Monthly Grounds: Education Law Update
Volume I – March 2026
Commissioner of Education
Noteworthy February Decisions
Docket No. 55-26 (February 17, 2026). A.V. alleged that several students, N.B., AO1, and AO2, had been making racist remarks to her, which included the “N” word and “hagway” (the “N” word in Chinese). Based upon the interviews with various students and a teacher, the Anti-Bullying Specialist (ABS) determined that the harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) allegations were unfounded. Following the completion of the investigation, another student told the principal, and confirmed in a written statement, that N.B. and AO3 called A.V. the “N” word. The principal found the witness to be credible, reopened the HIB investigation, and concluded that N.B. and AO3 committed an act of HIB. Following a hearing, the board affirmed the HIB determination and N.B.’s parents appealed.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the board’s motion for summary decision because petitioners failed to establish that the board’s HIB decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The ALJ explained that the board’s failure to mention the principal’s interview of the new witness in the HIB report was a procedural error that did not prejudice petitioners, as the district shared this information at the board hearing.
The Commissioner of Education (COE) concurred with the ALJ, and adopted the initial decision as the final decision.
Docket No. 56-26 (February 17, 2026). Petitioner applied for a substitute teaching certificate, but based upon a 2015 manslaughter conviction in New York, the New Jersey Department of Education’s Office of Student Protection (OSP) informed petitioner that he was permanently disqualified from public school employment pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1. Petitioner appealed OSP’s determination because his NY “certificate of relief from disabilities” (CRD) stated that he is “entitled to relief from all legal bars and disabilities to employment, license, and privilege, except those pertaining to firearms and the right to be eligible for public office.”
The ALJ granted OSP’s motion for summary decision and dismissed the appeal because: OSP’s decision to permanently disqualify petitioner was required by statute and was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; and the Appellate Division has determined that a NY CRD does not alter or affect the criminal conviction to which it relates.
The COE concurred with the ALJ that petitioner is permanently disqualified from public school employment.
Docket No. 57-26 (February 17, 2026). The board filed tenure charges against appellant based on conduct unbecoming in the district (commenting on a student’s eyes and making her uncomfortable) and past conduct (engaging in a sexual relationship with a 14-year old minor – he was almost 30 years old and training to be a priest while she worked in the rectory – which resulted in a child from the relationship when the minor was 16 years old). Although the arbitrator dismissed the tenure charges, the New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners (SBE), issued an Order to Show Cause (OTSC) to revoke appellant’s teaching certificates.
The ALJ granted the board’s motion for summary decision, finding that appellant engaged in conduct unbecoming a teacher when he had a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old rectory employee. The ALJ recommended the revocation of appellant’s teaching certificates, which the SBE affirmed.
The COE found that the record adequately supports the determination that appellant engaged in unbecoming conduct, which warranted the revocation of his teaching certificates.
Docket No. 68-26 (February 26, 2026). On June 5, 2022, appellant was arrested and charged with four counts of Endangering the Welfare of a Child – DWI (2nd degree). It was alleged that appellant had four children in her vehicle while she was intoxicated after a carnival event. Appellant pled guilty to Driving Under the Influence, and the four counts of Endangering the Welfare of a Child – DWI (2nd degree) were dismissed. Thereafter, the SBE issued on OTSC.
On appeal, the COE found that the SBE’s determination that appellant committed unbecoming conduct when she placed four children at serious risk by getting behind the wheel of her vehicle with a blood-alcohol level at more than three times the legal limit was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The COE additionally found that the SBE’s decision to increase the ALJ’s recommended suspension from six months to two years was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, and that a two-year suspension was “appropriate given the nature and the extent of the unbecoming conduct at issue.”
Docket No. 69-26R (February 26, 2026). Petitioner requested aid in lieu of transportation for the 2024-2025 school year for the transportation of her child, K.K., to a private school. The board contended that K.K. resided more than 20 miles from her school and, consequently, denied petitioner’s request for aid in lieu of transportation. Petitioner relied on a Google Maps printout and a survey, which indicated that the distance between K.K.’s residence and school was 19.9 and 19.7 miles respectively. In its opposition to petitioner’s motion for summary decision, the board certified it was unable to recreate a route, as provided by petitioner, that was less than 20 miles.
The ALJ granted petitioner’s motion for summary decision based upon a finding that the survey provided by petitioner, consistent with the requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:27-1.3(a)(1)(ii), “measures the shortest distance utilizing public roadways and walkways [between] the student’s home and the nearest public entrance to the school.”
The COE remanded the matter because there remains a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the measurement of the shortest distance between the residence and K.K.’s school, consistent with N.J.A.C. 6A:27-1.3(a)(1)(ii); therefore, the matter is not ripe for summary decision. In remanding, the COE noted that, “the ALJ’s reliance on the survey as the single, unavoidable resolution of the disputed factual issue regarding the distance measurement is not adequately supported by the record.”
School Ethics Commission
Decisions Adopted On February 24, 2026
Docket No. C54-25. Respondent did not disclose his interest in a political committee on his financial disclosure statement, which complainant alleged violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26. Complainant also argued that this political committee was formed to influence a public referendum, which further violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(g).
Because complainant did not provide evidence that respondent owns or controls more than 10% of the profits, assets, or stock of the political committee, the School Ethics Commission (SEC) could not determine whether respondent had an “interest” in a business organization (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-26). The SEC also concluded that complainant did not prove a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(g), noting that respondent is permitted to advocate his opinions on local issues. Finally, the SEC found the complaint was not frivolous.
Docket No. C55-25. Complainants’ child assaulted another student and the principal banned him from participating in the sixth-grade promotion ceremony, which respondent T, the superintendent, affirmed. Because the victim of their child’s assault was respondent T’s distant relative, complainants claimed that her involvement in the matter violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a) and (b). Complainants also filed an “ethics complaint” with the board about respondent T, but did not believe that the board responded to the complaint (which complainants argued violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a)).
The SEC dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
Docket No. C57-25. More than 180 days prior to complainant’s filing of her complaint, respondent “exchanged text messages” with A.C. (the district’s librarian’s husband) to show him that complainant had made comments about him on a podcast. Based on this sharing of information, complainant alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (d), (e), and (g).
The SEC found it credible that complainant was not aware of respondent’s text messages at that time and considered the complaint to be timely. However, in consideration of the substance of the claims, the SEC determined that there were no violations of the stated sections of the School Ethics Act (the Act). The SEC also declined to find the complaint frivolous.
Docket No. C58-25. Complainant alleged that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) and (i) due to her ongoing harassment of the interim superintendent, which included following him to his home after a board meeting (respondent claimed that she was following a board member and was not aware of where the interim superintendent lived).
Although the SEC noted that respondent’s behavior was concerning, the SEC declined to find probable cause and dismissed the complaint.
Docket No. C60-25. Complainant alleged that respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(a), (b), and (c) by permitting staff to leave school early to attend an event for retirees that was hosted by a foundation of which respondent F is the “recording secretary” and respondent M is a “liaison.”
Although the SEC determined that the complaint was not frivolous, the SEC dismissed all allegations for complainant’s failure to meet the evidentiary requirements for violations of the stated sections of the Act.
Docket No. C62-25. The complainant (the district’s superintendent/principal) recommended the non-renewal of respondent Gu when she was employed by the board in 2022. In January 2025, complainant learned that respondents Gu and G signed a petition, which supported dividing complainant’s dual role into two positions. Complainant alleged that this conduct violated several sections of the Act (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(g) and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e), (i), and (j)), and respondent Gu violated additional sections of the Act due to her conflict with complainant based on her non-renewal in 2022 (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) and (c), and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(d), (e), (f), (i), and (j)).
The SEC concluded that there were insufficient facts and circumstances to lead a reasonable person to believe that the Act was violated.
Docket No. C64-25. Complainant alleged that the respondent board members violated: N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) because they hired an alleged “friend” as the board attorney; N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c) when they made political endorsements without disclaimers; and N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) because they elected respondent H to be the board president, who had been endorsed by the president of the local education association. Complainant also claimed that respondent O-P, the acting superintendent, violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b) because she used family members in the district to get promoted, and also failed to report these family members on her disclosure statements in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-25(a) and (c).
The SEC dismissed the claims for lack of jurisdiction and complainant’s failure to prove the stated violations of the Act, and also noted that respondent O-P was not required to list the named district employees on her disclosure statements, as they did not meet the definition of “relative.” Finally, the SEC also found the complaint not frivolous.
Docket No. C65-25. Complainant alleged several violations of the Act based on respondent’s behavior at board meetings, which included: publicly referencing confidential board discussions and internal disputes; publicly accusing board leadership of “knowingly communicating the wrong information”; and failing to support school personnel in the proper discharge of their duties.
The SEC determined that there were insufficient facts and circumstances to establish a violation of the Act and dismissed the complaint.
*For further information about these matters, please contact the NJSBA Legal Department at (609) 278-5279, or your board attorney for formal legal advice.