Stacey Williams managed to get his job back after being fired for using homophobic slurs. He even returned to his $210,000-a-year position as police chief in June. But his comeback story has hit another obstacle: a New Jersey appeals court has reinstated his firing, ruling that a 30-day suspension was too lenient for his conduct.
RELATED: The Bizarre ‘Gay Ghosts’ Claim at the Center of a Murder Trial
For Roselle, the decision settles a battle over whether Williams deserved another chance to lead the borough’s roughly 60-officer police department. For anyone who has watched a workplace excuse offensive behavior as harmless banter, it raises a more familiar question: how much is an employee supposed to tolerate when the person making the rules is the one breaking them?
The Appellate Division’s two-judge panel sided with borough officials on Friday, October 9, overturning the state Civil Service Commission’s decision to reinstate Williams. The ruling puts an end, for now, to his latest return to the job after years of disciplinary proceedings and legal challenges.
And no, being the boss did not help his case.
When the Person in Charge Becomes the Problem
The allegations against Williams began with comments he made to fellow officers at police headquarters in October 2022. An openly gay lieutenant, Delmonte Pryor, reported hearing Williams use the f-word slur for gay men while telling a story.
RELATED: Aaron Bernstine Steps Back After Homophobic Slur Toward Kenyatta
An investigation by the Union County Prosecutor’s Office found that Williams had used the slur on multiple occasions. He also reportedly used a shortened version of it to refer to other officers and made a vulgar remark about Mayor Donald Shaw.
Williams acknowledged that it was “certainly possible” he had used the slur during the incident at headquarters. During disciplinary proceedings, he maintained that he had not intended to hurt anyone, describing the remark as a joke.
His attorney, Patrick Toscano, previously characterized the comments as “harmless” and “entirely jocular in nature.”
But intent was not the only issue before the court. Williams was not simply another employee accused of inappropriate workplace language. He was the department’s highest-ranking officer, responsible for leading the people expected to uphold professional standards.
That distinction mattered to the judges, who found that Williams had used the slur at least twice in front of other officers without showing remorse or an adequate understanding of the seriousness of his conduct.
The court’s conclusion was pointed: a police chief’s behavior can undermine the very department he is supposed to lead.
“In his actions, Williams discredited himself and the borough and negatively impacted the public’s respect and confidence in RPD,” wrote Chief Judge Heidi Currier and Judge Lisa Puglisi, referring to the Roselle Police Department.
For LGBTQ+ workers, the problem with the familiar “it was only a joke” defense is that it puts the burden on everyone else to decide whether to laugh along, stay quiet or risk the consequences of speaking up. When that language comes from someone with authority over your career, the power imbalance makes the situation even harder to dismiss.
His Comeback Lasted Only a Few Months
Roselle fired Williams in July 2024 after investigating his conduct. The disciplinary process, however, took a detour.
An administrative law judge upheld charges of conduct unbecoming a public employee and violations of departmental rules against derogatory language but recommended a 30-day suspension instead of dismissal. Williams’ lengthy career and limited disciplinary history were cited in support of the reduced penalty.
The Civil Service Commission adopted that recommendation in June 2025 and ordered his reinstatement. Roselle appealed, arguing that the lesser punishment would damage the department’s discipline and credibility.
Williams returned to his position in June 2026. His attorney described the return as an “ecstatic” moment for his client, a 31-year law enforcement veteran.
The appeals court has now undone that victory, reinstating Williams’ removal after finding that the reduced punishment did not adequately account for the seriousness of his conduct or his leadership responsibilities.
Roselle confirmed that Williams was removed from duty on Friday morning.
The sequence is a reminder that a lengthy career does not automatically outweigh misconduct. Experience can count in a disciplinary decision, but it does not erase the expectations attached to a leadership position.
The Fallout Reaches Beyond One Police Chief
The case has also carried a financial cost for Roselle. Last month, the borough council approved a $245,000 settlement with Pryor, the officer who reported Williams. The payment resolved a whistleblower lawsuit in which Pryor alleged that the borough had failed to adequately address what he described as “rampant homophobic conduct” among senior police officials.
Pryor’s attorney, Peter Paris, said the latest ruling reinforced the principle that employees should not have to endure discrimination at work, especially from someone in a position of authority.
“The Appellate Division makes it clear that it’s wrong for a police chief to unapologetically use homophobic slurs on duty, in headquarters, and in the presence of a gay subordinate,” Paris said.
“While I remain shocked that the court had to explain this to the Civil Service Commission, it is heartening to know that the court said loud and clear that police chiefs are not above the law,” he added.
Mayor Donald Shaw also welcomed the ruling, calling it a victory for accountability and professionalism.
“Our Police Department must be led by individuals who demonstrate respect for every officer and every member of our community,” Shaw said.
The settlement and the reinstated firing are separate outcomes, but together they illustrate how a workplace controversy can extend far beyond the original incident. The consequences can involve an employee’s career, public money, institutional trust and the question of whether complaints about discrimination receive meaningful attention.
A Leadership Position Is Not a Free Pass
Toscano has strongly criticized the appeals court’s decision, arguing that the judges failed to provide sufficient legal analysis.
“We believe that the appellate division decision is bereft of any deep-dive, substantive legal analysis,” he said in a statement. “The two-judge panel seemingly rendered a decision which was not based upon controlling legal precedent, and instead reached a pithy conclusion to avoid public controversy.”
That objection is part of the continuing legal dispute, but it does not change the immediate result: Williams has lost his position again after the appeals court rejected the lighter punishment.
The larger issue is not whether every workplace disagreement should end with someone being fired. It is whether people entrusted with authority should be held to standards that reflect the power they have over others.
A police chief is expected to maintain discipline, earn the confidence of the public and lead officers with professionalism. When his own conduct becomes the subject of a prolonged disciplinary fight, those responsibilities become difficult to separate from the controversy.
Williams’ case has taken him from dismissal to reinstatement and back to dismissal. This time, the appeals court has made clear that it does not consider a brief suspension sufficient.
A badge may come with authority, but it does not make the person wearing it immune to accountability. And if the person at the top cannot meet the standards expected of everyone else, the title alone is not a convincing reason to keep him there.
Source: DailyVoice and NJ.com