M.W., on behalf of minor child, B.W. v. Board of Education of the City of East Orange, Essex County, 7/11/25 (#351-25E)

351-25E
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 09388-25
Agency Dkt. No. 142-5/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Order on Emergent Relief
M.W., on behalf of minor child, B.W.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of East Orange, Essex
County,
Respondent.
The record of this emergent matter, the sound recording of the hearing held at the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL), and the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) have been
reviewed and considered.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner has failed to demonstrate
entitlement to emergent relief pursuant to the standards enunciated in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126,
132-34 (1982), and codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6.
Accordingly, the recommended Order denying petitioner’s application for emergent relief is
adopted for the reasons stated therein. This matter shall continue at the OAL with such proceedings as
the parties and the ALJ deem necessary to bring it to closure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	July 11, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	July 14, 2025

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
FINAL ORDER DENYING
EMERGENCY RELIEF
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09388-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 142-5/25
M.W. ON BEHALF OF B.W.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY
OF EAST ORANGE, ESSEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
__________________________
M.W., petitioner pro se
Khalifah Shabazz, Esq., Esq., for respondent
BEFORE ANDREW M. BARON, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioning parent challenges a decision by the East Orange Board of Education
that immediately transfers B.W., who is entering seventh grade in September, from the
district school known as the STEM school, to the Truth school in connection with a recent
physical incident with another student and related suspension. The removal from STEM
has already been implemented for the balance of this school year.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09388-25
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or about May 28, 2025, petitioner filed a Petition and Motion for emergent relief,
seeking to overturn a decision by the East Orange Board of Education, ending her out-
of-district enrollment at the STEM school and transferring her to the Truth school, another
in-district placement for the balance of 2024-25 school year and for the beginning of the
2025-26 school year. A ten (10) day disciplinary suspension in connection with a physical
altercation initiated by B.W. was also challenged.
The Department of Education transmitted the case to the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) under the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, and the act
establishing the office, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23, for a hearing under the Uniform
Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6, and the rules of procedure
established by the Department of Education to hear and decide controversies and
disputes arising under school laws, N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.1 to -1.17. Jurisdiction is conferred
under 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:6-9. 	The 	emergent 	application 	was 	filed 	at 	the 	Office 	of
Administrative Law (OAL) on June 12, 2024.
Oral argument was initially scheduled for June 5thth, but the record was left open
to allow petitioner to submit supplemental argument. Oral argument resumed on June 9,
2025.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
The STEM school in East Orange, grades 6 through 12, is for students who
demonstrate an interest and proficiency in math and science.
The Truth school, where B.W. was ultimately transferred, is more known for its
emphasis on leadership.
At the end of 5th grade, B.W. applied for admission and was accepted for
enrollment in STEM where she has generally performed well academically.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09388-25
3
While B.W. generally performs well academically, respondent says B.W. continues
to exhibit certain behavioral, both physical and non-compliant with school rules and
objectives that are strictly adhered to by the STEM school.
Recently, for reasons unknown, B.W. got into a serious altercation with a fellow
student that was of a verbal and physical nature. 	Seeking to quell this dispute, school
officials called for an informal mediation between the students, which all believed upon
conclusion was successful.
However, almost immediately after the mediation, B.W. allegedly commenced
another physical confrontation, this time committing what school officials identify as an
assault, which resulted in the other student having to receive medical treatment at a
nearby hospital, and a school official also getting injured.
M.W., on behalf of B.W. says B.W. is the victim of bullying which school officials
have not addressed.
Other than a written summary of why petitioner felt immediate relief should be
granted, she did not submit any certifications, affidavits or other professional reports
and/or reports from to support its request for emergent relief.
The 	District 	submitted 	three 	certifications 	from 	various 	members 	of 	the
administrative team not so much on the merits of the relief requested, instead primarily
focused on the issue that the charges brought against B.W. resulting in her removal and
transfer to another school.
M.W. contends the academic curriculum at the Truth school where B.W. was
transferred is less rigorous than at STEM. She seeks a return of B.W. to STEM, and a
reversal of the ten (10) day disciplinary suspension.
LEGAL STANDARD

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09388-25
4
Where authorized by law and where irreparable harm will result without an
expedited decision granting or prohibiting some action or relief connected with a
contested case, emergency relief pending a final decision on the whole contested case
may be ordered upon the application of a party. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.6(a). 	With respect to
school laws in particular, the Commissioner has jurisdiction to hear and determine all
controversies and disputes arising under school laws, except higher education, or under
the rules of the State board or of the Commissioner. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9. Where the subject
matter of the controversy is a particular course of action by a district board of education
or any other party subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, the petitioner may
include with the petition of appeal, a separate motion for emergent relief or a stay of that
action pending the Commissioner's final decision in the contested case. 	N.J.S.A. 6A:3-
1.6(a). 	A motion for a stay or emergent relief must be accompanied by a letter
memorandum or brief which must address the following standards to be met for granting
such relief pursuant to Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982):
1. 	The petitioner will suffer irreparable harm if the requested relief is
not granted;
2. 	The legal right underlying petitioner's claim is settled;
3. 	The petitioner has a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the
underlying claim; and
4. 	When the equities and interests of the parties are balanced, the
petitioner will suffer greater harm than the respondent will suffer
if the requested relief is not granted.
N.J.S.A. 6A:3-1.6(b)
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In petitioner’s initial emergent basis statement, petitioner contends that emergent
relief is required because:
B.W. will suffer irreparable harm if the requested relief is not
granted based on the disruption to his education by being
moved from a placement where she is thriving, to another
placement, away from the social and educational network she

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09388-25
5
had thrived at the past year, where M.W. contends the
academic curriculum is more rigorous than at the Truth
school.
Respondent’s opposition to the emergent application states, in part:
The situation involving B.W. at STEM had become intolerable,
and for the safety of B.W., other students and school staff, a
decision was made to transfer B.W. to the Truth school, a
school known for developing future leaders.
Further, the application for emergent relief fails to meet the
four prong requirements of the Crowe, case, which is the
primary standard for determining if a party is entitled to
emergent relief.
Accordingly, for these and other reasons, the District argues
the application must be denied.
While being moved from one-district placement to another in-district placement with
only a few eeks remaining in the school year is understandable concern, I CONCLUDE that
petitioners have failed to establish irreparable harm warranting emergent relief.
In order to prevail on an application for emergent relief, a petitioner must meet all
four conjunctive prongs set forth in Crowe. 	Since, petitioners have failed to establish
irreparable harm, as well as the likelihood of success on the merits. 	I FURTHER
CONCLUDE that the application for emergent relief should be denied, since the other
three prongs of Crowe have also not been met at this time.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the petitioners’ application for emergent relief is
DENIED as to both the request to return to STEM and the request to reverse the ten-day
suspension.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09388-25
6
It is FURTHER ORDERED that I hereby retain jurisdiction to handle the balance
of the case on the merits at a later time pursuant to the transmittal from the Commissioner
The next telephone conference on this matter will be held on Thursday, July 24,
2025 at 4:00 P.M. Toll Free Number: 1-877-951-6587 Participant Code: 96089818.
This decision on application for emergency relief shall remain in effect until the
issuance of the decision on the merits in this matter. The hearing having been requested
by the parents, this matter is hereby returned to the Department of Education for a local
resolution session, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (f)(1)(B)(i). If the parent or adult student
feels that this decision is not being fully implemented with respect to program or services,
this concern should be communicated in writing to the Director, Office of Special
Education.
June 10, 2025
DATE 	ANDREW M. BARON, ALJ
Date Received at Agency 	June 10, 2025
Date E-Mailed to Parties: 	June 10, 2025
AMB/lr