Commissioner of Education
Noteworthy April Decisions
Docket No. 123-26 (April 7, 2026). W.C. filed a harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) complaint on behalf of S.C., his then three-year old daughter, and alleged that Student A inappropriately touched S.C. while they were on the playground, and in the classroom. The building principal and ABS ultimately concluded that the allegations of physical contact were insufficient for a finding of HIB because they were not motivated by a distinguishing characteristic. In addition, the HIB complaints were unfounded because the allegations were not corroborated. Following a hearing, the board affirmed the superintendent’s determination that the conduct at-issue did not constitute HIB. Petitioner appealed.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that petitioners have not established that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, especially since the board’s investigation, which included an interview of S.C., could not substantiate the allegations. The ALJ also found that the board’s scheduling of a hearing two days late did not constitute a violation of W.C.’s due process rights.
The Commissioner of Education (COE) concurred with the ALJ that petitioner failed to establish that the board’s HIB determination was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; therefore, the initial decision was adopted as the final decision, and the petition of appeal was dismissed.
Docket No. 124-26 (April 7, 2026). D.A. filed a HIB complaint against another student for an incident that occurred at a school sanctioned event (during crew practice). Importantly, both petitioner and the perpetrator were 18 years old at the time the incident occurred. After the board affirmed the findings from the investigation and the determination that the conduct did not satisfy the definition of HIB, petitioner appealed. While the matter was pending at the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), D.A. advised the ALJ that she did not file the appeal, the appeal was filed by her parents (R.A. and M.A.) on her behalf, that she was entering into military service, and that her mother, M.A., would continue to prosecute the appeal.
The ALJ determined that the petition of appeal must be dismissed because M.A. did not have standing to pursue the case on D.A.’s behalf, and the COE adopted the initial decision as the final decision for the reasons stated by the ALJ.
Docket No. 125-26 (April 7, 2026). Petitioner challenged the New Jersey Department of Education’s (NJDOE) decision to revoke her “S” endorsement following a second violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28. Although petitioner admitted that she did not visually inspect the bus when she ended her transportation route, she claimed that her assistant failed to do her due diligence in making sure no children were left on the bus.
The COE concurred with the ALJ that petitioner violated N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28 when she failed to conduct a visual inspection of her school bus at the end of her transportation route and, as a result, a child remained on board at the end of the transportation route. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29(a), and because this was petitioner’s second violation, petitioner’s “S” endorsement was revoked.
Docket No. 126-26SEC (April 7, 2026). The School Ethics Commission (SEC) issued a decision on October 28, 2025, finding that respondent, a returning school official, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25, N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26, and N.J.A.C. 6A:38-3.1 of the School Ethics Act (the Act) because she failed to timely file completed/amended disclosure statements. For her violations, the SEC recommended a penalty of removal, but if respondent filed completed/amended disclosure statements before the COE issued a final decision, the SEC recommended a 60-day suspension. In recommending an enhanced period of suspension, the SEC noted that respondent had previously received a 30-day suspension for failing to complete mandated training.
Despite respondent’s exceptions to the recommended penalty, the COE concurred with the penalty recommended by the SEC – a 60-day suspension – for respondent’s failure to timely honor an obligation placed upon school officials by law. The COE also noted that, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-3.3, an increased penalty is authorized when a board member has previously been the subject of an order to show cause and sanctioned.
Docket No. 128-26 (April 15, 2026). Petitioner, a former employee, sought indemnification from the board and the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) in connection with a lawsuit filed against him in 2021 that was related to incidents that allegedly occurred during his employment. The NJEA and the board’s insurance carrier denied his request, which petitioner initially challenged through an action in the Superior Court of New Jersey in 2021. Petitioner did not file a petition with the COE seeking indemnification from the board and the NJEA until May 20, 2024.
The ALJ granted the board’s motion to dismiss because petitioner’s claims were time-barred under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). The ALJ also granted NJEA’s motion for summary decision because: petitioner abandoned his claims against the NJEA; petitioner’s claims against the NJEA were barred by res judicata, as the judge in Superior Court already adjudicated the claims; and N.J.S.A. 18A:16-6 does not apply to the NJEA. The COE concurred with the ALJ’s conclusions, and affirmed the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal.
Docket No. 130-26 (April 15, 2026). The board denied petitioners’ request for their son, T.O. to be exempt from a new science graduation requirement that the board approved, effective with the Class of 2027 (which included T.O.). The board explained that they had considered the impact of the new graduation requirement on the Class of 2027 and ultimately determined that, based upon the Science Audit Committee’s review of students’ schedules, it was feasible for students to meet the new graduation requirements.
In granting the board’s motion for summary decision, the ALJ concluded that the board’s decision to apply the revised science graduation requirements to the Class of 2027 was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The ALJ also noted that petitioners did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or detrimental impact to T.O. from the board’s decision to change the science graduation requirements, effective with the Class of 2027. The COE concurred with the ALJ that petitioners failed to show that the board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably, and adopted the ALJ’s initial decision.
Docket No. 131-26 (April 15, 2026). A transportation company challenged the board’s award of a contract to another company, First Student, because First Student had not included a Chapter 271 Political Contribution Disclosure Form (Form 271) with its bid submission (First Student subsequently provided Form 271 to the board ten days before the award of the contract).
The COE concurred with the ALJ that summary decision in favor of the board was appropriate because the board properly awarded the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, First Student. By way of further explanation, N.J.S.A. 19:44A-20.26 does not require the submission of Form 271 for publicly advertised contracts (such as the one in this matter), and the absence of this form also was not material to the price offered by First Student or First Student’s ability to perform the contract.
Docket No. 138-26 (April 21, 2026). Petitioner, a tenured teaching staff member, challenged the superintendent’s June 16, 2025, and August 5, 2025, directives that he submit to a “Fit to Return examination in accordance with Policy 3161.”
The COE rejected the ALJ’s initial decision granting summary decision in favor of the board. Because the statement of reasons provided by the superintendent did not, as required by board policy and the applicable regulations, “advise petitioner of his right to request a [b]oard hearing to refute the stated reasons for the examination, and no [b]oard hearing occurred,” the COE determined that the matter was not ripe for review by the COE, and remanded the matter to the board.
Docket No. 140-26E (April 21, 2026). T.B., an eighth grade student, was identified as a student who was present in the girls’ bathroom when the “vape sensors” were activated. Thereafter, T.B. was suspended from school for three school days, consisting of a one-day in-school suspension and a two-day out of-school suspension. She was also prohibiting from participating in any school activities, including cheerleading practice. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition of appeal seeking emergent relief from respondent’s decision to impose the discipline.
The ALJ found that “there [was] insufficient evidence that there [was] ‘threatening, irreparable mischief’ afoot or substantial or immediate harm.” Because petitioner failed to satisfy the first Crowe v. DeGioia standard for granting emergent relief (irreparable harm), the petition of appeal was denied.
The 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. 141-26 (April 21, 2026). The New Jersey State Board of Examiners (SBE) was advised that Maginnis was terminated from employment after his school district confirmed, following his initial employment, that he misrepresented that he held a special education certification issued by the New Jersey Department of Education, and a master’s degree from a New Jersey university.
Following the issuance of an order to show cause, the ALJ concluded that Maginnis had engaged in conduct unbecoming an educator and, after considering the aggravating and mitigating factors present, determined that a six-month suspension of his teaching certificates was warranted.
The SBE adopted the initial decision with modification as to penalty, and ordered a one-year suspension of Maginnis’ teaching certificates. In modifying the penalty, the SBE stated, “Although the instant matter does not involve the submission of an altered or fraudulent certificate, Maginnis’ conduct in misrepresenting his eligibility to teach more than what he was actually certificated for is similarly egregious and warrants a significant penalty.”
On appeal, the COE affirmed the finding of conduct unbecoming, and the one-year suspension of Maginnis’ teaching certificates.
Docket No. 147-26 (April 28, 2026). Petitioners challenged the board’s use of virtual instruction through a private company, Elevate, because the Elevate instructors: did not hold valid New Jersey teaching certificates as required by N.J.S.A. 18A:26-2; did not undergo criminal history background checks as required by N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1; were not appointed individually by the board as required by N.J.S.A. 18A:27-1; were not evaluated by the district at least three times per year as required by N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.1; were not evaluated by the district as required by N.J.S.A. 18A:6-117 – 129 (TEACHNJ); and did not live in New Jersey as required by N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.
The ALJ agreed that the Elevate instructors were “teaching staff members” who were required to hold valid New Jersey teaching certificates, undergo criminal history background checks, and be evaluated under TEACHNJ. However, the ALJ found that N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.1 did not apply because the Elevate instructors were not eligible for tenure. The ALJ also declined to exercise jurisdiction over N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.
The COE concurred with the ALJ that the board’s use of the Elevate instructors violated N.J.S.A. 18A:26-2, N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1, and TEACHNJ, and adopted the ALJ’s initial decision, with one modification, adding that the board also violated N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.1, as the purpose of this statute “exceed[s] mere assessment for tenure.”
Docket No. 148-26 (April 28, 2026). Petitioners sought an emergent order enjoining the board and superintendent from discontinuing the choice programs at four schools in the district, alleging that respondents failed to obtain the approvals required by N.J.A.C. 6A:26-7.5.
The ALJ denied the request for emergent relief, finding that petitioners did not demonstrate: irreparable harm (petitioners did not provide proof of any academic disruption, or any kind of harm, let alone irreparable harm); that the underlying legal right to their claim was well-settled or that they had a likelihood of success on the merits (the regulation cited by petitioners, N.J.A.C. 6A:26-7.5, is for closing a school, and does not apply to discontinuing a program); or that the balancing of the equities was in their favor (petitioners did not provide proof of any harm the students would suffer if the relief was not granted, but respondents explained how they would educate the affected children and that the Long-Range Facilities Plan, which included the discontinuance of the choice programs, was approved by the board and the NJDOE).
The COE agreed that petitioners failed to meet the standard for entitlement to emergent relief and adopted the ALJ’s initial decision denying the application.
Docket No. 149-26 (April 28, 2026). Through an Affirmative Action investigation, the district concluded that appellant: engaged in harassing conduct towards a classified student and female employees and students; made sexual comments in the presence of students; made inappropriate comments about a classified student in the presence of other staff members and students; inappropriately identified the student as a classified student in the presence of other students; caused a classified student to be late for classes; utilized a “Wall of Shame” in his classroom; and consumed alcohol with district high school students at a party in a student’s home.
Following the issuance of an order to show cause, the ALJ determined that appellant had engaged in conduct unbecoming an educator and, after considering the aggravating and mitigating factors present, recommended a one-year suspension of his teaching certificates.
The SBE modified the ALJ’s decision to incorporate additional findings of conduct unbecoming, and to increase the penalty to the revocation of appellant’s teaching certificates. In modifying the penalty, the SBE highlighted appellant’s harassment of a special education student, and the repeated instances of unbecoming conduct.
On appeal, the COE affirmed the finding of conduct unbecoming, and the revocation of appellant’s teaching certificates.
School Ethics Commission
Decisions Adopted On April 28, 2026
Docket No. C75-24. Respondent “posted an extensive endorsement” for a board member’s re-election on his “board of education campaign Facebook page.” He included a disclaimer prior to the endorsement, and then identified himself as the board president and wrote that he was offering the endorsement, “not only as a trustee but also as a lifelong volunteer, youth coach, mentor, father, and dedicated [district] stakeholder,” also noting that he has “deep roots in [the district]…” and made the district “my family’s forever home.”
The SEC focused on the “personal context” of respondent’s post and concluded that: respondent’s disclaimer was appropriate; a reasonable member of the public would not perceive that he was speaking in his official capacity as a board member; and, therefore, a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) could not be sustained.
Docket No. C79-24. Pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement, the parties agreed: respondent will issue a public apology to the superintendent at the next scheduled board meeting following approval of the settlement, the wording of which will be shared with and approved by the superintendent; upon issuance of the public apology, respondent will be eligible for appointment(s) to committee assignments; and complainant will make a public statement at the next scheduled board meeting following approval of the settlement that the ethics complaint has been resolved, and respondent has accepted a reprimand from the SEC.
The SEC adopted the ALJ’s initial decision (the settlement agreement) as the final decision, and recommended the agreed upon penalty of reprimand to the COE.
Docket No. C87-24. Through a settlement agreement, respondent admitted that her conduct violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i), and accepted the penalty of censure to be read into the official record of the board within 60 days of the approval of the settlement agreement. In exchange, complainant agreed to withdraw his claim that respondent also violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).
The SEC adopted the ALJ’s initial decision (the settlement agreement) as the final decision, and recommended the agreed upon penalty of censure to the COE.
Docket No. C95-25. Complainant maintained that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (c), as well as N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) when, during a board meeting, he “wore clothing branded with his private podcast/business and distributed merchandise associated with the enterprise to attendees.” However, in the absence of information regarding respondent’s distribution of materials, the SEC determined that wearing a shirt with the name of respondent’s nonprofit organization, alone, did not violate the Act.
Complainant also argued that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (e), (f), (g), and (i) when he “left his seat at the dais,” went to the “public comment microphone” and questioned the process that the board used in selecting the new superintendent. In also dismissing these allegations, the SEC emphasized that respondent “came down from the dais, and provided a disclaimer, before making his statement,” and did not appear to share information he received as a board member, as he announced that he had been recusing himself from matters regarding the superintendent.
Although the SEC dismissed the complaint in its entirety, the SEC declined to find the complaint frivolous.
Docket No. C102-25. Complainant, the superintendent, claimed that respondent, the business administrator, directed the high school print shop to produce “promotional material” for a golf fundraiser sponsored by the local Education Foundation (EF). According to complainant, he did not authorize these services and EF never paid for the services. Complainant alleged that respondent’s conduct violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c).
According to respondent, the board “voted to accept donations to the student scholarship fund from several upcoming fundraisers during that school year,” including the EF’s golf fundraiser. In light of this “partnership,” respondent arranged for the high school print shop to prepare promotional material for the golf event.
The SEC found no probable cause for the stated violations of the Act.
Docket No. C103-25. Complainant, the superintendent, alleged that respondent, the business administrator, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (c) when he: “directed” the high school print shop teacher to “produce promotional materials for [r]espondent’s private business using district equipment, materials, and staff time” (respondent explained that he paid for these services); and told staff to clean out his office while he was on administrative leave (complainant had instructed respondent “to refrain from contacting staff/board members” during his leave). However, according to respondent, he only emailed the Director of Human Resources to request “a time to retrieve his personal belongings.”
The SEC found no probable cause for the stated violations of the Act.
Docket No. C104-25. Complainant, the superintendent, claimed that respondent is the founder/president of the Education Foundation (EF) and in April 2025, the business administrator directed the high school print shop to produce “promotional material” for an EF golf fundraiser. According to complainant, there was no invoice for this project or payment received from the EF. Complainant alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) in connection with her dual role and attempts to receive preferential treatment for the EF.
The SEC found no probable cause for the stated violations of the Act.
Docket No. C106-25. Complainant alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) when she “distributed campaign mailers…which prominently featured and were paid for by [an assemblyman]” and included “shared photographs and endorsements.” Complainant argued that the mailers “presented” respondent and the assemblyman “as running jointly or in alignment, using coordinated political branding and messaging.”
The SEC dismissed the allegations, but found that the complaint was not frivolous. The SEC also cautioned that, although no statute prohibits a board member from being endorsed by a political party, school board elections should be nonpartisan.
Docket No. C108-25. At a board meeting, respondents made the following statements to community members, which complainant alleged violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (f), and (j): “[y]ou do not have kids in our schools” and your concerns are “not up for discussion” (in reference to an upcoming referendum); and “for six years, she approved the contract until she lost the election. She didn’t have questions about Shared Services until she was off the board. It became a problem . . . I’ve kept my mouth shut for a while but the misinformation . . . she has stated in the past that she contacted the board and we failed to respond and she assassinated our character.”
The SEC dismissed the complaint in its entirety, but found that it was not frivolous.
Docket No. C109-25. In October 2025, the Israeli-American Coalition for Action (IAC) provided a survey form to each board candidate, to which the three “non-incumbent candidates did not respond.” IAC published respondents’ responses in a “Policy Survey on Antisemitism” and this publication specifically referenced the name of the board of education, and pictures of respondents, labeling them as “current” board members. According to complainant, the survey included “politically and internationally sensitive topics” and a post showing the survey questions and respondents’ answers was publicly shared in a Facebook group (and respondent K. is the sole administrator of this group). Based on this conduct, complainant alleged that respondent K. violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), and all of the respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (e), (f), and (i).
Respondent K. explained that that the Facebook page is private, has a disclaimer, and she did not post the IAC survey on the page.
The SEC dismissed all of the alleged violations of the Act.
Docket No. C112-25. Complainant alleged that the superintendent violated multiple provisions of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members, namely N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (c), (e), (g), and (i), for matters related to a student residency dispute, Section 504, public school contracts law, and board governance. Because the SEC does not have jurisdiction over such matters, and because the superintendents are not subject to the Code of Ethics for School Board Members, the SEC dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
The SEC found the complaint to be frivolous because complainant knew or should have known that the complaint was without basis in law or equity, or that it could not be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-1.2 (the SEC had previously rejected complainant’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction and then she filed the within complaint with the same allegations) and ordered complainant to pay a fine in the amount of $50.00.
Docket No. C114-25. On Election Day, complainant voted and then sat for a while “in a chair designated for challengers.” Once home, she learned that a police officer questioned workers at the polling site regarding an “alleged election violation” by complainant. Complainant claimed that, based upon information she received from the police department, respondent (who is the Chief of Police in another municipality and complainant’s former opponent in a board election) reported the alleged violation to the Chief of Police. Complainant alleged that respondent’s false accusations against her violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a), (e), (f), and (g).
The SEC dismissed the matter for lack of jurisdiction over election laws and respondent’s actions as a police chief, and additionally found that the complaint was not frivolous.
Dockets No. C130-25 and C131-25 (Consolidated). Complainant alleged that respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) when they disclosed a “confidential attorney-client communication.” Specifically, according to complainant, respondent T. sent an email to an NJSBA employee that contained three quoted paragraphs of “internal legal guidance” from the board’s attorney. Complainant also claimed that respondents’ exhibits to a complaint they filed with the SEC contained the guidance from the board’s attorney.
Because, according to the SEC, the information in the email was not confidential, there were insufficient facts and circumstances to prove the stated 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.
