Commissioner of Education
Noteworthy December Decisions
Docket No. 549-25E (December 4, 2025). The board initially prohibited petitioner from entering her son’s middle school, and then prohibited her from entering any district property or event. The district wide ban was ordered after petitioner’s husband said he would not comply with the building ban, and after petitioner attempted to enter her son’s school building. Thereafter, an application for emergent relief was filed.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that petitioner did not demonstrate irreparable harm, and the “only harm” she identified was being unable to attend a parent meeting, back-to- school night, and parent-teacher conference, and a hearing test. Per the ALJ, petitioner did not contend that she was not “given the information shared at those meetings.” Although conceding that her exclusion was “undoubtedly inconvenient,” it did not rise “to the level of substantial, immediate, and irreparable harm.”
The Commissioner of Education (COE) concurred with the ALJ that petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to emergent relief pursuant to the standards enunciated in Crowe v. DeGioia, and codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6.
Docket No. 556-25 (December 12, 2025). Petitioner challenged several short-term suspensions that her child, M.F., received during the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years. The COE ultimately reversed all of the board’s short-term suspensions, and ordered them to be expunged from M.F.’s records. The COE agreed with the ALJ that the board violated M.F.’s due process rights by failing to include in its suspension letters: the facts upon which the charges were based; and notice of the right to appeal the suspension. However, the COE explained that, contrary to the ALJ’s determination, the board’s notice of the right to appeal did not need to include an explanation of the district’s internal process, as the board is not required to have an internal appeal process/procedure for short-term suspensions.
Docket No. 561-25 (December 22, 2025). Petitioners appealed 1) the board’s determination that A.M. and K.M. did not commit an act of harassment, intimidation, or bullying (HIB) against M.S. on October 30, 2023; and 2) the board’s determination that M.S. committed an act of HIB on March 7, 2024. The ALJ affirmed the board’s determination that the October 30, 2023, incident did not meet the definition of HIB because no one, including M.S., was able to confirm who made the alleged comment. In connection with the March 7, 2024, incident, M.S. told a black student that she had poop all over herself/her face, and the ALJ concluded that the board was justified in determining that a reasonable person would consider those statements to be motivated by race/skin color. The ALJ also found that the other elements of HIB were satisfied, and that petitioners did not demonstrate that the board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
The COE dismissed the petition of appeal, and concurred with the ALJ that petitioners failed to establish that the board’s determinations were arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Docket No. 562-25 (December 22, 2025). During chemistry class, A.A., an African American student, was having a conversation with J.M. and questioned why our society uses money as currency. J.M. asked A.A. what could be used as currency instead, and then said, “chicken bones” (which he admitted during the HIB investigation). A.A. was embarrassed and hurt by J.M.’s comment. The district’s HIB investigation concluded that J.M. committed an act of HIB, which the board affirmed. The district’s administration also determined that J.M.’s conduct violated the Code of Conduct, and issued a five-day out-of-school suspension. Petitioner appealed the HIB determination and the five-day suspension.
The ALJ ordered the reversal of the board’s HIB determination and five-day suspension, and found that the board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably; the board violated J.M.’s due process rights; and the district’s HIB investigation and resulting discipline were biased.
The COE rejected the ALJ’s initial decision, and concluded that there was “substantial credible evidence” to support the determinations that: A.A. reasonably perceived the “chicken bones” comment as being based on the distinguishing characteristic of race; J.M.’s comment substantially disrupted A.A.’s rights because upset and embarrassed students are not fully available for learning; and the comment insulted and demeaned A.A. The COE also disagreed with the ALJ’s determination that the board violated J.M.’s due process rights.
Docket No. 563-25SEC (December 22, 2025). The School Ethics Commission (SEC) found that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) when he advocated for the removal of the district’s wrestling coach so that individuals with whom he was acquainted could be hired instead, and recommended a penalty of reprimand for respondent’s violation of the School Ethics Act (Act).
Respondent neither filed exceptions to the SEC’s recommended penalty of reprimand, nor instituted an appeal of the SEC’s finding that he violated the Act. The COE concurred with the SEC’s recommended penalty of reprimand.
School Ethics Commission
Decisions Adopted on December 16, 2025
Docket No. C18-24. The SEC adopted and mailed a “Resolution of Censure” to the board after respondent was found to have violated the Act in connection with a different ethics matter. The board president forwarded a copy of the “Resolution of Censure” to respondent, and respondent advised him that she was appealing the determination. Ultimately, the “Resolution of Censure” was removed from the board’s agenda. By engaging in discussions with the board president about the “Resolution of Censure” (which concerned respondent’s own conduct), complainant alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b).
The SEC rejected the ALJ’s legal conclusion that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), and rejected the ALJ’s recommended penalty of a 60-day suspension. The SEC explained that respondent only answered the board president’s email with procedural information, and did not attempt to use her official position to secure an unwarranted privilege. The SEC also noted that the board’s decision to remove the resolution from the board agenda was not based on conversations with respondent, but rather based on guidance from Department of Education officials.
Docket No. C25-25. Complainant, a supervisor in the district and the president of the Township Council, claimed that respondent, a board member and member of the Republican County Committee, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f), (g), and (i) when he made negative comments about complainant on his podcast.
The SEC concluded that, although the complaint was not frivolous, there was no probable cause for the stated violations of the Act because: even if respondent belonged to a political organization, that alone did not demonstrate that he took action on behalf of or at the request of the organization; complainant did not demonstrate that respondent’s statements were confidential or anything more than respondent’s personal opinion; and there was no evidence that respondent’s comments undermined, opposed, compromised, or harmed complainant in the proper performance of his duties.
Docket No. C28-25. Following prior incidents between the superintendent’s child and complainant’s child, complainant’s child made threatening statements against the superintendent’s family and the school, which resulted in police involvement and a 10-day suspension. Complainant alleged that the superintendent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), (b), (c), and (g) when he did not “recuse himself from an incident in which he had multiple personal roles.”
The SEC dismissed the allegations because complainant did not provide sufficient facts and circumstances to support the stated violations of the Act. In addition, the SEC found that the superintendent recused himself from the disciplinary process related to the incident, and noted that there was no issue with the superintendent contacting the police regarding a potential threat to his family.
Docket No. C29-25. Complainant claimed that a board member, assistant superintendent, and superintendent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) due to their alleged involvement in a grade change and National Honor Society (NHS) admittance for the board member’s child.
The SEC declined to find probable cause for the alleged violations of the Act. With respect to the grade change, “other students with similar accommodations [had] also received similar grade changes.” Similarly, with respect to NHS acceptance, there was no evidence that unwarranted privileges were secured as 47 students were subsequently admitted to the NHS following review of the denials.
Docket No. C30-25. Complainant alleged that respondent’s actions at public board meetings violated the Act when he: voted “no” in response to a motion to “reaffirm the district’s stance to stand for all students with [an] Inclusion Resolution” and called the resolution “fake news” (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(b)); and claimed that a “staff member is not qualified to teach in their position” and showed the staff member’s resume (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i)).
The SEC declined to find probable cause for the claimed violations of the Act.
*For further information about these matters, please contact the NJSBA Legal Department at (609) 278-5279, or your board attorney for formal legal advice.
