiffs, who were members of the general assembly of the Islamic Center of Passaic County and some of whom were members of the board of trustees, filed this action asserting claims regarding alleged mishandling of mosque funds by other members of the general assembly. Defendants moved to dismiss counts one through four of the complaint, contending that the arbitration clause in the mosque’s bylaws precluded plaintiffs from seeking relief in a judicial forum. The chancery court denied defendants’ motion, finding that the allegations in those counts were cognizable claims in a court. The panel reversed. It found that the mosque’s bylaws constituted a contract between it and plaintiffs and that, reading the arbitration clause as a whole, it was clear that the board and general assembly intended that all disputes among them pertaining to the mosque be handled by an arbitration committee, as defined by its bylaws. The panel said it was clear that plaintiffs’ claims concerned mosque affairs, and the fact that their allegations were also justiciable was beside the point. Further, the panel said that while it agreed that the arbitration clause failed to reference a waiver of the right to maintain an action in court, under the particular factual circumstances, the absence of the waiver did not invalidate or render the clause unenforceable. Finally, the panel said that as members of the board or the general assembly, it was incongruous for plaintiffs to complain that the arbitration clause was defective and unenforceable when they were a part of the two intracorporate bodies responsible for its contents.
