By Kevin Shea
nj.com
FRANKLINVILLE, N.J. — A state appeals court on Wednesday upheld the firing of Joseph DeMarco, the corrections officer who was present when his brother publicly reenacted the death of George Floyd in the summer of 2020.
Joseph DeMarco was a senior corrections officer assigned to Bayside State Prison when he attended a counter protest in June 2020 at his brother James DeMarco’s firewood business on Delsea Drive in Franklinville, a section Franklin Township.
As protesters walked by the property chanting “Black Lives Matter!” some on the property yelled back, “to no one,” the court decision says.
And James DeMarco kneeled on his son’s prone body, mocking the way a Minneapolis police officer killed George Floyd a month prior.
Joseph DeMarco cooly kept videotaping and did not react or condemn the display. Or as the court said, he did not display a “genuine experience or expression of shock, surprise, or disapproval.”
Footage of the incident drew wide rebuke, including from Gov. Phil Murphy.
The state Department of Corrections investigated the incident and charged Joseph DeMarco with internal violations of conduct unbecoming a public employee and another charge for failing to report he had a second job at his brother’s wood business.
The department eventually fired Joseph DeMarco him and he’s been contesting the ruling in the state Civil Service Commission, which held a hearing in the Office of Administrative Law - where Joseph DeMarco testified. Those bodies upheld the termination.
In late 2024, Joseph DeMarco’s lawyer appealed before a two-judge panel in the state courts’ Appellate Division.
His lawyer argued the evidence against DeMarco did not rise to conduct unbecoming a public employee and his “occasional assistance” at his brother’s business did not rise to the level of needing DOC approval.
Overall, the punishment was unduly harsh, excessive, and contrary to progressive discipline, his lawyer said.
The judges disagreed.
Typically, appeals panels defer to an agency’s findings when they are supported by credible evidence. The judges, though, examined the case “de novo,” or from the beginning.
After that review, the judges said they are “convinced” that Joseph DeMarco’s conduct did rise to unbecoming of a public employee, finding his prior testimony attempted to minimize the behavior of those around him that day.
Are you doing anything that tarnishes the badge? In the video below, Gordon Graham discusses the importance of behaving in a manner that does not discredit your agency or tarnish the badge
The judges found Joseph DeMarco’s arguments that DOC was trying to attribute his brother’s conduct onto him, and that there were no threats or physical violence from the people on the property, “miss the mark.”
“Joseph’s acknowledgment that he “would do things differently” and “that he should have ‘walked away’” undermines the notion that the behaviors did not require at least his extraction from the offensive environment,” the judges wrote.
His conduct, “indisputably adversely affected DOC morale, tended to destroy public confidence and respect in the DOC, and was offensive to accepted standards of decency.”
The appeals judges said the evidence that Joseph DeMarco failed to report his job at his brother’s business was sufficient, and as for progressive discipline, the judges acknowledged that argument and recognized that Joseph DeMarco had an “insignificant disciplinary history.”
“Nonetheless, given Joseph’s egregious conduct, we are in no way shocked by his removal.”
—
©2025 Advance Local Media LLC. Visit nj.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.