Commissioner of Education
Noteworthy October decisions
Docket No. 467-25 (October 3, 2025). After multiple students filed harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) complaints against petitioner, a tenured teacher, the board determined that the conduct complained of constituted HIB.
Although the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upheld the board’s determination as to certain of the students’ allegations, the ALJ found all others to be arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because there was no evidence that petitioner’s conduct substantially disrupted or interfered with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of those students, or that his comments – while “clearly inappropriate” – were motivated by any actual or perceived distinguishing characteristic.
Docket No. 478-25 (October 10, 2025). While on the bus, H.H. – a then sixth grade student – and a classmate discussed using dynamite to blow up the school on a weekend. H.H. thought the conversation was a joke and, after starting to feel uneasy, unsuccessfully tried to distance himself from his classmate. When the bus arrived at school, the other student pointed to places in the building where he could place a bomb. The conversation was overhead by a staff member, and reported. Although a risk assessment noted that H.H. displayed remorse and compassion, and had not engaged in attack-related behavior, H.H. was suspended for four-days. In the course of meetings with petitioner and in written correspondence, the superintendent gave differing bases for H.H.’s suspension.
The Commissioner of Education (COE) concurred with the ALJ that the board’s suspension was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, as the charges that H.H. committed a terroristic threat or made a bomb threat were unfounded. Although the incident did seriously disrupt the school environment, the COE found that the suspension must be overturned given the board’s many procedural deficiencies in imposing H.H.’s suspension.
Docket No. 497-25 (October 20, 2025). While D.M. and several other fifth grade students were playing kickball, Victim One approached D.M. and said, “You have anger issues, you weird a@@ b!@#*.” D.M. then responded, “Shut your black a@@ up.” The anti-bullying specialist (ABS) concluded that the comment made by D.M. was clearly motivated by race, and constituted HIB (HIB I). C.M.’s father separately filed a HIB complaint against Victim One, and cited “anger issues” as the basis for Victim One’s conduct toward D.M. The ABS concluded that “the anger as complained of here was not a distinguishing characteristic,” and did not constitute HIB (HIB II). Petitioner appealed both HIB determinations.
The COE concurred with the ALJ that petitioners failed to demonstrate that respondent’s HIB determinations were arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Docket No. 493-25 (October 20, 2025). After the board and petitioner (the superintendent) agreed to the terms of a multi-year employment contract, the board learned that petitioner had a conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) and a related suspension of his driver’s license that he failed to disclose on his employment application. After the board unilaterally terminated petitioner’s employment contract, petitioner appealed.
The COE concurred with the ALJ that the board violated N.J.S.A. 18A:17-20.2 when it unilaterally terminated petitioner’s employment and did not first file tenure charges. Even though petitioner may have breached his contract by omitting his previous DWI conviction and license suspension from his application, the board did not have the authority to unilaterally terminate his employment.
Docket No. 515-25 (October 31, 2025). D.C. called a student who is classified as a special education student, “special ed.” Although D.C. argued that his comment was not intended to hurt the victim’s feelings, the board determined that the conduct satisfied the definition of HIB. In affirming the board’s decision, the ALJ explained that the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (ABR) only requires that his comment be reasonably perceived as motivated by the student victim’s disability.
The COE concurred with the ALJ’s conclusion that petitioner failed to sustain her burden of establishing that the board acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner.
Docket No. 516-25 (October 31, 2025). Following an HIB investigation, it was determined that J.L. committed an act of HIB when he called another sixth grade student a “liar.”
The ALJ determined that the board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because J.L.’s conduct was not motivated by a distinguishing characteristic.
Although petitioner agreed with the ALJ’s legal conclusion, she filed exceptions and requested that the board pay for J.L. to attend school in another district. The COE denied petitioner’s requested relief as it not an available remedy under the ABR. The COE ultimately adopted the ALJ’s Initial Decision as the final decision, and directed the board to remove all references to the HIB incident from J.L.’s records.
School Ethics Commission
Adopted October 28, 2025
Docket No. C35-21. Although the district was not looking for a new wrestling coach, respondent sent the resumes of two potential coaches to the district’s athletic director, and warned that the district would continue to lose high quality wrestlers to private schools, like his child, if the district did not improve its wrestling program. Respondent also asked his fellow board members for their support in removing the appointment of the current coach from the agenda and/or voting against his appointment.
The School Ethics Commission (SEC) agreed with the ALJ’s legal conclusion that respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), but disagreed that respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), and found a violation based on respondent’s use of his position as a board member to attempt to secure employment for “others.” The SEC recommended a penalty of reprimand for respondent’s violations.
Docket No. C51-22. The SEC adopted the ALJ’s legal conclusions that respondent violated the School Ethics Act because she: informed the public that the board was prepared to reduce instructional time by forty minutes per day, despite multiple directives from the superintendent not to share this information (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g)); made misrepresentations about her communications with board counsel and the resulting invoice (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g)); and made a statement at a board meeting implying that the superintendent had been bullying her (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(i)). The SEC also adopted the ALJ’s recommended penalty of censure, noting that because the majority of respondent’s actions took place in public, “the public should be aware of her sanction.”
Docket No. C76-23. Respondent voted to approve the board’s “finance and facilities” resolution, which contained the board’s payment to the law firm that was representing respondent in an ethics matter. Although respondent argued that her vote was an “oversight” and “harmless error,” the SEC emphasized that board members have an obligation to be aware of what they are approving, and adopted the ALJ’s legal conclusion that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(c), and the recommended penalty of censure.
Docket No. C22-24. After withdrawing its November 26, 2024, probable cause determination, the underlying facts for which were not provided, the SEC dismissed this matter.
Docket No. C37-24. Respondent, under the belief that she was acting in her capacity as a parent, contacted the superintendent regarding a private administrative matter.
The SEC adopted the ALJ’s Initial Decision approving the parties’ settlement agreement, pursuant to which the parties agreed that respondent’s actions “may be construed as a technical violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e).” Because respondent was no longer on the board, and had no previous ethical infractions, the parties agreed that the agreement “shall serve as a reprimand and that no other penalty or sanction shall be imposed.”
Docket No. C102-24. Per complainant, the respondent/board president violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(g) because she directed the business administrator to cancel the July 2024 board meeting for “personal reasons,” but “publicly” said that the cancellation was due to an anticipated lack of quorum.
The SEC declined to find probable cause because complainant did not demonstrate that respondent made any personal promises or took action beyond the scope of her duties when she directed the cancellation of the board meeting, and also did not prove that respondent made any false or inaccurate statements to the public.
Docket No. C05-25. Complainant argued that respondent violated multiple provisions of the School Ethics Act by voting “no” on the superintendent’s request to attend the Military Impact Schools Association conference, and by providing inaccurate information about the superintendent even though respondent did not participate in the board’s vote to non-renew the superintendent’s employment.
The SEC dismissed the complaint, noting that some allegations were untimely filed and that, for all others, complainant did not provide the necessary factual evidence required by N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4.
Docket No. C08-25. Complainant alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) when she participated in matters “that were expressly deemed a conflict in [an SEC] advisory opinion.” Although the SEC emphasized that it “expects the subject school official to adhere to the advice rendered” in an advisory opinion, the SEC was “constrained to dismiss” the complaint because an advisory opinion is not a final decision as required by N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4.
*For further information about these matters, please contact the NJSBA Legal Department at (609) 278-5279, or your board attorney for formal legal advice.
