Vincent Antenucci, a New Jersey State Trooper, sought to avoid repayment of approximately $29,000 in salary overpayments that accumulated over several years due to an administrative error in his pay classification. After being promoted in 2012, Antenucci was mistakenly placed at a higher salary level than authorized, and subsequent promotions compounded the error. When the State Police discovered the overpayment in 2019, they sought recoupment, and Antenucci applied to the Civil Service Commission for a waiver.
Under New Jersey regulations, a waiver of repayment requires proof that the employee reasonably could not have known about the overpayment, that the overpayment resulted from a specific administrative error, and that repayment would cause economic hardship. The Commission acknowledged that the overpayment resulted from administrative error but denied relief because Antenucci failed to satisfy the remaining elements.
Antenucci challenged that determination and pursued parallel relief through his union, the State Troopers Non-Commissioned Officers Association, which filed a grievance disputing the overpayment and seeking negotiation over any repayment plan. An arbitrator ultimately found that the Association failed to prove Antenucci had not been overpaid, but held that the State violated the collective bargaining agreement by failing to negotiate a repayment schedule.
Rather than negotiate repayment, Antenucci filed a second waiver application with the Commission, arguing that the record did not establish an actual overpayment and that repayment would impose hardship. The Commission denied the application, concluding it was bound by the arbitrator’s determination that an overpayment occurred and that Antenucci still failed to meet the regulatory criteria for waiver.
The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court explained that challenges to the existence of an overpayment must be pursued through the negotiated grievance process, and because Antenucci did not timely seek to vacate the arbitration award, the Commission was required to accept that determination as binding.
The Court further held that the Commission reasonably concluded Antenucci had constructive notice of the error. The nearly $10,000 salary increase he received far exceeded the approximately $4,000 raise associated with his promotion, which should have alerted him to a potential mistake.
Finally, the Court agreed that Antenucci failed to demonstrate economic hardship. Because no repayment schedule had yet been established, any claim of hardship was speculative. Having failed to satisfy the notice and hardship requirements, Antenucci did not meet his burden for a waiver.
Deferring to the Commission’s decision under the governing “arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable” standard, the Court affirmed the denial of Antenucci’s waiver request.
In re Antenucci, No. A-4037-23, 2026 WL 604796 (N.J. App. Div. Mar. 4, 2026).
This article appears in the June 2026 issue of our monthly newsletter, Public Safety Labor News.
Also in the June 2026 issue:
- Texas Supreme Court Holds PTSD That Impairs Job Performance Is Not Protected Under State Disability Law
- Termination Upheld For Corrections Union President’s On-Duty Cell Phone Use
- Maryland Court Refuses To Narrow Police Bill Of Rights Protections
- Court Reverses Conviction Over Police Chief’s Machine Gun Side Hustle
- New Mexico Labor Relations Board Finds Police Take-Home Vehicles Policy A Mandatory Subject Of Bargaining
- Lesser PTSD Protections For Oregon 911 Dispatchers
- Hearing Examiner Finds Borough Council President’s Heated Pension Dispute Did Not Interfere With Grievance Filing
- Employer’s Outside Counsel Lacked Authority To Bind City To Settlement
- City Repudiated Grievance Procedure By Failing To Hold Step 2 Hearings
- Nevada Court Holds Termination Based On Prison Rape Elimination Act Statutory Requirements As Non-Arbitrable
- Transfer Threat After “Drunken Cadet” Complaint Violates Pennsylvania Law