Community Charter School of Paterson Education Association, on behalf of its members v. Board of Trustees of the Community Charter School of Paterson, Passaic County, 2/28/2023, (#55-23)

55-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Community Charter School of Paterson
Education Association, on behalf of its members,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Trustees of the Community
Charter School of Paterson, Passaic County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
The petitioner, Community Charter School of Paterson Education Association (“petitioner” or “Association”)
alleged that respondent Community Charter School of Paterson Board of Trustees (“respondent” or “Board”)
improperly refused to offer an employee health plan that is equivalent to the New Jersey Educators Health
Plan (“NJEHP”) mandated under N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2 et seq.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts at issue here, and the matter is ripe for summary
decision; 	the Association and the Board are parties to a collective bargaining agreement which expired on
June 30, 2021; 	negotiations are continuing to reach a successor agreement; in July 2020, t he New Jersey
Legislature enacted P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, which amended the health insurance benefits statutes for
school employees, requiring that employees at schools that do not participate in the State Employees’
Health Benefits Plan be offered the NJEHP or an equivalent plan; beginning January 1, 2021, the Board
offered its employees three Open Access health insurance plans, one of which was identified as
substantially equivalent to the NJEHP; that plan was later found to not be equivalent to the NJEHP; the
Board claims that it is in negotiations with the Association for a new collective bargaining agreement that will
encompass health benefits and costs, but no agreement has yet been reached; the issue to be decided here is
the legal authority of the Board to defer offering an equivalent health insurance plan to the Association until
negotiations have been completed. The ALJ rejected the Board’s argument that the parties must negotiate
regarding the increase in cost prior to the Board offering the plan and determined instead that the Board must
first offer the required NJEHP equivalent plan and then proceed to negotiations over any increase in net costs.
Accordingly, the ALJ granted petitioner’s motion for summary decision and ordered the Board to offer its
employees a NJEHP-equivalent plan.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusion, and adopted the
Initial Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this matter. The Board was ordered to offer and implement a
NJEHP-equivalent health insurance plan for its employees, as required under N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It has
been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 03968-21
Agency Dkt. No. 27-2/21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Community Charter School of Paterson
Education Association, on behalf of
its members,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Trustees of the Community Charter
School of Paterson, Passaic County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and respondent’s reply thereto,
have been reviewed and considered.
The Community Charter School of Paterson Education Association (petitioner or
Association) is the majority representative for certain employees of the Community Charter
School of Paterson Board of Trustees (Board). In its petition of appeal, the Association alleges
that the Board violated N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2 by refusing to offer its employees a health
insurance plan that is equivalent to the New Jersey Educators Health Plan (NJEHP).
Following petitioner’s motion for summary decision, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
found that the Board is obligated to provide a plan equivalent to the NJEHP and that it was
undisputed that the Board has not offered or provided such a plan. The ALJ rejected the
55-23

2
Board’s argument that the parties must negotiate regarding the increase in cost prior to the
Board offering the plan, finding that the Board must offer the plan and then proceed to
negotiations over any increase in net costs. Accordingly, the ALJ granted petitioner’s motion
for summary decision and ordered the Board to offer its employees a NJEHP-equivalent plan.
In its exceptions, petitioner agrees with the merits of the ALJ’s decision but requests
that the remedy be modified to make employees whole for the financial loss suffered as a
result of the Board’s refusal to offer the NJEHP plan. Petitioner contends that it sought
summary judgment solely on the issue of the Board’s liability with respect to its failure to offer
the plan and stated in its moving papers that the make-whole remedy would subsequently be
proven.
In reply, the Board argues that petitioner has not supplied any proof of loss by
employees. The Board also contends that the statutory scheme provides for collective
negotiations to address issues arising from the costs of these plans, rather than a private right
of action.1
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2 obligates
the Board to first offer a plan equivalent to the NJEHP to Association members, and then to
proceed to negotiations over any resulting increase in costs. The plain language of the statute
provides that an NJEHP equivalent plan “shall” be offered. N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2(a)(1).
Accordingly, the Board’s failure to provide such a plan is in violation of the statute.
Furthermore, P.L. 2021, c. 163 provides that any district “with an increase in net cost . . . as a
result of” offering the NJEHP-equivalent plan “shall commence negotiations immediately.” The
1 The Board did not file any exceptions regarding the merits of the Initial Decision.

3
Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that, based on this language, the law requires negotiations
only after the Board offers a NJEHP-equivalent plan, if there is a net cost increase.
The Commissioner rejects as premature or speculative petitioner’s exceptions regarding
the issue of remedy. Association members’ financial losses, if any, suffered as a result of the
Board’s failure to offer the required NJEHP-equivalent plan cannot be ascertained until the
Board has actually offered and implemented that plan. Should such damages become evident
in the future, the Association is free to file a new petition of appeal.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter.
Petitioner’s motion for summary decision is granted, and the Board is ordered to offer and
implement a NJEHP-equivalent employee health insurance plan.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
2 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1.
Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date
of mailing of this decision.
February 28, 2023
March 1, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION ON MOTION FOR
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03968-21
AGENCY DKT. NO. 27-2/21
COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL OF
PATERSON EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBERS,
Petitioner,
v.
COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL OF
PATERSON BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
PASSAIC COUNTY,
Respondent.
____________________________
Richard 	A. 	Friedman, 	Esq., 	and 	Sheila 	Murugan, 	Esq., 	for 	petitioner
Community Charter School of Paterson Education Association (Zazzali,
Fagella, Nowak, Kleinbaum & Friedman. P.C., attorneys)
Thomas O. Johnston, Esq., for respondent Community Charter School of
Paterson Board of Trustees (Johnston Law Firm, attorneys)
Record Closed: November 21, 2022 	Decided: December 7, 2022
BEFORE GAIL M. COOKSON, ALJ:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03968-21
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner 	Community 	Charter 	School 	of 	Paterson 	Education 	Association
(“petitioner” or “Association”) brought an action against the respondent Community
Charter School of Paterson Board of Trustees (“respondent” or “Board”) alleging the
respondent improperly refused to offer an “equivalent” New Jersey Educators Health
Plan (“NJEHP”) under the Health Benefits Law, N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2 et seq., as
amended by P.L. 2021, c. 163.
The matter was transmitted by the Department of Education to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) where it was filed on April 27, 2021, for hearing as a
contested case pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.1
The matter was assigned to the the Honorable Acting Director and Chief Administrative
Law Judge Ellen S. Bass, who managed the matter until her retirement in May 2022.
Following the retirement of Judge Bass, the Honorable Judge Joann Candido, A.L.A.J.,
conferenced the matter telephonically on June 29, 2022, to familiarize herself with the
status 	of 	the 	case 	and 	any 	settlement 	discussions. 	Thereafter, 	the 	matter 	was
reassigned to me. It was agreed that counsel would consider drafting a joint stipulation
of facts and presenting the case through dispositive motion practice. The scheduling of
a plenary hearing date was deferred and a briefing schedule established. The matter is
now ripe for decision.
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
1. 	The Association and the Board are parties to a collective bargaining
agreement, but which expired on June 30, 2021. 	They are continuing negotiations to
reach a successor agreement. [Certification of Curtis Palmore (“Palmore Cert.”) ¶ 3.]
2. 	The New Jersey Legislature enacted P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, effective
July 1, 2020, which amended the health insurance benefits statutes for school
1 There is no challenge that the Commissioner of the Department of Education has subject matter
jurisdiction to resolve the dispute as coming under “school laws.” 	See Boonton Educ. Ass'n v. Bd. of
Educ. of Boonton, No. A-1670-21, 2022 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1940, at *2 (App. Div. Oct. 19, 2022),
aff’g Final Decision OAL Dkt. No. EDU 4105-21.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03968-21
3
employees, requiring, as discussed below, that employees at schools that do not
participate in the State Employees’ Health Benefits Plan (“SEHBP”) be offered the
NJEHP or equivalent plan. N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2 (“Chapter 44”).
3. 	On July 7, 2021, the Legislature enacted some amendments to various
sections of Chapter 44. 	Specifically, the requirement that the Board must offer an
NJEHP or NJEHP-equivalent plan remained the same. 	[Exhibit A to Certification of
Sheila Murugan, Esq. (“Murugan Cert.”]
4. 	The Board offered the members of the Association healthcare plans
known as the Open Access Program (I, II, and III) for the calendar year commencing
January 1, 2021.
5. 	The Board asserts that the OAP III, specifically, is offered as “comparable”
to the NJEHP. [Palmore Cert. ¶ 9.]
6. 	An analysis by the New Jersey Education Association’s Assistant Director
of Research and Economic Services compared the OAP III plan to the NJEHP and
found numerous differences in terms and benefits. 	[Salerno Cert. ¶ 6; Murugan Cert.,
Exhibit F.]
7. 	The Board states that it is negotiations with the Association for a new
agreement that will encompass health benefits and costs, but no agreement has been
reached yet.
ARGUMENT ON THE MOTIONS
Petitioner argues that the plain letter of the law set forth in Chapter 44 as
amended requires the Board to actually offer an equivalent-NJEHP healthcare plan and
determine the net cost increases before negotiating with the Association to mitigate
those increases.
Respondent argues that it knows the potential cost increases and that the
Association must negotiate in good faith a new collective bargaining agreement before

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03968-21
4
the Board incurs those losses. 	It also asserts that the OAP III plan offered is
substantially consistent with the law’s requirements.
LEGAL DISCUSSION
The above-recitation of the factual background, together with a reading of the
legal 	submissions 	of 	the 	parties, 	makes 	it 	clear 	that 	the 	only 	issue 	pending
determination on this summary disposition motion is the legal authority of the Board to
defer offering an “equivalent” health insurance plan to the Association until negotiations
have been completed. 	In other words, the parties argue that the legal issue here is a
chicken-egg dilemma as to when negotiations must take place.
It is well-established that if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, a
moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. 	Brill v. The Guardian Life
Insurance Co. of America, 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). The purpose of summary decision
is to avoid unnecessary hearings and their concomitant burden on public resources.
Under the Brill standard, a fact-finding hearing should be avoided “when the evidence is
so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Brill guides us thusly:
[A] determination whether there exists a "genuine issue" of
material fact that precludes summary judgment requires the
motion judge to consider whether the competent evidential
materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational
factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the
non-moving party.
[Id. at 540]
In explaining the standard to be applied in summary motion practice, the Brill Court
explained:
The same standard applies to determine whether a prima
facie case has been established by the party bearing the
burden of proof in a trial. 	. . . If a case involves no material
factual disputes, the court disposes of it as a matter of law
by rendering judgment in favor of the moving or non-moving
party.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03968-21
5
[Id. at 536-37]
I CONCLUDE in this matter that the issue of when the NJEHP or NJEHP-
equivalent health insurance plan must be offered to the Community Charter School
covered employees can be decided as a matter of law.2
On July 1, 2020, the New Jersey Legislature enacted P.L. 2020, Chapter 44,
which amended the health insurance benefits statues for school employees, which
provides:
(1) Notwithstanding the provision of any other law, rule or
regulation to the contrary, beginning January 1, 2021 and for
each year thereafter, a board of education as an employer
providing health care benefits coverage for its employees
and their dependent if any, in accordance with P.L. 1979, c.
291, 18A:16-12 et seq. shall offer to its employees, and their
dependents 	if 	any, 	the 	equivalent 	of 	the 	New 	Jersey
Educators Plan in the School Employees’ Health Benefits
Program as that plan design is described in section f. of
section 1 of P.L. 2020, c.44, 52:14-17.46.13.
. . . .
(2) the plan under this section shall be offered by the
employer regardless of any collective negotiation agreement
between the employer and its employees in effect on the
effective date [July 1, 2020] of this Act, P.L. 2020, c.44, that
provides 	for 	enrollment 	in 	other 	plans 	offered 	by 	the
employer.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2 (emphasis added).]
With regard to employees who commenced employment prior to July 1, 2020,
N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2(b) provides that:
Prior to January 1, 2020, each employer shall provide an
enrollment 	period 	during 	which 	all 	employees 	who
2 A cased with the same legal issue has been filed at the OAL and was recently decided on summary
motion by the Honorable Sarah Crowley, A.L.J.. Franklin Township Education Association, et al. v. Board
of Education of Franklin Township, Somerset County, OAL Dkt. EDU 01442-2021 (Nov. 18, 2022). Not
only do I concur with her Initial Decision after doing my own legal research, but I am mindful that it makes
sense that both cases move in tandem to the Department and then probably to the Superior Court,
Appellate Division, for a consistent and determinative legal analysis.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03968-21
6
commenced employment prior to the effective date [July1,
2020] of this act shall be required to select affirmatory a plan
provided by the employer. 	If an employee fails to select
affirmatively 	a 	plan 	during 	this 	enrollment 	period, 	the
employer shall enroll the employee, and the employee’s
dependents, if any, in the equivalent New Jersey Educators
Health Plan offered pursuant to subsection a. of this section
for the year January 1, 2021, until December 31, 2021.
[Id. (emphasis added).]
With regard to employees who commence employment on or after July 1, 2020,
N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2(c)(1) provides that:
Beginning on January 1, 2021, an employee commencing
employment on or after the effective date [July 1, 2020] of
this act but before January 1, 2028, who does not waive
coverage, 	shall 	be 	enrolled 	by 	the 	employer 	in 	the
equivalent New Jersey Educators Health Plan, or equivalent
Garden State Health Plan if selected by the employee, as
those plans are offered pursuant to subsection a of this
section. 	The employee shall remain enrolled in either the
equivalent 	New 	Jersey 	Educators 	Health 	Plan 	or 	the
equivalent Garden State Health Plan selected the employee
at 	the 	annual 	open 	enrollment 	for 	each 	plan 	year 	until
December 31, 2027, provided that the employee during this
period may waive coverage as an employee and select and
change 	the 	type 	of 	coverage 	received 	under 	the 	plan
following a qualifying life event, in accordance with the plan
regulations. Beginning January 1, 2028, the employee may
select, during open enrollment period or at such other times
or under such conditions as the employer may provide, any
plan offered by the employer.
[Id. (emphasis added).]
In June 2021, the New Jersey legislature amended the forgoing law to provide
that if the provisions of the foregoing result in an increase in the net cost of healthcare
plans, the parties “shall commence negotiations immediacy, unless mutually agreed
upon by the employer and the majority representative to opt to substantially mitigate
the 	finance 	impact 	to 	the 	employer 	as 	part 	of 	the 	next 	collective 	negotiators
agreement.” 	[P.L. 	2021, 	c. 	163 	(emphasis 	added).] 	It 	is 	undisputed 	that 	the
respondent Board has not offered or provided its members with a plan equivalent to the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03968-21
7
NJEHP. While the parties have commenced negotiations over this issue, the Board has
not had a financial impact yet and the net impact of employee contributions is not
known.
The respondent has not presented any material facts that are in dispute in this
matter. 	The law in question is clear. 	It mandates the Board to put in place a plan
equivalent to the NJEHP, and if there is an increase in net cost, it mandates the parties
to negotiate the issue relating to that increase in the net cost of the plan. 	Respondent
argues that the financial impact of offering this plan is substantial and the parties need
to negotiate the issue prior to offering it. 	They submit documentation outlining the
potential increase in cost. 	However, even assuming that I accept these projections as
fact, it does not relieve the Board of the obligation to provide such a plan. 	They must
provide the plan and then, under the more recent amendments to Chapter 44, proceed
to 	negotiations 	over 	such 	increase 	in 	net 	costs, 	i.e., 	deducting 	for 	employee
contributions.
I therefore CONCLUDE that the petitioner is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law on the issue involving the obligation of the Board to provide a plan equivalent to the
NJEHP to its members. 	I further CONCLUDE that after offering such a plan to its
members, if there is a net cost increase, the parties shall negotiate this issue to mitigate
the financial impact to the employer.
ORDER
It is ORDERED that the motion of petitioner Community Charter School of
Paterson Education Association for Summary Decision is hereby GRANTED. 	It is
further ORDERED that the Community Charter School of Paterson Board of Trustees
offer its employees a NJEHP-equivalent plan.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03968-21
8
This 	recommended 	decision 	may 	be 	adopted, 	modified 	or 	rejected 	by 	the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATTN: 	BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES
AND DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500, marked "Attention: Exceptions." A copy of any exceptions must be sent to
the judge and to the other parties.
December 7, 2022
DATE 	GAIL M. COOKSON, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	12/7/22
Date Mailed to Parties: 	12/7/22
id