In the Matter of the Certificates of Matthew O’Brien, State Board of Examiners, New Jersey Department of Education, 4/28/26 (#149-26)

149-26
Board of Examiners Dkt. No. 1920-148
OAL Dkt. No. EDE 06520-2020
Agency Dkt. No. 6-6/25A
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of the Certificates of Matthew
O’Brien, State Board of Examiners, New Jersey
Department of Education
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and papers filed in connection with appellant
Matthew O’Brien’s appeal of the Order of the State Board of Examiners (Board) dated May 22,
2025, revoking his Teacher of Business: Finance/Economics/Law Certificate of Eligibility and
standard Teacher of Business: Finance/Economics/ Law certificate.
Appellant was a tenured teacher in the River Dell Regional School District (District). In
August 2019, the District completed an Affirmative Action investigation, after receiving an
anonymous report that appellant had engaged in inappropriate behavior, discrimination, and
harassment towards two students in the district. 	The investigation 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 the
aforementioned 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.

2
On March 4, 2020, the State Board of Examiners (Board) issued an Order to Show Cause
(OSC) seeking revocation of appellant’s teaching certificates based on information in the
Affirmation Action Investigation Final Report. 	On April 22, 2020, appellant filed an answer in
which he admitted that he resigned from his teaching position amidst the allegations but denied
that he engaged in harassment of a student and exhibited inappropriate behavior towards female
staff members and students. The matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) on July 16, 2020.
Following a contested hearing at the OAL, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined
that appellant engaged in conduct unbecoming a teacher in his interactions with a classified
student and in a one-time interaction with a female student. In reaching her determination, the
ALJ found that many of allegations in the OSC were unsubstantiated except for the following: (1)
that appellant mimicked a classified student’s voice and mannerisms in the presence of other
students and asked him questions that staff members considered to be demeaning and
inappropriate; (2) that appellant behaved inappropriately when he “checked out” a female
student walking down the hallway and made an inappropriate and suggestive comment about
her to male students; and (3) that appellant utilized a “Wall of Shame” in his classroom where he
listed the names of students who demonstrated bad behavior in the classroom. Next, the ALJ
determined that appellant’s use of the “Wall of Shame” did not constitute unbecoming behavior
“since the evidence does not preponderate that the use of a ‘Wall of Shame’ was inappropriate.”
Initial Decision at 16. The ALJ reasoned that there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that
the Wall was intended to humiliate or improperly embarrass students or that it had that effect.
The ALJ further reasoned that the Board offered no expert testimony challenging appellant’s use

3
of the Wall and that appellant testified credibly that he used the Wall to deter bad behavior.
Lastly, the ALJ noted that appellant used the Wall for years and there is no evidence that the
District ever warned or disciplined appellant over its use.
As to appellant’s interactions with the classified student and one-time interaction with
the female student, the ALJ concluded that the Board adequately demonstrated that appellant
acted in an unbecoming manner. Specifically, the ALJ found that appellant displayed a lack of
sound judgment in his interactions with the classified student, and that his behavior was “tone-
deaf” and “insensitive.” 	Ibid. 	The ALJ noted that appellant should have been aware that his
mimicking of the classified student in front of other students and staff would be viewed as
demeaning and a mockery of the student and his disability. 	Regarding the female student, the
ALJ found that appellant’s behavior, particularly the way he looked at her and made a suggestive
comment concerning her in the presence of male students, was inappropriate and a “very poor
example for the male students who may have heard him.” Id. at 17.
Regarding the penalty, the ALJ determined that appellant’s conduct did not rise to the
level warranting the revocation of his certificates. 	After considering the totality of the
circumstances, the ALJ recommended that appellant’s certificates be suspended for one year.
Among the mitigating factors that the ALJ listed was the fact that appellant had never been
previously warned or disciplined by the District for his interactions with the classified student;
the ALJ did not find that appellant acted with intent to harm or harass; there was no evidence
that the student was negatively impacted; and the evidence suggests that appellant was one of
the classified student’s favorite teachers. As to appellant’s conduct with the female student, the

4
ALJ found that the interaction was an isolated incident and that there was no evidence that his
behavior had a negative impact on the student.
After considering the exceptions and reply exceptions filed by both parties, the Board
adopted the ALJ’s factual and credibility findings; adopted the ALJ’s legal conclusions finding
unbecoming conduct as to appellant’s interactions with the classified student and one-time
interaction with the female student in the hallway; rejected the ALJ’s legal conclusion that
appellant’s use of the Wall of Shame and alleged identification of a student as a classified student
in 	the 	presence 	of 	other 	students 	were 	not 	unbecoming 	conduct; 	and 	modified 	the
recommended penalty. 	Contrary to what the ALJ had concluded, the Board concluded that
utilizing a Wall of Shame was unbecoming conduct because it “demonstrates degradation of
certain students which should never be condoned by an educator”; moreover, the Board
reasoned that the public embarrassment of students does not comport with the “role model”
behavior it expects from a teacher. Order of Revocation at 11-12. The Board also concluded that
the identification of a classified student in the presence of other students is unbecoming conduct
because it falls short of the role model behavior expected from an educator.
As for the penalty, the Board rejected the ALJ’s determination that the totality of the
circumstances warranted only a one-year suspension. The Board disagreed with the ALJ that a
negative impact of conduct is required to warrant the imposition of a penalty. 	The Board
explained that appellant’s comments about the female student to the male students was
unacceptable behavior and not that of a role model. The Board also reasoned that the comments
could have had a negative impact on the male students who heard them. Concerning appellant’s
interactions with the classified student, the Board found that appellant displayed more than just

5
a lack of sound judgment; rather, the Board found that appellant’s “repeated behavior” of
mocking a special education student in the presence of other students constitutes “egregious
conduct warranting a serious penalty.” Id. at 13. As to the Wall of Shame, the Board explained
that a teacher shaming a student in front of their peers can cause unnecessary harm to students
when other private methods of communication are available. Ultimately, the Board concluded
that although appellant had no previous disciplinary history, appellant’s conduct in totality
“including the severity of his actions and the repeated nature of some” shows that he is unfit to
be an educator. Id. at 14. Accordingly, the Board ordered that appellant’s teaching certificates
be revoked.
On appeal, appellant contends that the Board’s conclusion that appellant engaged in
conduct unbecoming with respect to the interaction with the female student in the hallway, the
identification of the classified student, and the Wall of Shame is not sufficiently supported by
credible evidence in the record and is therefore arbitrary and capricious. 	Concerning the
interaction with the female student, appellant argues that the finding of unbecoming conduct
should be reversed because it is unknown what specific comment was made to the female
student, the identity of the female student, and whether the comment impacted her. Appellant
further argues for reversal because neither the female student nor the male students who were
reportedly nearby testified at the hearing. Concerning the identification of a classified student,
appellant asserts that the Board’s finding of conduct unbecoming should be reversed because
there is no evidence that he knew the student’s classification. As to the Wall of Shame, appellant
contends that it cannot be determined that his use of the Wall of Shame is unbecoming conduct

6
when there is no showing that it negatively impacted the students, violated any known District
policies, was objected to by school officials, or was an inherently inappropriate practice.
Appellant argues that the Board failed to consider mitigating evidence, such as the
character letters written on his behalf by former District faculty members and a former student.
Appellant also argues that the Board failed to consider that he did not act with an intent to harm
the classified student, nor was there evidence that the student was in fact harmed by his
interactions with appellant. Lastly, appellant argues that revocation is overly severe considering
the circumstances of this matter, and when compared to prior school law cases with conduct far
more damaging.
In response, the Board asserts that the Order of Revocation is supported by credible
evidence in the record and therefore is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Board
argues that the record establishes that appellant made a remark about a female student in the
presence of male students as the female student walked by in the hallway, and that a staff
member witnessed this interaction and found it to be inappropriate. The Board further argues
that an educator “checking out” a student and making an inappropriate comment about that
student to other students is undoubtedly unbecoming conduct, and whether or not the student
heard the comment or was impacted by it has no bearing on the egregiousness of appellant’s
behavior. Regarding the identification of a classified student, the Board contends that credible
witness testimony establishes that through appellant’s inappropriate line of questioning and
interactions with the classified student in the hallway, appellant singled out and identified the
student as a special education student in front of others. 	The Board also contends that
appellant’s purported lack of awareness as to the classified student’s specific classification or

7
disability is irrelevant and that at some point, appellant did learn that the student is a special
education student. As to the Wall of Shame, the Board asserts that the record contains credible
witness testimony supporting the conclusion that appellant engaged in unbecoming conduct.
Furthermore, the Board argues that the Wall of Shame has the effect of publicly embarrassing a
student.
The 	Board 	maintains 	that 	revocation 	is 	the 	appropriate 	penalty 	for 	appellant’s
unbecoming conduct, particularly for harassing and bullying a special education student. Citing
to case law, the Board argues that name-calling, mocking, and teasing a student’s intellectual
abilities constitutes conduct unbecoming and provides just cause for revocation of a teacher’s
certificates. The Board further argues that a heightened penalty is more appropriate given the
repeated instances of unbecoming conduct. The Board contends that appellant’s claim that he
did not act with the intent to harm the classified student “has no bearing on whether his conduct
arises to the level of severity warranting action against his teaching certificates.” Opposition Brief
at 34. According to the Board, “mitigating a penalty simply because a student was not ‘harmed’
by the conduct would create troubling precedent – it has the effect of diminishing the
egregiousness of [appellant]’s actions based on the personal characteristics of the victim.” Id. at
33. Furthermore, the Board argues that several District teachers and staff members testified that
the classified student lacked the understanding to recognize that he was a victim of harassment
by appellant. Lastly, the Board contends that the cases appellant cites are inapposite and that
the Board appropriately considered the entirety of the record in rendering its penalty
determination.

8
In his reply brief, appellant advances the following arguments: (1) that the ALJ found that
appellant’s interactions with the classified student were not intended to harm or harass the
student, such that testimony from the Board’s witnesses that appellant mocked, belittled or
hazed the student cannot be used to support a finding for conduct unbecoming or be afforded
weight in considering an appropriate penalty; (2) that the ALJ “credited” appellant’s testimony
regarding the Wall of Shame, such that the Board had no basis to reverse the ALJ’s conclusion
that appellant’s use of the Wall of Shame does not constitute conduct unbecoming; (3) that there
are insufficient facts in the record to sustain both the ALJ’s and Board’s determination that
appellant engaged in unbecoming conduct when he made the suggestive comment about the
female student; (4) that there is no evidence indicating that appellant wrongfully identified a
student as classified in front of other students; (5) that the cases relied upon by the Board in
support of revocation are distinguishable from the present matter; and (6) that in rendering its
determination, the Board ignored substantial mitigating evidence that weighed in favor of a
reduced penalty.
In reviewing appeals from decisions of the State Board of Examiners, the Commissioner
may not substitute her judgment for that of the Board so long as the appellant received due
process and the Board’s decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. The
Commissioner’s role in reviewing appeals is constrained by N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a), which specifies
that “the Commissioner shall ascertain whether the decision is supported by sufficient credible
evidence in the record and shall not disturb the decision unless the appellant has demonstrated
the State Board of Examiners . . . acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to

9
law.” See Morison v. Willingboro Bd. of Educ., 478 N.J. Super. 229, 238 (App. Div. 2024) (citing
N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a)).
“[T]eachers . . . are professional employees to whom the people have entrusted the care
and custody of . . . school children . . . . This heavy duty requires a degree of self-restraint and
controlled behavior rarely requisite to other types of employment.” IMO Tenure Hearing of
Sammons, 1972 S.L.D. 302, 321. Teachers “hold positions demanding public trust, and in such
positions they teach, inform, and mold habits and attitudes, and influence the opinion of their
pupils.” IMO Tenure Hearing of Tordo, 1974 S.L.D. 97, 98-99. “Conduct unbecoming” is an
“elastic” concept that includes “conduct which adversely affects the morale or efficiency” of the
public entity or “which has a tendency to destroy public respect for [public] employees and
confidence in the operation of [public] services.” In re Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136, 140 (App. Div.
1960). Accord Bound Brook Bd. of Educ. v. Ciripompa, 228 N.J. 4, 13 (2017). A finding of
unbecoming conduct “may be based merely upon the violation of the implicit standard of good
behavior which devolves upon one who stands in the public eye as an upholder of that which is
morally and legally correct.” Bound Brook Bd. of Educ., 228 N.J. at 14 (quoting Karins v. City of
Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532, 555 (1998)). Unfitness to hold a position in a school system may be
demonstrated through just one incident, “if sufficiently flagrant.” Redcay v. State Bd. of Educ.,
130 N.J.L. 369, 371 (1943), aff’d, 131 N.J.L. 326 (E & A 1944).
Upon review, the Commissioner finds that the Board’s determination that appellant
committed unbecoming conduct by making a suggestive comment about a female student in the
presence of male students and through his interactions with the classified student was not
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. 	The ALJ found that District teacher, Jennifer Stuber,

10
credibly testified that on one occasion, appellant “checked out” or inappropriately looked at a
female student walking in the hallway and that he made a suggestive, inappropriate remark
concerning the student to male students. 	Commenting on a student’s appearance to other
students is inappropriate behavior for an educator and has a tendency to destroy the public trust
and confidence in school employees and the operation of public schools. 	Similarly, appellant
mimicking a classified student’s voice and mannerisms in the presence of other students and
asking him questions that staff members considered to be demeaning evidences a troubling lack
of self-control, violates the public’s trust in educators, and is not behavior expected of a teacher
who, due to his position, has influence over the opinions of his pupils.
The Commissioner further finds that the Board’s determination that appellant committed
unbecoming conduct by utilizing a “Wall of Shame” was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law. 	The ALJ found that appellant would list the names of students who demonstrated bad
behavior on the “Wall of Shame” in his classroom, and that inclusion on the Wall could impact a
student’s class participation grade. Although the ALJ found that there is insufficient evidence
that the “Wall of Shame” was intended to embarrass students or that it had that effect, the
Commissioner notes that the Wall has the word “shame” in its title. Appellant listing the names
of students on a “Wall of Shame” in his classroom is inappropriate particularly because appellant
utilized in the same classroom a “Wall of Fame,” wherein he praised students for good behavior
and excellent performance on assignments, and rewarded students who were frequently on the
list at the end of the year. The Commissioner cannot condone a classroom setting where some
students are publicly categorized under a category of “shame” and others under “fame.”
Furthermore, appellant’s conduct is inappropriate considering the influential position teachers

11
hold over their pupils. The Commissioner agrees with the Board that schools must be able to rely
on teachers to encourage growth in their students rather than publishing a student’s missteps.
The Commissioner finds that the Board’s determination that the appellant engaged in
unbecoming conduct when he inappropriately identified a student as a classified student in the
presence of other students was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The ALJ found the
testimony of the Board’s witnesses to be credible and reliable, and found the testimony of James
Cooney, the Director of Special Services in the District, to be credible concerning the classified
student and the manifestation of his disabilities. Cooney testified that the student was being
identified as a classified student through appellant’s questioning of him in the hallway. Cooney
stated that, “many of [appellant’s] questions as to whether he’s a good boy, a bad boy, did you
take the big boy bus -- those types of questions were asked . . . during those times.” 1T60: 20-
23. Cooney further testified:
Taking a big boy bus in front of other students, staff members, busing -- very
specific, busing -- we don’t have busing in the district. If you get a bus, you’re a
special education student. Kids walk to school or get driven to school. So, you’re
being identified as a special education student.
1T68: 19-24.
Appellant’s inappropriate line of questioning in the hallway effectively identified the student as
a classified student in front of his peers and constitutes unbecoming conduct.
Turning to the specific points appellant raised in his brief, he contends that the finding of
unbecoming conduct as to the identification of the classified student should be reversed because
he did not know the student’s classification and lacked access to the student’s Individual
Education Placement (IEP) plan and pupil file. 	The Commissioner finds this argument to be
unavailing. Initially, the Commissioner notes that the OSC alleges that appellant “inappropriately

12
identified a student as a classified student in front of other students.” OSC at 1. The allegation
does not indicate that appellant disclosed the student’s specific classification under N.J.A.C.
6A:14-3.5. 	Furthermore, the fact that appellant may not have known the student’s specific
classification does not temper the egregiousness of appellant’s line of questioning or render the
Board’s determination arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Appellant also argues that it cannot be determined that his use of the Wall of Shame is
unbecoming conduct when there is no showing that it negatively impacted the students, violated
any known District policies, was objected to by school officials, or was an inherently inappropriate
practice. The Commissioner rejects this argument. The Commissioner cannot condone the use
of a teaching tool with the word “shame” in its title, nor can the Commissioner condone
educators public shaming students in the presence of their peers when there are other private
methods of communication available for a teacher to interact with a student. 	See, e.g.,
Revocation Order at 13-14.
As to the penalty, the Commissioner concludes that the Board’s decision to revoke
appellant’s certifications was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 	Relevant factors to
consider when deciding whether revocation or suspension of certificates is warranted “include
the nature and gravity of the offense, any evidence as to provocation, extenuation or
aggravation, and any harm or injurious effect that the teacher’s conduct may have had on the
maintenance of discipline and the proper administration of the school system.” In re Certificates
of Maffucci, OAL Dkt. No. EDE 06423-2021, Initial Decision at 29 (June 29, 2023) (citing In re
Fulcomer, 93 N.J. Super. 404, 422 (App. Div. 1967)), adopted, St. Bd. of Exam’rs, Dkt. No. 2021-
163 (Oct. 27, 2023), affirmed, Commissioner Decision No. 179-24 (May 6, 2024).

13
Having 	considered 	the 	above 	factors, 	the 	Commissioner 	finds 	that 	the 	Board’s
recommended penalty of revocation is reasonable given the nature and extent of the
unbecoming conduct at issue. Particularly egregious was appellant’s inappropriate interactions
with the classified student over the course of several months wherein he mimicked the student’s
voice and mannerisms and asked him demeaning questions in the presence of staff and other
students. Even worse, appellant did not curtail his behavior after District teacher Maureen Kiele
confronted him and told him that she viewed these interactions as making fun of and belittling
to the student. The Commissioner agrees with the Board that such repeated behavior cannot be
tolerated in a school setting by a teacher, and that an educator who commits such behavior
cannot be a role model.
The Commissioner does not find appellant’s arguments for mitigation to be persuasive.
The fact that the ALJ found that appellant did not act with an intent to harm the classified student
and found no evidence that appellant’s conduct negatively impacted the student is not
dispositive. The Commissioner agrees with the Board’s argument that mitigating a penalty just
because a student was not harmed by the conduct would create troubling precedent of
diminishing the egregiousness of teacher’s actions based on the personal characteristics of the
victim. 	Furthermore, several District teachers and staff members testified, and the ALJ found
that, due to his disability, the classified student lacked the understanding to recognize that
someone was mocking him. Moreover, the ALJ reasoned that appellant should have been aware
that mocking the classified student’s mannerisms and voice in front of staff and other student
would be seen as demeaning and a mockery of the student and his disability. The Commissioner
is similarly not persuaded by appellant’s contention that the Board erred in failing to consider

14
mitigating evidence such as the character letters written on his behalf by former District faculty
members and a former student that appellant included in his exceptions. 	The Commissioner
notes that appellant’s inclusion of these letters not entered into evidence at the OAL hearings is
improper per N.J.A.C. 1:1- 18.4(c). Therefore, these materials were not considered.
The Commissioner agrees with the Board that the totality of the circumstances in this
matter demonstrate conduct so egregious as to warrant revocation. 	Appellant’s repeated
inappropriate behavior towards the classified student in conjunction with the identification of
the student as a classified student in front of other students, utilization of the “Wall of Shame,”
and checking out and making a suggestive comment about a female student to male students is
sufficient to warrant revocation. Because the Board’s decision is supported by sufficient, credible
evidence, and appellant has failed to establish that it was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law,
the Commissioner has no grounds to disturb it. N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a).
Accordingly, the decision of the State Board of Examiners revoking appellant’s certificates
is affirmed. Appellant’s Teacher of Business: Finance/Economics/Law Certificate of Eligibility and
Teacher of Business: Finance/Economics/ Law certificate are hereby revoked.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	April 28, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	April 29, 2026
1 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.

IN THE MATTER OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
THE CERTIFICATES OF STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS
MATTHEW T. O'BRIEN ORDER OF REVOCATION
DOCKET NO: 1920-148
Matthew T. O'BI'l~ll (O'Brien) is the holder of a Teacher of Business:
Finance/Economics/Law Certificate of Eligibility, issued July 2007, and a standard Teacher of
Business: Finance/Economics/Law certificate, issued October ?008.
At its meeting of January 23, 2020, the State Bo~u~d of Examiners (Board) reviewed
information it received from the River Dell Regional School District (River Dell) retarding
O'Brien. River Dell communicated to the Board that O'Brien had resigned his position at River
Dell following allegations that he engaged in harassment of a student and demonstrated
inappropriate behavior toward female staff members, a current female student, and a former female
student. According to River Dell, it had completed an Affirmative Action investigation in August
2019 after receiving an anonymous report that O'Brien was involved in inappropriate behavior,
harassment, and discrimination towards students. In its final report, River Dell concluded that
O'Brien engaged in harassing conduct towards female students and female employees, made
sexual comments in the presence of students, made inappropriate comments about classified
students in the present of other staff members and students, inappropriately identified a student as
a classified student in front of other students, used a "Wall of Shame" in his classroom, and
consumed alcohol with River Dell High School students at a party in a student's home.
After reviewing the above information, at its February 28, 2020 meeting, the Board voted
to issue an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to O'Brien as to why his certificates should not be revoked.

2
On or about March 4, 2020, the Board sent O'Brien the OSC by regular and certified mail.
The OSC provided that O'Brien must file an Answer within 30 days pursuant to N.J.A. C. 6A:9B-
4.6(b). On April 22, 2020, O'Brien submitted an answer in which he admitted that he resigned
from his position amidst allegations of inappropriate conduct, but denied he engaged in harassment
of a student and exhibited inappropriate behavior toward female staff members and students. See
Answer, dated April 22, 2020, y[ 3. Further, he denied the allegations in the River Dell's
Affirmative Action investigation, and disputed the conclusions contained in the resulting report.
Id. at y[ 4.
As there were material facts in dispute, the Board transmitted the matter to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) for a hearing on July 16, 2020. The hearing in this matter was held on
December 8 and 13, 2023, and February 28, 2024. Following the submission of post hearing briefs,
the record closed on November 14, 2024.
On January 2, 2025, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Susana E. Guerrero issued an Initial
Decision in the case. In the Matter of the Certificates of Edward C. Meier, OAL Dkt. No. EDE
06520-20 (Initial Decision, January 2, 2025). The ALJ heard testimony from seven witnesses on
behalf of the Board —James Cooney, who conducted the investigation; Christopher Michael Meo,
an aide in O"Brien's classroom; and district teachers Jennifer Luberto Stuber, Pam LoPilato,
Catherine Arlak, Maureen Kiel, and Olga Sagalchik. Id. at 3. The ALJ heard testimony from three
witnesses on behalf of O'Brien —Russell Bendian, father of a former student; district teacher Ellen
Delrose-Hill; and himself. Ibid. The ALJ found that O'Brien engaged in conduct unbecoming a
teacher and other just cause, and that aone-year suspension of his certificates was warranted. Id.
at 16-17.

In so doing, the ALJ noted that many of the allegations reflected in the OSC were not
substantiated at the hearing as the Board relied largely on uncorroborated hearsay. Id. at 15.
Specifically, the ALJ found as fact that there was no competent evidence presented that O'Brien
harassed any female employees at the school or that he consumed alcohol with high school students
at parties, even though there were reports otherwise. Id. at 11. The ALJ also held that, while a
colleague testified that she observed O'Brien flirt with female students, she could not find as
uncontested fact that O'Brien was flirting or behaving inappropriately with those female students
because the colleague conceded that she did not heir what the conversation between O'Brien and
the female students was about, there was no physical contact, no female student complained about
it, and the colleague never reported it. Id. at 11-12. Further, the ALJ held that the Board failed to
establish that O'Brien made sexual comments in the presence of students. Id. at 12.
The ALJ did find that, on one occasion, "O'Brien `checked out,' or inappropriately looked
at, a female student walking down the hallway, and that he made an inappropriate, suggestive
remark concerning the [female] student to male students." Id. at 12, 15. The ALJ also found that
`[t]he evidence preponderates that O'Brien made insensitive and inappropriate comments to a
classified student and inappropriately mimicked the student's manner of speaking in the presence
of staff and students." Id. at 13, 15. O'Brien also "mimick[ed] [the classified student's] voice and
mannerisms in the presence of other students by, for example, asking [the classified student] if he
was a `good boy' or a `bad boy' or whether he took a `big boy shower' —questions one would ask
a small child, not a high school student" —which were viewed by staff as demeaning and
inappropriate. Id. at 15, 17. The ALJ also found that O' Brien's behavior in the hallway with the
female student and the manner in which he looked at her and made a suggestive comment
concerning her in the presence of male students and a male colleague was inappropriate and

L!
unbecoming conduct. Id. at 12, 16. F~u-ther, the ALJ found that O'Brien's interactions with the
classified student constituted L►nbecoming conduct. Ibid. The ALJ reasoned that O'Brien "should
have been aware that his mimicking of [the classified student's] voice and mannerisms in front of
other students and staff would be viewed as demeaning and a mockery of [the classified student]
and his disability." Ibic~.
The ALJ also found that "O'Brien maintained a `Wall of Shame' in his classroom, where
he listed the names of students who demonstrated bad behavior in the classroom" and that a
student's class participation grade could be irrlpacted if their name was included. Id. at 13, 1.5.
However, the ALJ found that while O'Brien maintained a "Wall of Shame[,]" the evidence does
not preponderate that the use of it was inappropriate. Id. at 15. The ALJ reasoned that there was
insufficient evidence that O'Brien "intended to improperly embarrass or humiliate students, or that
it actually had that effect[,]" that "O'Brien testified credibly that the purpose of the Wall was to
deter bad behavior and that he also maintained a `Wall of Fame"' to acknowledge and reward
students," and that O'Brien had used the Wall for years with no evidence of discipline by the
district. Icy. at 15-16. For these reasons, the ALJ concluded that O' Brien's conduct was
unbecoming of an educator. Id. at 16.
In determining the appropriate penalty, the ALJ noted that relevant factors included the
nature and gravity of the offense, any evidence as to provocation, extenuation or aggravation, and
any harm or injurious effect.. Id. at 16-17. The ALJ concluded that O'Brien's conduct did not rise
to the level warranting revocation, and that considering the totality of the circumstances, his
certificates should be suspended for one year. Id. at 17. In reaching this decision, the ALJ reasoned
that O'Brien's conduct concerning the female student in the hallway was an isolated incident, and
there was no evidence of any negative impact on the female student. Ibid. As to his conduct with

5
the classified student, the ALJ held that O'Brien displayed a lack of sound judgment and his
behavior was "inappropriate, insensitive, and tone-deaf." Ibid. However, the ALJ reasoned that
O'Brien was never previously warned oc disciplined by the district, there was no evidence that the
classified student was negatively impacted, and the evidence suggested O'Brien was one of the
classified student's favorite teachers. Ibid. Overall, the ALJ noted as mitigation that there is no
record of other alleged infractions previously committed by O'Brien, that O'Brien has never
received less than an "effective" rating. Ibid.
On March 5, 2025, O'Brien filed Exceptions. O'Brien argued that the findinb of "conduct
unbecoming based on his interactions with a female student in the hallway should be reversed"
because it relied entirely on the testimony of one witness, "who had only a vague recollection of
it" and neither the female student, nor any of the male athletes who were reportedly nearby
provided testimony See O'Brien Exceptions, p. 1, 3. O'Brien also argued that his ability to
prepare his defense was compromised because he was never sufficiently noticed of this offense.
Id. at 4-5. Further, O'Brien argued that the ALJ's recommended penalty of a one-year suspension
is "far too severe under the circumstances." Id. at 1-2. He stated that he acknowledged in his
testimony, with regard to the classified student, that "he failed to appreciate the perception of
others who observed them, and in hindsight, he should have addressed the matter with school staff
to ensure that no one bot the wrong idea." Id. at 6. However, he asserted it was established that
he neither intended, nor caused, any harm to the student and that his interactions with the student
had a "positive effect[,]" and were "specifically designed to help [the student] transition to the
high school by boosting his self-esteem and general disposition" and that no evidence was
presented to the contrary. Ibid. Lastly, O'Brien argued that his intentions with respect to his

interactions with the classified student "were done in good faith, even if they seemed inappropriate
from an outside observer's perspective." Id. at 10.
As to mitigation, O'Brien also argued that he never caused any harm to anyone or caused
disruptions to the operations of the school; he had no previous disciplinary history; his
performance reviews were stellar throughout his career; and he was heavily involved in
extracurricular programs and community events. Id. at 8. Further, he held himself accountable by
resigning "shortly after the allegations were revealed to him, even though they were
overwhelmingly false" and that he has "suffered enough[.]". Id. at 6, 8.
On March 5, 2025, the Deputy Attorney General (DAG) representing the Board also filed
Exceptions. The DAG arbued that, after finding the Board's seven witnesses "to be credible and
reliable, `particularly concerning their observations of, and interactions with, [Respondent][,]"'
the ALJ improperly failed to find that O'Brien did not engaged in unbecoming conduct when he
used a "Wall of Shame" in his classroom, inappropriately interacted with female students, and
inappropriately identified a special education student as a classified student in front of others. See
Board Exceptions, p. 1, 20-21.
Specifically, the DAG argued there was testimony by Meo that students would get "upset"
when their names were placed on the wall and he opined that the "Wall of Shame" was being
utilized to degrade the students rather than correct a student's behavior. Id. at 28. The DAG also
argued that Meo "testified that he observed [O'Brien], on more than one occasion, giving `long
looks' to female students outside, of the classroom, which [the witness] found to be `unsettling."'
Id. at 29. Further, the DAG argued that "Kiel testified that she witnessed [O'Brien] asking female
students whether they `missed' him, which she felt was `creepy"' and that the "record demonstrates
that LoPilato observed [O'Brien], based on body language, fl irting with female students on a few

occasions." Ihid. The DAG a(so argued that these inappropriate interactions with females were
all supported by direct, firsthand testimony and that the ALJ should have found a pattern of
unbecoming conduct. Id. at 30.
The DAG argued that "the record demonstrates that through [O'Brien's] inappropriate line
of questioning and interactions with [the student] in the hallway, [O'Brien] inappropriately
identified [the student] as a classified student in front ot~ other students" and was confirmed by
Gooney's testimony. Ibid. Further, the DAG argued that Kiel testified that she "observed
[:O'Brien] asking [the classified student] whether he was going to `class with a lot of kids or a . . .
few kids"' and that "our kids who are . . . special ed. worry about that perception of being in a
class with a few number of children." Id. at 32. For these reasons, the DAG argued that the Board
should reject the ALJ's findin~~ ~~s to these issues and find that these actions constitute unbecominb
conduct by O'Brien.
The DAG also argued that O'Brien's conduct here warrants more than none-year
suspension as it was far too lenient for O'Brien's violations, which demonstrate his lack of fitness
to serve as a teacher and warrant revocation. Id. at 2, 26. The DAG reasoned that "[e]ven based
solely on the conduct unbecoming found by the ALJ, revocation is the appropriate penalty because
harassing and bullying a special education student cannot be countenanced" based on previous
cases decided by the Board. Id. at 32-34. Further, the DAG argued that with the additional
instances of misconduct found as discussed above, "a heightened penalty is even more
appropriate." Id. at 33. The DAG also argued that what the ALJ found as mitibation—that is, that
O'Brien was never warned or disciplined by the district prior to the filing of tenure charges and
his resignation—"is irrelevant to the consideration of an appropriate penalty, `since it is the Board,
not his [former] employer, who is empowered to determine whether he may retain his certification

to teach."' Id. at 37 (quoting IMO Certificates of Michnel D'Alessio, Agency Dkt. No. 5-7/22A,
Comm'r. of Educ. Decision at p.5). Further, the DAG argued that O'Brien's "purported intent has
no bearing on whether- his conduct arises to the level of severity warranting action against his
teaching certificates" and that the "ALJ's own findings [] contravene the ALJ's assessment that
[O'Brien] did not intend to `demean, harm or harass [the classified student)."' Id. at 38-39. Lastly,
the DAG argued that mitigating a penalty because a student was not `negatively impacted' by the
conduct would create troublinb precedent of diminishing the egregiousness of conduct based on
the personal characteristics of the victim. Id. at 39.
On March 10, 2025,' O'Brien filed Reply Exceptions. O'Brien argued that the ALJ's
"determination to dismiss the allegations related to the so-called `Wall of Shame,' inappropriate
interactions with female students, and the purported `identification' of a classified student was
correct because these allegations were not proved at the hearing." O'Brien Reply Exceptions, p.l.
He farther argued that the "entire case on the `Wall of Shame' issue was predicated on the opinions
of a disgruntled former in-class support staff member" and that testimony from alleged victims of
this "Wall of Shame" was necessary for the Board to meet its burden. Id. at 2. O'Brien also argued
that "[t]here is nothing inherently wrong with writing a student's name on a boal-d for failing to
pay attention or completing an assignment or using a cell phone in class, etc." Ibid. Further,
O'Brien argued that there was "absolutely no evidence [] presented in support of [the] allegation"
that he identified a classified student and that it would have been impossible for him to identify
the student's classification because he was not the student's teacher and had no role in counseling
or special education and never reviewed the student's IEP. Id. at 3.
~ On March 12, 2025, the Board accepted the t~ilin~ of a revised reply brief from O'Brien with
the consent of the DAG.

E
On March 10, 2025, the DAG filed Reply Exceptions, wherein she argued that regarding
U' Brien's claim that he was not sufficiently noticed of the violation involving a female in the
hallway, the OSC summarized the outcome of the district's investigation and noted that the
district's affirmative action final report was "incorporated herein by reference." Board Reply
Exceptions, p. 2 (quoting the Board's OSC at y[ 4). The DAG stated that the "report and interview
statements were not only provided in discovery, but were also admitted into evidence, without any
objections, at the hearing." Id. at 3. The DAG argued that the ALJ found that Stuber credibly
testified that O'Brien "checked out, or inappropriately looked at a female student walking down
the hallway, and that he made an inappropriate, suggestive remark concerning the student to male
students." Ibid. The DAG also argued that the "record is replete with numerous instances of staff
members finding [O' Brien's] interactions with [the classified student] inappropriate as they
`appeared to mock [the classified student] and the manifestation of his disability."' Id. at 5.
Further, the DAG argued that the "i-ecoi-d is replete with evidence that [the classified student's]
intellectual capabilities prevented him from even realizing that he was being bullied." Id. at 6.
Lastly, the DAG argued that because the harassment and bullying of the classified student occurred
frequently and in open areas of the school a heightened penalty way appropriate and that precedent
demonstrated that revocation was warranted. Id. at 7-8.
The Board must now deterr~line whether- to adopt, modify, or reject the Initial Decision in
this matter. At its meeting of April 11, 2025, the Board reviewed the Initial Decision, Exceptions
filed by both parties, and Reply Exceptions filed by both parties. After full and fair consideration
of the Initial Decision and submissions, the Board voted to adopt the findings of facts by the ALJ;
adopt the legal conclusions finding unbecoming conduct as to the comments about the female
student in the hallway and the interactions with the classified student; adopt the legal conclusions

10
that there was no evidence of harassing conduct towards female students and female staff members
or having alcohol with a minor; reject the legal conclusions not finding unbecoming conduct
relating to the "Wall of Shame" and the identification of a classified student and rather find that
such actions by O'Brien constitute unbecoming that of an educator; and modify the appropriate
penalty to revocation.
The Board, in reviewing this matter, does not find the ALJ's factual and credibility findings
to he arbitrary or not based on sufficient credible evidence. The ALJ's credibility determinations
were well supported and based on his First-hand observations. Accordingly, the Board is
constrained by the ALJ's findings of facts and credibility determinations in this matter. The Board
does not find a sufficient basis by which it could overturn same. N..I.A. C. 1:1-18.6(b).
The Board has the authority to "issue appropriate certificates to teach or to administer" and
"may revoke the same under rules and regulations prescribed by the State board." N.J.S.A. 18A:6-
38; see also N.J.A. C. 6A:9B-3.2 and -4.4); M~~rison v. Willingboro Bd. of Edc,cc., 478 N.J. Super.
229 (App. Div. 2024), cent. denied 258 N.J. 143 (July 11, 2024). The Board may take action
against a certificate holder on the basis of "demonstrated inefficiency, incapacity, conduct
unbecoming a teacher, or other just cause." N.J.A. C. 6A:9B-4.4; see also Morison, 478 N.J. Super.
at 246, 248 (the Board is responsible for protecting schoolchildren from improper teacher conduct
and may suspend or revoke an educator's continued ability to serve as a teacher at any public
school based on unbecoming conduct).
Unbecoming conduct is defined as "conduct `which adve~~sely affects the morale or
efficiency of the [department]' or `has a tendency to destroy public respect for [government]
employees and confidence in the operation of [public] services."' Bound Brook Bd. of Educ. v.
Ciripompa, 228 N.J. 4, 13 (2017) (c~uotin^ In re Young, 202 N.J. 50, 66 (2010), Kerins v. At1. City,

11
152 N.J. 532, 554 (1998)). "[A] finding of unbecominb conduct `need not be predicated upon the
violation of any particular rule or .regulation, but may be based merely upon the violation of the
implicit standard of good behavior which devolves upon one who stands in the public eye as an
upholder- of that which is morally and legal correct."' Id. at 13-14 (quoting Karins, 152 N.J. at 555 ).
"It focuses on the morale, efficiency, and public perception of an entity, and how those concerns are
harmed by allowing teachers to behave inappropriately while holding public errlployment." Id. at
14. "The touchstone of the determination lies in the certificate holder's `fitness to discharge the
duties and functions of one's office or position."' Yoec~zg, 202 N.J. at 66 (citing In re Grossman,
127 N.J. Super. 13, 29 (App. Div. 1974)).
As noted above, after reviewing the record, the ALJ concluded that the Board sustained its
burden of proof that O'Brien enbaged in conduct ~mbecomin~ by demonstratinb O' Brien's actions
in commenting to male students about a female student in the hallway and his inappropriate
interactions with the classified student. As to these issues, the Board agrees with the ALJ's legal
conclusion. Commenting to students about another student's appearance as they walk through the
halls is not respectful to the student in question and certainly inappropriate behavior of an educator.
Further, mimicking a classified student's voice and mannerisms is certainly not the behavior we
would expect for a role model. The Board also agrees that no evidence was presented that O'Brien
engaged in harassing conduct towards females in the district or that he consumed alcohol with
River Dell high school students.
However, the Board disagrees with the ALJ's legal conclusion regarding the "Wall of
Shame" and the identification of the student as a classified student. Rather, the Board agrees with
the DAG that O'Brien's conduct in utilizing the "Wall of Shame" is also certainly unacceptable
and unbecorrling of a teacher. Such conduct demonstrates degradation of certain students which

12
should never be condoned by an educator. Further, public embarrassment of students does not
comport with "role model" behavior we expect of an educator. The schools must be able to rely
on educators to encourage positive growth and progress in their students rather than publishing a
student's missteps or insufficient progress. The Board also agrees with the DAG that the
identification of a classified student in the presence of other students is unacceptable behavior of
an educator and falls short of role model behavior expected of an educator.
Having found that O'Brien engaged in unbecoming conduct, the Board must now determine
the appropriate penalty to be applied. In doing so, the Board considers the "nature and gravity of
the offenses under all the circumstances involved, any evidence as to provocation, extenuation or
aggravation," and any "harm or injurious effect" on the maintenance of discipline and the proper
administration of the school system. In re Fulcomer, 93 N.J. Super. 404, 422 (App. Div. 1967).
"Teachers... are professional employees to whom the people have entrusted the care and custody
of . . . school children. This heavy duty requires a degree of self-restraint and controlled behavior
rarely requisite to other types of employment." 7enure of Simmons, 1972 S.L.D. 302, 321.
Fitness to teach depends on a broad range of factors, including the teacher's impact and effect
upon the students, because a "teacher works in a sensitive al-ea in a schoolroom" and "shapes the
attitude of young minds toward the society in which they live." Grossman, 127 N.J. at 30 (quoting
Adler v. Bd. of Educ. of City of New York, 342 U.S. 485, 493 (1952)). Importantly, unfitness to
hold a position in a school system may be shown by one incident if sufficiently flagrant. Fulcorrier,
93 N.J. Super. at 421; Redcny v. Stnte Bd. of Edc-cc., 130 N..I.L. 369, 371 (1943), aff'd, 131 N.J.I.
326 (E & A 1944).
In this instance, the ALJ determined that, after consideration of mitigating factors, a one-
year suspension was appropriate for the comments relating to the female student in the hallway

13
and for the interactions with the classified student. The Boal•d disagrees that aone-year penalty is
sufficient given the totality of the circumstances in this matter. Rather, the Board finds that
revocation of his teaching certificates is warranted.
As noted above, the Board agrees with the ALJ that O'Brien's comments about the female
in the hallway were unbecoming conduct. However, the Board disagrees with the ALJ's mitigation
that there is no evidence of negative impact on the female student. The Board disagrees that a
negative impact of conduct need be found to warrant the imposition of a penalty. O'Brien's
comments to the rilale students could have had a negative impact on them and the comments were
certainly unacceptable behavior and not that of a role model.
The Board also agrees with the ALJ that the interactions with the classified student were
unbecoming conduct. However, the Board disagrees with the ALJ's mitigation that there is no
evidence of negative impact on the classified student and that O'Brien simply displayed a lack of
sound judgment. The Board finds that O'Bcien displayed not only a lack of sound judgment with
his interactions with the classified student, but rather his multiple inappropriate interactions with
the classified student when other- students were present demonstrated repeated behavior that cannot
be tolerated in a school setting by a teacher. An educator who commits such behavior is not
exhibiting a great moral compass and cannot be a role model for students. O'Brien's actions of
mocking a special education student on numerous occasions clearly demonstrates egregious
conduct warranting a serious penalty.
Importantly, unlike the ALJ, the Board also found as unbecoming conduct O'Brien's
actions in utilizing and maintaining a "Wall of Shame" in his classroom. The Board agrees with
the DAG that the district's silence as to the "Wall of Shame" is irrelevant. The Board cannot
condone educators publicly shaming students in the presence of their peers as it can cause

14
unnecessary harm to students when other private methods of communication are available for a
teacher to interact with a student. Moreover, unlike the ALJ, the Board also found as unbecoming
conduct and the fact that O'Brien identified the student as a classified student in the presence of
other students. An educator should protect a student's status as classified or special needs and not
use that fact to make jokes or be humorous.
Overall, the totality of the circumstances here demonstrate conduct so e~~-egious as to
warrant revocation. The Board agrees with the DAG that O'Brien's claim that he was never
sufficiently noticed of the comments relating to the female in the hallway is meritless. The OSC
incorporated the district's affirmative action final report in which the offense was noted, the report
was provided to O'Brien in discovery, and the report was entered into evidence without objection.
The Board acknowledges that O'Brien has never been disciplined previously by his district and
the evidence relating to the conduct with the female student in the hallway demonstrated is an
isolated incident. However, based on O'Brien's actions in totality, including the severity of his
actions and the repeated nature of some, he has demonstrated that he is unfit to be an educator.
Thus, the Board finds that revocation of his certificates is warranted in this matter.
Accordingly, on April 11, 20?5, the Board voted to adopt the factual findings and reject
the legal conclusion in the Initial Decision and modify the penalty and ordered the revocation of
O'Brien's certificates. On this 22nd day of May 2025, the Board formally adopted its written
decision to adopt the factual findings and reject the legal conclusion in the Initial Decision in this
matter, with modification of the penalty, and it is therefore ORDERED that Matther O'Brien's
Teacher of Business: Finance/Economics/Law Certificate of Eligibility and standard Teacher of
Business: Finance/Economics/Law certificate are hereby REVOKED, effective immediately. It is
further ordered that O'Brien return his certificates to the Secretary of the State Board of Examiners,

Office of Cel-tification and Induction, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, NJ 08625-0500 within 30 days of
the mailing date of this decision.
Rani Singh, Secretary
State Board of Examiners
Date of Mailing: Sl~3~~' ~ ~
via certified and regular mail
Appeals may be made to the Commissioner of Education pursuant to the provisions of N.J. S.A.
18A:6-38.4.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDE 06520-20
AGENCY REF. NO. 1920-148
IN THE MATTER OF THE CERTIFICATE(S)
OF MATTHEW O’BRIEN.
_____________________________
Amna T. Toor, Deputy Attorney General for petitioner New Jersey State Board
of 	Examiners 	(Matthew 	J. 	Platkin, 	Attorney 	General 	of 	New 	Jersey,
attorney)
Nicholas Poberezhsky, Esq., for respondent Matthew O’Brien (Caruso Smith
Picini, attorneys)
Record Closed: November 14, 2024 	Decided: January 2, 2025
BEFORE: SUSANA E. GUERRERO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter was commenced by an Order to Show Cause (OTSC) issued by the
New Jersey State Board of Examiners (Board of Examiners or the Board). 	The OTSC
directs 	respondent 	Matthew 	O’Brien 	(O’Brien) 	to 	show 	cause 	why 	his 	teaching
certificates should not be revoked due to alleged conduct while he taught at the River
Dell Regional School District.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 06520-20
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as a
contested case on July 16, 2020. The hearing was scheduled for October 2, 2023, and
October 3, 2023, but adjourned at the request of the Board due to a scheduling conflict.
The hearing was rescheduled to begin on December 4, 2023, but that date was later
adjourned at the request of the Board. The hearing was ultimately held on December 8
and 13, 2023, and continued on February 28, 2024. 	The record remained open for the
parties to obtain transcripts of the hearing and to file post-hearing briefs. 	The parties
requested several extensions to file post-hearing briefs, and the record closed on
November 14, 2024, upon receipt of the Board’s brief.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
I FIND the following FACTS, which are largely undisputed:
O’Brien 	is 	the 	holder 	of 	a 	Teacher 	of 	Business: 	Finance/Economic/Law
Certificate of Eligibility and a Teacher of Business: 	Finance/Economic/Law Certificate.
He was employed as a teacher with the River Dell Regional School District (the District)
from September 2011 through November 30, 2019, when he resigned after the District
sought to withhold his increments for the 2019–2020 school year and to have him
terminated following an affirmative action investigation.
The investigation was initiated by the District when, in or around May 2018, it
received an anonymous report that O’Brien had an inappropriate relationship with a
female student (Ann)1 and that he harassed or mistreated a male special education
student (Sam). 	The District reported the anonymous complaint to the Department of
Children and Families’ Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit (IAIU), which investigated
the complaint and ultimately determined that the allegations concerning the female
student were “unfounded” and that the allegations concerning the male student were
“not substantiated.” 	Apart from the IAIU’s investigation, the District also tasked James
1 Fictitious names are used to identify the students (Ann, Sam, and Jane).

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 06520-20
3
Cooney (Cooney), the Director of Special Services for the District, to conduct an
investigation. 	Cooney conducted an investigation and issued an “Affirmative Action
Final Report” on August 1, 2019. As part of the investigation, Cooney interviewed about
thirty individuals, some of whom made other claims about O’Brien that went beyond the
scope of the anonymous complaint. 	Therefore, the District’s report includes allegations
and 	findings 	not 	only 	concerning 	Ann 	and 	Sam 	but 	also 	concerning 	O’Brien’s
interactions with female employees and other students. 	This report forms the basis of,
and is incorporated in, the Board’s OTSC.
The OTSC notes that the District concluded that O’Brien “engaged in harassing
conduct towards female students and female employees, made sexual comments in the
presence of students, made inappropriate comments about classified students in the
presence of other staff members and students, inappropriately identified a student
[Sam] as a classified student in front of other students, used a ‘Wall of Shame’ in his
classroom, and consumed alcohol with River Dell High School students at a party in a
student’s home.”
The Board found that the level and nature of O’Brien’s conduct provide just
cause for consideration of the revocation of his certificate.
Testimony
Seven witnesses testified on behalf of the Board: 	Cooney, who conducted the
investigation; Christopher Michael Meo, who served as an aide in O’Brien’s classroom;
District teachers Jennifer Luberto Stuber, Pam LoPilato, Catherine Arlak, Maureen Kiel,
and Olga Sagalchik. 	O’Brien testified on his own behalf, and his witnesses included
Russell Bendian, father of a former student, and District teacher Ellen Delrosa-Hill.
James Cooney
Cooney, 	who 	conducted 	this 	investigation, 	is 	also 	the 	Director 	of 	Special
Services in the District, where he supervises the District’s special education program

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 06520-20
4
and also serves as the District’s Affirmative Action Officer. 	He interviewed O’Brien and
about thirty individuals as part of his investigation.
Regarding 	female 	student 	Ann, 	Cooney 	found 	there 	was 	no 	evidence
substantiating the anonymous report, and he testified that his findings align with that of
the IAIU investigation, which concluded that the allegations concerning Ann were
unfounded.
The anonymous complaint also included allegations about O’Brien’s treatment of
Sam, who at the time was a seventeen-year-old student with autism and an IQ in the
borderline range. 	Cooney testified that the student struggles with inferential thinking
and abstract reasoning and has limited social skills. 	O’Brien often interacted with Sam
in the hallway, and there were often other students present. 	Cooney opined that even
though Sam may have enjoyed the social interaction with O’Brien, he does not have the
wherewithal to recognize that he is a victim of harassment. 	Cooney also testified that
Sam spoke in a “very high, squeaky voice” comparable to a “cartoon voice,” and that
O’Brien mimicked his voice.
As reflected in his report, Cooney found that several staff members and students
reported that O’Brien mimicked Sam, a classified student, when interacting with him, a
claim that O’Brien denied. 	Cooney also noted that he received a report that someone
observed O’Brien call Sam a “dirty boy” and that some staff members observed O’Brien
ask Sam if he “had taken a big boy shower.” 	He testified that other staff members
reported observing O’Brien call Sam a “good boy” or a “bad boy,” or asking him if other
students were “good boys/girls” or “bad boys/girls.” 	He testified that he was told that
O’Brien would orchestrate groups within the hallway with Sam in the center of the
groups and have him talk and then mimic his voice. 	Cooney’s report also notes that
Maureen Kiel reported observing O’Brien ask Sam “if he attends class with a lot of
students or with few students” and “if he takes the bus to school each day.” 	Cooney
found that O’Brien “demonstrated pervasive harassment of . . . [Sam], mimicking him,
[and] 	calling 	him 	names.” 	On 	cross-examination, 	Cooney 	agreed 	that 	when 	he
interviewed Sam, Sam did not believe that he was being bullied by O’Brien, and Sam
even identified O’Brien as a teacher whom he liked.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 06520-20
5
Cooney 	also 	determined 	that 	O’Brien 	demonstrated 	inappropriate 	behavior
towards female staff members, current female students and a former student. 	His
findings were based primarily on statements made to him by others, mainly other staff
members, most of whom did not testify. 	In his report, Cooney noted that Christopher
Michael Meo reported that he observed O’Brien give female students “long looks,”
especially in warmer months, and one staff member reported that she was catcalled by
O’Brien. 	Cooney also noted that Jane, a former student who did not testify, reported
that O’Brien called her pretty on several occasions, told her that she had “daddy
issues,” and that she saw him partying with high school students.
Cooney also testified concerning a statement made to him by Coach Herman
concerning an inappropriate conversation that O’Brien had with a male student at a
soccer dinner. The coach did not testify.
Cooney also noted that it was reported to him that O’Brien maintained a Wall of
Shame in his classroom, where he would write the names of students who did poorly.
Jennifer Luberto Stuber
Stuber testified credibly that she observed O’Brien looking at, or “checking out,”
girls in the hallway and that he made a suggestive comment directed at a female
student when he was walking down the hall with male athletes. 	She testified that she
observed O’Brien look a female student up and down and tell the boys something along
the lines of “damn,” or “Mmm, you see that?” The boys then giggled. Stuber confronted
O’Brien privately and told him to stop doing that. She reported this to the principal.
Stuber also testified that she heard O’Brien ask Sam, in the presence of boys,
whether he was a good boy or a bad boy and whether he was a clean boy or showered
that weekend. 	She described O’Brien’s behavior as mocking Sam. 	Stuber witnessed
similar exchanges with Sam at least three times. 	She also reported O’Brien to the
principal.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 06520-20
6
Stuber also testified that a former student informed her that O’Brien was still
trying to reach out to Jane, a former high school student who had graduated. 	She also
testified that, as a student, Jane had expressed concerns to her about O’Brien and how
he made her feel uncomfortable.
Christopher Michael Meo
Meo, 	an 	aide 	in 	O’Brien’s 	classroom 	about 	eight 	years 	ago, 	had 	several
criticisms of O’Brien’s teaching practices that are not at issue here. 	He also testified
that O’Brien maintained a Wall of Shame in his classroom, where O’Brien would add the
names of students who did not perform to O’Brien’s satisfaction. 	Meo testified that he
viewed this as O’Brien passing judgment on students’ intelligence with the intent to
degrade them.
Meo also testified that he observed O’Brien give “long looks” to female students
outside his classroom about a handful of times. 	He also testified that he overheard an
inappropriate conversation that O’Brien had with two girls during class time when, after
one of the girls told O’Brien that she had just gotten a tattoo, he asked her where it was.
These alleged events occurred during the 2017–2018 school year.
Pam LoPilato
LoPilato is a special education teacher at River Dell High School. 	According to
her written statement, she heard O’Brian ask Sam if “he was being a good boy today”
and “if he took a big boy shower today.” 	She testified that he seemed to be mimicking
Sam, which she thought was inappropriate. 	She testified that this occurred about once
or twice a week during the 2018–2019 school year.
LoPilato also testified that she observed O’Brien engage in flirtatious behavior
with female students after school about once a week for four months. She observed the
girls giggling but did not hear what was said, nor did she observe any physical contact.
She was not sure whether these were the same girls each time. LoPilato is unaware of
any girl complaining about O’Brien’s behavior, and she never reported it.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 06520-20
7
Katherine Arlak
Arlak is a special education teacher and tennis coach with the District. 	Her
testimony consisted largely of rumors and hearsay about O’Brien. 	She did, however,
testify that she observed him mimic Sam’s voice and ask Sam if he took a “big boy
shower” and whether he was a “good boy or a bad boy.” 	She testified that this
happened about five times in or around 2018, within a one- or two-month period. 	Arlak
testified that she found this inappropriate and that the student did not understand. 	She
agreed that Sam never appeared distressed during these interactions but testified that
Sam was a lower-functioning student who was not very socially aware and would have
been unaware of the inappropriateness of O’Brien’s questions. 	She testified that a
co-worker reported this to Cooney and that Cooney later reached out to her as part of
this investigation.
Arlak testified that a student reported to her that O’Brien stared at her and made
her feel uncomfortable while he was proctoring a standardized assessment. 	This
student did not testify. She also reported hearing about the Wall of Shame, a comment
that he made at a sports dinner, none of which she directly observed, and other rumors
that she heard in the school about O’Brien.
Maureen Kiel
Kiel is a special education teacher at River Dell High School who taught in a
classroom near O’Brien’s classroom. She testified that, due to his disability, Sam would
not recognize if he was being made fun of. She observed O’Brien ask Sam whether he
got to school on a little or big bus and saw the boys around O’Brien laugh. Kiel testified
that she confronted O’Brien, asked him what he was doing, and told him that Sam was
a special education student. 	O’Brien told her that Sam likes the attention, and Kiel
testified that she saw O’Brien repeat this behavior with Sam. 	She reported this to the
principal and Cooney, her direct supervisor.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 06520-20
8
Kiel also testified that in her leadership class, students mentioned O’Brien when
they were discussing crossing boundaries, and she reported this to the principal. 	She
also testified that, in 2017, female students told her that he made them uncomfortable,
which she also reported to the principal. 	Kiel testified that, following a trip, she
overheard O’Brien ask a female student in the hallway: “Do you miss me? . . . . But do
you Really miss me?” which she thought was inappropriate. She testified that a student
referred to O’Brien as a predator in her class but also confirmed that this student had
never been victimized by O’Brien. 	Finally, she testified that about five students also
reported to her that O’Brien attended student parties in the fall of 2018 and drank beer.
None of these students testified at the hearing.
Olga Sagalchik
Sagalchik is a special education teacher at the District’s high school. She taught
Sam during the 2018–2019 school year and noted that he was cognitively low and that it
was hard for him to understand social cues. 	Sagalchik testified that she observed
O’Brien mimic Sam’s voice and ask him inappropriate questions. 	She heard O’Brien
ask Sam whether he was a “good boy or a bad boy,” which she viewed as inappropriate
to ask a high school student. 	She observed this a “handful of times” and testified that
she reported O’Brien.
Russell Bendian
Bendian, the father of a former high school student, testified on behalf of O’Brien.
He testified that his son, who was about twenty-four years old at the time, invited
several people to his house before they moved out of the district, and that O’Brien was
one of the individuals who attended. 	He denied ever witnessing him drink or do
anything inappropriate and testified that he was unaware of anybody under twenty-one
years of age at the gathering.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 06520-20
9
Ellen DeRosa-Hill
Ellen DeRosa-Hill is a teacher at the high school who is friendly with O’Brien.
She testified that she thought he did a great job, was willing to work and had a good
rapport with students. 	She did not observe him acting inappropriately with students.
She was not questioned as part of the District’s investigation.
Matthew O’Brien
O’Brien testified that he began working as a business education teacher at River
Dell High School in 2011 and continued to work there until he resigned in 2019. 	He
testified that he earned “effective” or better summative evaluation ratings throughout his
teaching career. Aside from the allegations made here, he has had no other disciplinary
history, nor any criminal history.
O’Brien denied many of the allegations made against him. 	He denied Luberto’s
claim that he made a “cat-call” sound as a female student walked past him and athletes
in the hallway. 	He also denied attempting to obtain Jane’s phone number for the
purpose of getting together with her. 	O’Brien testified that he was called in by the
superintendent and principal and was informed about a rumor that he was having a
relationship with Jane, a former student. 	After the District determined that the rumor
was false, he asked another former student for Jane’s number so that he could discuss
these rumors with her and try to find out where they originated. 	He also testified that
Jane was at least a sophomore in college at the time and that she denied knowing
about the rumors or where they came from. 	Jane made no report or complaint
regarding their conversation, and the allegations about O’Brien concerning Jane were
deemed unfounded. 	O’Brien conceded that when she was in his class, he asked her if
she had “daddy issues” but explained that he was just reiterating what she had said.
O’Brien denied Meo’s allegations that he spoke with female students in a
flirtatious manner and that he stared at them when they wore revealing clothing. 	He
acknowledged having a “Wall of Shame” in his classroom where he would write the
names of students who demonstrated bad behavior, such as using a laptop to play

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 06520-20
10
games when they were supposed to be working on an assignment. 	He noted that the
purpose of the “Wall of Shame” was to deter repeated instances of poor behavior and
that having your name on the “Wall of Shame” could impact the student’s class
participation grade. O’Brien testified that he also maintained a “Wall of Fame” where he
praised his students by listing those who behaved well or excelled on a test or
assignment. 	Those students who were frequently on the “Wall of Fame” earned an
end-of-year reward breakfast and were named to an all-star team. He used the “Wall of
Shame” 	and 	“Wall 	of 	Fame” 	for 	years, 	even 	during 	his 	observations, 	and 	no
administrator nor student had ever objected to it. 	He was not aware of any rule, policy
or directive in place at the time that would prohibit him from using a “Wall of Shame” or
something similar to that.
O’Brien testified about how he first met Sam. 	At some point, he learned that he
had special needs but did not know any specifics about his disability. He agreed that he
interacted with Sam regularly in the hallway. 	O’Brien agreed that he changed his voice
when he spoke with Sam, believing that it made him feel more comfortable since that is
how Sam spoke and that Sam had a positive reaction to it. 	He denied that he spoke to
Sam in that fashion to try to get a laugh out of other students or that he tried to demean
or belittle him. 	He also denied asking Sam if he took a shower or whether he rode the
short bus. 	O’Brien testified that he believes that Sam told Cooney that he was his
favorite teacher because he showed genuine interest in Sam and that he felt that
O’Brien was his buddy, while most others simply ignored him. O’Brien also testified that
the staff was encouraged to interact with special education students, and he does not
regret the interactions he had with Sam.
O’Brien conceded that Kiel confronted him about his interaction with Sam and
that she told him to “stop that,” which he, unconvincingly, claimed was ambiguous and
that he thought that she was telling him to stop interacting with Sam. 	O’Brien testified
that no one else approached him about his interactions with Sam. 	He also denied
having any alleged inappropriate discussion with another student at the soccer banquet.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 06520-20
11
Assessment of Testimony and Additional Findings of Fact
Overall, I found the Board’s witnesses to be credible and reliable, particularly
concerning their observations of, and interactions with, O’Brien. 	I also found Cooney,
Arlak and Kiel credible regarding their testimony concerning Sam and the manifestation
of his disabilities. 	However, much of the testimony presented on behalf of the Board,
including statements allegedly made by students and other teachers to District staff,
constituted uncorroborated hearsay. 	The testimony offered by O’Brien’s witnesses,
Bendian and DeRosa-Hill, was not particularly useful in considering the charges against
O’Brien.
Based on my consideration of the testimony and my assessment of its credibility
and reliability, I FIND the following additional FACTS:
Many 	of 	the 	allegations 	made 	against 	O’Brien 	constitute 	unsubstantiated
hearsay. 	No competent evidence was presented that O’Brien harassed any female
employees at the school or that he consumed alcohol with high school students at
parties. 	While some teachers or students interviewed by Cooney may have reported
this to him, no individual with first-hand knowledge of this testified at the hearing.
Regarding 	allegations 	made 	concerning 	O’Brien’s 	interactions 	with 	female
students, most of the evidence presented to support this constitutes unsubstantiated
hearsay. 	While O’Brien may have asked former student Ann years ago if she had
“daddy issues,” the context in which that was said is unknown, and its meaning and
O’Brien’s intention in saying it are also unclear. 	Allegations that O’Brien had an
improper relationship with Ann were deemed unfounded by the District. The evidence is
inconclusive that O’Brien had an inappropriate relationship with Ann, or any other
student, and there is no evidence that he harassed or treated her in an inappropriate
manner.
While LoPilato testified that she observed O’Brien flirt with female students on a
few occasions, LoPilato conceded that she did not hear what they were saying; there
was no physical contact; no girl complained about it; and LoPilato herself never reported

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 06520-20
12
it. Based on this testimony alone, I CANNOT FIND that O’Brien was flirting or behaving
inappropriately with these female students.
While Meo may have thought it was inappropriate when O’Brien asked a female
student where her new tattoo was, I CANNOT FIND that this question, in the context
presented, was inappropriate or unbecoming. The student shared with O’Brien that she
had just gotten a new tattoo; they were having a conversation about tattoos, and there
is no evidence that the female student even felt uncomfortable with the question.
Moreover, while there is an allegation that O’Brien made a “sexual comment” at a
soccer dinner, nobody with firsthand knowledge of the incident testified at the hearing,
and O’Brien denied the allegation. 	The Board failed to establish that O’Brien made
sexual comments in the presence of students.
Stuber 	testified 	credibly 	that 	on 	one 	occasion, 	O’Brien 	“checked 	out,” 	or
inappropriately looked at, a female student walking down the hallway, and that he made
an inappropriate, suggestive remark concerning the student to male students. 	Even
though there is no evidence that the female student heard O’Brien, O’Brien’s behavior in
this instance was unbecoming. 	There is insufficient competent and credible evidence,
however, that O’Brien engaged in harassing conduct towards female students, as
alleged in the OTSC.
Sam was a classified high school student with a low IQ, poor social skills, and
limited self-advocacy skills. 	Due to his disability, he would likely fail to recognize when
someone was mocking him. The evidence suggests that Sam liked O’Brien and that he
viewed his interactions with O’Brien as positive. 	Sam spoke in a “high-pitched” voice,
and O’Brien mimicked his voice when he spoke with him. 	This was sometimes done in
the presence of other students and staff, who viewed this as mocking Sam. On several
occasions, O’Brien would also ask Sam whether he or others were “good boy[s]” or “bad
boy[s],” whether he was a “clean boy,” or had taken a “big boy shower.” 	These
interactions were also witnessed by other staff members, including those who were
familiar with Sam and his disabilities. 	Several staff viewed O’Brien’s interactions with
Sam—the 	exchanges 	and 	the 	mimicked 	“high-pitched” 	voice—as 	inappropriate.
LoPilato 	testified 	credibly 	that 	she 	viewed 	O’Brien 	as 	“mimicking 	and 	finding

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 06520-20
13
amusement” with Sam, and that other students close by also appeared amused by the
interaction O’Brien had with Sam. 	Kiele confronted O’Brien about his interactions with
Sam because she viewed them as making fun of and belittling Sam, but O’Brien never
curtailed 	his 	behavior. 	The 	Board’s 	witnesses 	testified 	credibly 	that 	O’Brien’s
interactions with Sam were inappropriate because they appeared to be made in a
mocking or joking manner at Sam’s expense. The evidence preponderates that O’Brien
made 	insensitive 	and 	inappropriate 	comments 	to 	a 	classified 	student 	and
inappropriately mimicked the student’s manner of speaking in the presence of staff and
students. 	While the interactions with Sam in the hallway sometimes appeared to mock
Sam and the manifestation of his disability, I CANNOT FIND that O’Brien acted with
intent to demean, harm or harass Sam. 	There is also no evidence that O’Brien’s
actions had any negative impact on Sam, and the evidence does not preponderate that
O’Brien inappropriately identified that student as a classified student in front of other
students. 	While one co-worker, Kiel, confronted O’Brien about his interactions with
Sam, there is no evidence that he was ever reprimanded or disciplined by the District
administration prior to the filing of tenure charges and O’Brien’s resignation.
O’Brien maintained a “Wall of Shame” in his classroom, where he listed the
names of students who demonstrated bad behavior in the classroom. 	The record is
inconclusive as to whether students were also listed on the “Wall of Shame” when they
failed to perform well academically. 	The purpose of the Wall was, at least in part, to
deter repeated instances of poor behavior since having your name on the Wall could
impact the student’s class participation grade. 	O’Brien also maintained a “Wall of
Fame,” 	where 	he 	praised 	students 	who 	behaved 	well 	or 	excelled 	on 	a 	test 	or
assignment. 	Those students who were frequently on the “Wall of Fame” earned an
end-of-year reward breakfast and were named to an all-star team. There is no credible
or competent evidence that O’Brien used the Wall to insult or degrade students, as Meo
alleged. 	O’Brien used the “Wall of Shame” and “Wall of Fame” for years, even during
his observations, and no administrator or student objected to its use. Moreover, there is
no evidence of any rule, policy or directive in place at the time that would prohibit its
use.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 06520-20
14
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Pursuant 	to 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:9B-4.4, 	“[t]he 	Board 	of 	Examiners may 	revoke 	or
suspend 	the 	certificate(s) 	of 	any 	certificate 	holder on 	the 	basis 	of 	demonstrated
inefficiency, incapacity, conduct unbecoming a teacher or other just cause. 	Other just
cause shall include, but not be limited to, offenses within the terms of the forfeiture
statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2, or the disqualification statute, N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1. The Board
of Examiners may revoke or suspend a certificate upon evidence that the holder did not
meet the qualifications for the certificate at the time of issuance or no longer satisfies
the criteria set forth in N.J.A.C. 6A:9-5.1(b). The Board of Examiners shall not revoke or
suspend a certificate without providing the holder an opportunity to be heard pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 6A:9-17.6. 	A hearing allows the certificate holder “to demonstrate facts or
circumstances that might counter the charges set forth in the Order to Show Cause.”
State Bd. of Exam’rs v. Brown, 91 N.J.A.R. 2d (EDE) 5, 7.
The burden of proof that O’Brien engaged in conduct unbecoming a teacher lies
with the Board. 	The Board must show this by a preponderance of the credible and
competent evidence. In re Polk, 90 N.J. 550 (1982). It has been held that “[e]vidence is
found to ‘preponderate’ if it establishes the reasonable probability of the fact alleged and
generates a reliable belief that the tendered hypothesis . . . is true.” 	State Bd. of
Exam’rs v. Ferreira, EDE 3390-04 (July 5, 2006), adopted, Exam’rs (Sept. 22, 2005),
aff’d, 	St. 	Bd. 	of 	Educ. 	(April 	5, 	2006), 	<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>.
Preponderance may also be described as the greater weight of credible evidence in the
case, not necessarily dependent on the number of witnesses but having the greater
convincing power. State v. Lewis, 67 N.J. 47 (1975).
“Unbecoming conduct” is a broadly defined, elastic term, encompassing any
conduct that has a tendency to destroy public respect for government employees and
confidence in the operation of public services. 	Karins v. Atl. City, 152 N.J. 532 (1998).
A finding of unbecoming conduct does not require a violation of any specific rule or
regulation but rather may be based on the implicit standard of good behavior “which

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 06520-20
15
devolves upon one who stands in the public eye as an upholder of that which is morally
and legally correct.” In re Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136, 140 (App. Div. 1960).
Teachers, in particular, “are held to a high standard of conduct because of the
influence they exercise over students.” State Bd. of Exam’rs v. Charlton, 96 N.J.A.R.2d
(EDE) 18, 21. Due to that influence, teachers “must exhibit a high degree of exemplary
behavior.” 	In 	re 	Tyler, 	13 	N.J.A.R. 	297, 	308 	(1991). 	Teachers 	“must 	comport
themselves as models for young minds to emulate” and maintain a “dedication to civility
and respect for people as human beings.” In re Tenure Beam, 1973 S.L.D. 157, 163.
The instant matter turns on conduct unbecoming. 	The Board asserts 	that
O’Brien’s teaching certificate should be revoked given his unbecoming conduct, as
reflected in the OTSC. 	O’Brien denies that he conducted himself in an unbecoming
manner and argues that even if it were determined that he was culpable of conduct
unbecoming, the mitigating evidence is substantial and weighs against the imposition of
severe discipline.
Many of the allegations reflected in the OTSC were not substantiated at the
hearing as the Board relied largely on uncorroborated hearsay. 	The only allegations
that were substantiated were that: O’Brien mimicked Sam’s voice and mannerisms and
asked him questions that were viewed by staff as demeaning and inappropriate; that he
utilized a “Wall of Shame” in his classroom; and that he behaved inappropriately when
he 	“checked 	out” 	a 	female 	student 	in 	the 	hallway 	and 	made 	a 	suggestive 	and
inappropriate comment about her to male students.
O’Brien admitted to using a “Wall of Shame,” and while the Board asserts that it
had the effect of publicly embarrassing students, there is insufficient evidence that the
“Wall of Shame” was intended to improperly embarrass or humiliate students, or that it
actually had that effect. 	While some may disagree with O’Brien’s teaching method, the
Board offered no expert testimony challenging his use of the Wall. 	O’Brien testified
credibly that the purpose of the Wall was to deter bad behavior and that he also
maintained a “Wall of Fame” to acknowledge and reward students. 	It is also worth
noting that O’Brien used the “Wall of Fame” and “Wall of Shame” for years, and there is

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 06520-20
16
no evidence that the District ever warned or disciplined O’Brien about its use. As such,
since the evidence does not preponderate that the use of a “Wall of Shame” was
inappropriate, I CANNOT CONCLUDE that its use constituted unbecoming conduct.
O’Brien’s behavior in connection with the female student in the hallway, and
specifically the manner in which he looked at her and made a suggestive comment
concerning the female student in the presence of male students and Stuber, was
inappropriate, and I CONCLUDE that this behavior constitutes conduct unbecoming of a
teacher.
I 	ALSO 	CONCLUDE 	that 	O’Brien’s 	interactions 	with 	Sam 	in 	the 	hallway
constitute 	unbecoming 	conduct. 	While 	I 	can 	appreciate 	O’Brien’s 	intention 	to
acknowledge and befriend Sam, he should have been aware that his mimicking of
Sam’s voice and mannerisms in front of other students and staff would be viewed as
demeaning and a mockery of Sam and his disability. 	While I am not convinced that
O’Brien intended to humiliate, harass, or hurt Sam, his behavior was insensitive and
tone-deaf, and they were perceived negatively by several staff members.
Based on the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that there is just cause to warrant action
regarding O’Brien’s certificates. While the State has failed to meet its burden to provide
the majority of the allegations in the OTSC, it did adequately demonstrate that he acted
in an unbecoming manner concerning his interactions with Sam and the female student
on one occasion.
PENALTY
N.J.A.C. 6A:9-17.5 contemplates situations that warrant a suspension rather than
the ultimate penalty of certificate revocation. 	Whether a penalty for unbecoming
conduct 	should 	be 	a 	suspension 	or 	revocation 	of 	one’s 	teaching 	certificate 	is
“discretionary, on a case-by-case basis, after considering the individual facts and
circumstances.” In re Certificate of Fargo, 91 N.J.A.R.2d (EDE) 1, 3. 	“Relevant factors
. . . [to] determine whether revocation or something else is appropriate include the
nature and gravity of the offense, and any evidence as to provocation, extenuation or

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 06520-20
17
aggravation, and any harm or injurious effect… on the maintenance of discipline and the
proper administration of the school system.” 	In re Certificate of Cooper, EDE 06784-13
(December 29, 2014), <http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/> (citing In re Fulcomer,
93 N.J. Super. 404, 422 (App. Div. 1967)).
Here, there is no record of other alleged infractions previously committed by
O’Brien. 	His unrefuted testimony suggests that in the years he worked for the District,
he had never been disciplined, and he had never received less than an “effective”
rating.
While O’Brien’s conduct concerning the female student in the hallways was
unbecoming and a very poor example for the male students who may have heard him, it
was one isolated incident, and there is no evidence that his behavior had any negative
impact on the female student, who may or may not have heard him.
Moreover, while O’Brien’s interactions with Sam continued over the course of
several months, it is worth noting that he was never previously warned or disciplined by
the District for this, and while the exchanges with this classified student were viewed by
other teachers as mocking the student, I did not find that O’Brien acted with any intent
to harass or harm him. Sam did not testify at the hearing, and there is no evidence that
he was negatively impacted by these exchanges or that other students viewed O’Brien’s
behavior as malicious, or even inappropriate. 	In fact, the evidence suggests that
O’Brien was one of Sam’s favorite teachers. 	Yet, by mimicking Sam’s voice and
mannerisms in the presence of other students by, for example, asking Sam if he was a
“good boy” or a “bad boy’ or whether he took a “big boy shower”─questions one would
ask a small child, not a high school student—O’Brien displayed a lack of sound
judgment. His behavior, ultimately, was inappropriate, insensitive, and tone-deaf.
Given the aforementioned findings and mitigating factors, I CONCLUDE that
O’Brien’s unbecoming conduct does not rise to the level warranting the revocation of his
certificates. 	Rather, considering the totality of the circumstances, I CONCLUDE that
O’Brien’s certificates should be suspended for one (1) year.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 06520-20
18
ORDER
I hereby ORDER that the charge of conduct unbecoming a teacher and other just
cause be sustained and suspend O’Brien’s certificates for one (1) year.
I hereby FILE my initial decision with the STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS for
consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified or rejected by the STATE
BOARD OF EXAMINERS, which by law is authorized to make a final decision in this
matter. 	If the State Board of Examiners 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 SECRETARY OF
THE STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS, 100 Riverview Plaza, 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.
January 2, 2025
DATE 	SUSANA E. GUERRERO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	January 2, 2025
Date Mailed to Parties: 	January 2, 2025
jb

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 06520-20
19
APPENDIX
List of Witnesses
For Petitioner:
James Cooney
Jennifer Luberto Stuber
Christopher Michael Meo
Pam Lopilato
Katherine Arlak
Maureen Kiel
Olga Sagalchik
For Respondent:
Russell Bendian
Ellen DeRosa-Hill
Matthew O’Brien
List of Exhibits
For Petitioner:
P-1 	August 19, 2019, Correspondence to O’Brien, enclosing Affirmative Action
Investigation Final Report, dated August 1, 2019 (DOE 257-263)
P-2 	Interviews and Certifications (DOE 347-426)
P-3 	Resignation Letter
For Respondent:
None