A state appeals court upheld the dismissal of a suit against the state judiciary lodged by a onetime court officer who was fired following what officials called repeated violations and irregularities in his financial record-keeping.

The Appellate Division on Monday affirmed that “Special Civil Part officers” are not classified as employees of the New Jersey judiciary, but instead are independent contractors that serve at the will of the assignment judge under court order by the Administrative Office of the Courts. And they are not entitled to a regular salary, health and pension benefits, or paid time off and sick leave as other full-time Judiciary employees.

Thus New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act doesn’t apply to them, Appellate Division Judge Richard S. Hoffman said, joined by Judges Robert J. Gilson and Jessica R. Mayer.

“Even if we were to accept plaintiff’s argument that the motion record precluded a finding that, as a matter of law, plaintiff was not a vicinage employee for CEPA purposes, the record clearly demonstrates that plaintiff failed to establish a whistle-blower claim under CEPA,” added Hoffman. “The record lacks any credible evidence of harm to the public.

“The essence of procedural due process is notice and an opportunity to be heard. There are no bright-line rules to judge the constitutionality of a particular procedure employed in a proceeding,” he wrote.

Frank L. Corrado of Barry, Corrado & Grassi in Wildwood, representing Harvard, wasn’t available for comment.

Kimberly A. Eaton, a deputy attorney general, represented the state and the vicinage. She did not return a call.

MaryAnn Spoto, spokesman for the Administrative Office of the Courts, said the office has no comment.

Plaintiff Kevin Harvard sued the state and the judiciary’s Atlantic-Cape May vicinage after he was let go as an SCPO after more than a decade in the position. The suit was filed in the Cumberland County Law Division.

SCPOs serve court papers and handle others tasks, such as tenant lockouts, and are paid fees provided by statute.

Harvard was appointed a SCPO in 2000 by the vicinage’s assignment judge and established an office in his home. Four years later, he hired three employees to assist him—hires in which the judiciary wasn’t involved. In 2010, the decision said, court officials began investigating Harvard’s financial records and eventually found more than a dozen violations of various AOC directives, and he was terminated in July 2012 at the assignment judge’s discretion.

According to the decision, SCPOs are required to designate an accountant to audit their financial records annually, and must escheat any unclaimed checks to the state.

Harvard’s accountant began noting numerous issues.

After back-and-forth between Harvard and court personnel, during which Harvard contended that his process was sound, and he complied with required procedure, the AOC’s Internal Audit Unit began investigating. It found, according to Monday’s decision, that he: “was depositing funds more than a week after they appeared in his cash receipts journal,” “was not annually escheating unclaimed checks,” and “was not disbursing his funds on a monthly basis,” among other issues.

Also, around January 2011, the vicinage learned the state had a tax judgment against Harvard for $5,904.96, and AOC Directive # 2-07 requires that SCPOs “must not have any outstanding judgments against him [or] her.” According to Harvard, he paid the judgment the same day he received it.

Harvard claimed his accounting software prevented him from posting multiple checks from the same person on the same day, so he occasionally had to backdate checks to enter them into the software.

The audit unit ultimately issued an October 2011 report finding 13 “issues of noncompliance” with AOC directives—chiefly, failing to maintain trust fund activity records and failing to escheat funds to the state. Harvard’s accountant’s report supported the findings, the decision said.

Harvard wrote to the vicinage claiming the accountant’s report was erroneous, but he was nevertheless terminated by the assignment judge in July 2012 based on the audit unit’s findings and his lack of justification for the findings.

Harvard’s 2013 suit alleged violations of CEPA, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, and constitutional substantive and procedural due process rights. Harvard alleged he “was the only African-American [SCPO] in the vicinage,” claiming he received differential treatment.

The defendants’ summary judgment motion following discovery was granted in 2016. The judge pointed out that the Judiciary’s human resources department isn’t involved in the hiring of SCPOs, who are hired directly by assignment judges at their discretion; are paid by commission rather than salary; and don’t have set terms of employment or tenure rights. He also was taxed as an independent contractor and set his own schedule, the judge noted.

The judge also rejected Harvard’s claims that he was engaged in whistleblowing activity; ruled that the civil rights claim failed because the judiciary “does not constitute a ‘person”; and found that he due process rights were not violated because he was not entitled to continued employment.

Harvard appealed, but the Appellate Division on Monday affirmed.

The panel found that Harvard was neither covered by CEPA, nor did he make out a whistleblower claim under CEPA.

Also, Hoffman wrote that substantive due process claims are ”‘reserved for the most egregious governmental abuses against liberty or property rights,’” adding that an at-will employee ”‘has no protected interest in his employment and may not prevail on a claim that his or her discharge constituted a violation of property rights,’” quoting from case law.

The panel rejected his claim that he had a “state-protected entitlement” to unpaid commissions earned prior to his termination.

“Given the vicinage’s extensive investigation of plaintiff’s conduct, and the numerous chances it offered him to explain it, the vicinage provided plaintiff due process, and that process only served to confirm his significant non-compliance with AOC directives,” Hoffman said.

“Plaintiff’s contention that he never received ‘an opportunity to explain himself or rebut the charges against him’ is a bald assertion, unsupported by the record,” Hoffman wrote.