Lara Lovett v. Board of Education of the Township of Sparta, Sussex County, 2/7/25 (#44-25)

44-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 04834-21
Agency Dkt. No. 73-5/21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Lara Lovett,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Sparta,
Sussex County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the hearing transcript, the Initial Decision of the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL), the exceptions filed by respondent Sparta Board of Education (Board)
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and petitioner’s reply thereto, have been reviewed and considered.
The material facts are uncontested. 	Petitioner is an environmental science teacher at
Sparta High School. On February 10, 2021, the Interim Superintendent of Schools placed her on
administrative leave pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:25-6, pending a psychiatric evaluation to be
conducted by the Board’s psychiatrist. 	That day, petitioner was emotional at school while
speaking to her supervisor and expressed that she was extremely overwhelmed by various
stressors, including family health concerns and school-related challenges that arose while
teaching in-person during the COVID-19 pandemic. 	Petitioner agreed to be evaluated by the
Board’s psychiatrist.

2
Following an evaluation on February 17, 2021, the Board’s psychiatrist concluded that
petitioner needed weekly therapy and treatment for panic disorder, and that if the Board would
not allow her to work from home, then she should be reassessed in 3 months to determine her
readiness to return to in-person teaching. Subsequently, the Interim Superintendent informed
petitioner that working from home was not an option and that she would be placed on paid sick
leave from March 2, 2021, through April 23, 2021. He also advised petitioner that she should be
reevaluated the week of May 3, 2021, regarding her fitness to return to work and that a letter
from her therapy provider would suffice.
On March 4, 2021, petitioner emailed the Interim Superintendent to report that her two
main stressors had been resolved, that she would soon receive both doses of the COVID-19
vaccine, that her children would be returning to school, and that she no longer felt unsafe
returning to in-person teaching. She asked whether she could return to in-person teaching prior
to May 2021 if cleared by her therapist. 	The Interim Superintendent replied that since the
Board’s psychiatrist did not provide recommendations regarding what should happen if her
stressors were relieved, he was hesitant to allow her to return to work prior to May 2021 but
added that they could revisit the topic in the future. Petitioner signed releases of information to
allow her therapist to communicate with the Board’s psychiatrist, but the Board’s psychiatrist
refused to do so and advised petitioner to contact her employer.
On March 13, 2021, petitioner provided the Interim Superintendent with a note from a
psychiatrist who evaluated her that day. 	The psychiatrist diagnosed her with anxiety/panic
disorder and stress disorder/adjustment, recommended that she continue with her medication
and weekly therapy, and cleared her to return to work with no restrictions. 	The Interim

3
Superintendent acknowledged receipt of the medical note but maintained that he wanted
petitioner to remain out of work for 3 months. He did not reach out to the Board’s psychiatrist,
despite petitioner’s email informing him about the alleviation of her stressors and the medical
note from her psychiatrist clearing her to return to work. He also knew that petitioner’s therapist
wanted to provide the Board’s psychiatrist with updated information regarding her treatment
and progress, but he never contacted the Board’s psychiatrist regarding same.
On April 14, 2021, the Interim Superintendent emailed petitioner to ask whether she
wanted to be reevaluated by her own physician at her expense or by the Board’s psychiatrist at
the Board’s expense. On or about April 25, 2021, petitioner’s psychiatrist reevaluated her and
issued a report clearing her to return to work. As of April 26, 2021, petitioner was no longer
charged sick days and she returned to her in-person teaching position on May 10, 2021.
At the conclusion of the proceedings at the OAL, which included testimony from
petitioner and the Interim Superintendent, the ALJ determined that the Interim Superintendent
acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably and that petitioner’s sick time charged from
March 2 through April 23, 2021, should be restored. Specifically, the ALJ held that the Interim
Superintendent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:25-6 and 18A:16-2 because he unilaterally placed petitioner
on paid administrative leave pending the psychiatric evaluation without a Board vote, and
required petitioner to submit to a psychiatric evaluation absent Board approval. However, the
ALJ recognized that petitioner consented to being placed on paid leave, had agreed to attend the
psychiatric evaluation, and that her petition alleged only that she was improperly placed on sick
leave pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:16-4.

4
The ALJ also concluded that the Interim Superintendent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:16-4 by
refusing to consider additional proofs submitted by petitioner in March 2021 indicating her
fitness to return to work. Instead of seeking input from the Board’s psychiatrist, the ALJ found
that the Interim Superintendent used the Board’s psychiatrist’s evaluation “as a shield” to
continue petitioner’s sick leave. The ALJ further found that only once petitioner had remained
out of work for 3 months did the Interim Superintendent unilaterally accept petitioner’s
psychiatrist’s recommendation that she was ready to return to work. In sum, the ALJ concluded
that the Interim Superintendent’s actions were arbitrary because he failed to consider
petitioner’s March 2021 request to return to work and neither provided the Board nor the
Board’s psychiatrist with the proofs supplied by petitioner and her psychiatrist to review.
In its exceptions, the Board disputes the ALJ’s legal conclusion that the Interim
Superintendent acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably. Specifically, the Board argues
that: (1) the decision to place petitioner on administrative leave with pay did not violate N.J.S.A.
18A:25-6; (2) it did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:16-2 by not passing a resolution to compel petitioner
to submit to a psychiatric examination because petitioner waived her right to a Board vote
regarding same; and (3) the Interim Superintendent was not legally required to accept
petitioner’s doctor’s recommendation pertaining to her ability to return to work.
Upon review, the Commissioner adopts the ALJ’s Initial Decision as the final decision in
this matter, with modification as explained herein. Because petitioner did not allege that the
Board violated N.J.S.A. 18A:25-6 or N.J.S.A. 18A:16-2, the ALJ’s findings regarding those statutes
were unnecessary. 	However, the Commissioner wishes to clarify that, pursuant to the plain
language of N.J.S.A. 18A:25-6, the superintendent of schools may “suspend any assistant

5
superintendent, principal or teaching staff member” provided that the approval of the Board
President is secured. Emri v. Evesham Twp. Bd. of Educ., 327 F. Supp. 2d 463, 474 (D.N.J. 2004).
N.J.S.A. 18A:25-6 does not require that the Board conduct a recorded roll call vote to suspend an
employee, but rather that it conduct a recorded roll call vote for the subsequent “restoration or
removal of such person as it shall deem proper.” Thus, the Commissioner finds that the Board
did not act unreasonably by failing to conduct a recorded roll call vote prior to petitioner’s
placement on paid administrative leave pending the psychiatric evaluation.
As 	for 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:16-2, 	it states that the board of education—not solely the
superintendent of schools—may require an employee to undergo a psychiatric evaluation under
certain circumstances. See Kochman v. Keansburg Bd. of Educ., 124 N.J. Super. 203, 212-214 (Ch.
Div. 1973) (discussing board of education’s authority to require psychiatric evaluations under
certain circumstances in the interest of protecting school children from unfit teachers, as well as
the employee’s right to a statement of reasons for requiring the evaluation and a hearing before
the board upon request). Accord Gish v. Bd. of Educ. of Paramus, 145 N.J. Super. 96, 106-07 (App.
Div. 1976). Although the Interim Superintendent contemplated seeking Board approval for the
psychiatric evaluation in this case, he ultimately did not do so because petitioner voluntarily
consented to participate. The Commissioner finds that was reasonable under the circumstances.
That said, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that the Interim Superintendent
violated N.J.S.A. 18A:16-4 by failing to adequately consider petitioner’s March 2021 request to
return to work in that he neither provided the Board nor the Board’s psychiatrist with information
supplied by petitioner and her psychiatrist to review. 	Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:16-4, the
employee must furnish “proof of recovery, satisfactory to the board” to return to work following

6
a psychiatric evaluation which indicated a “mental abnormality.” 	Petitioner, who was
cooperative and forthcoming through the entire process, provided the Interim Superintendent
with her own statement, a medical note from a psychiatrist who evaluated her, and even
attempted to arrange for her therapist to communicate with the Board’s psychiatrist. The record
supports the ALJ’s conclusion that the Interim Superintendent unilaterally rejected petitioner’s
proofs and did not present them to the Board for review. 	While the Board was certainly not
legally required to accept the proofs submitted by petitioner and permit her to return to work in
March 2021, it was arbitrary and unreasonable for the Board not to review and consider the
proofs at all.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, as modified,
and the petition of appeal is hereby granted. The Board is directed to restore petitioner’s sick
leave days charged from March 2, 2021, through April 23, 2021.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	February 7, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	February 10, 2025
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.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04834-21
AGENCY DKT. NO. 73-5/21
LARA LOVETT,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA, SUSSEX
COUNTY,
Respondent.
______________________________
Randi Doner April, Esq., for petitioner Lara Lovett (Oxfeld Cohen, P.C., attorneys)
Marc H. Zitomer, Esq., for respondent Board of Education of the Township of Sparta
(Schenck Price Smith & King, attorneys)
Record Closed: October 28, 2024 	Decided: November 19, 2024
BEFORE JULIO C. MOREJON, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Lara Lovett, (Lovett) appeals the determination made by the Board of
Education of the Township of Sparta (the District) placing her on leave after a psychiatric
evaluation. Lovett disputes the District’s decision to continue her time on leave dispute her

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04834-21
2
request to return to work after her submission of a psychiatric report allowing her to return
to work sooner. Lovett seeks a return of the sick days charged to her for the disputed time
she was on leave.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or about May 4, 2021, Lovett filed a Petition of Appeal with the New Jersey
Commissioner of Education (Commissioner). On or about May 27, 2021, the District filed
an answer with affirmative defenses. 	The Commissioner then deemed this matter a
contested matter and the case was transmitted to the New Jersey Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) on June 2, 2021, a zoom hearing was held on November 18, 2022. Appearing
to testify was Lara Lovett, Patrick McQueeney, and Marisa Wilson.
The parties agreed to submit post-hearing briefs by February 15, 2023, which was
subsequently extended to February 17, 2023. 	The record remained open to allow for the
review of exhibits in evidence, reading the transcript and post hearing summations, and for
the parties confirmation of the exhibits. I closed the record on October 28, 2024.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
The following FACTS are not in dispute, and I FIND them as FACT herein.
Lovet is currently employed by the District and has been since September 2012 and
has tenure. She is a teacher of Environmental Science. Lovett stated that in September of
2020 she was physically located at her home and teaching remotely. At that time, due to
the COVID-19 epidemic, the District had teachers physically come into the school building
to conduct the teaching classes remotely to the students who were in their homes. Lovett
did not report to the school as she had been granted an accommodation to teach remotely
from home, as her then eleven-year-old daughter a Sparta student who was learning
remotely from home, required all medical supervision. (Lovett also had a nine-year old child
who 	remained 	home 	taking 	classes 	remotely). 	The 	District’s 	teaching/learning
arrangements changed in mid-January 2021, as all teachers would report to school while

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04834-21
3
the students would be split in half with one group learning in person and the other group
joining remotely on the computer.
Lovett concerned about returning to work in person because of her health concerns
about COVID, as well as her daughter’s risks sought a medical accommodation, allowing
her to remain working remotely, until she could receive her first COVID-19 immunization.
(J-1). Lovett’s medical accommodation was denied by the Interim Superintendent Patrick
McQueeney (McQueeney). 	Because of McQueeney’s decision denying her medical
accommodation, Lovett and her husband decided that they would leave their eleven-year
and nine-year old child at home learning remotely, while Lovett and her husband were at
work. Lovett returned to school on January 19, 2021. 	The District was aware of Lovett’s
home-work arrangement.
On February 10, 2021, Lovett’s supervisor, Marisa Wilson, (Dr. Wilson) stopped by
Lovett’s classroom to see how she was doing. Lovett became emotional, cried and
expressed that she was extremely overwhelmed on several fronts: family, school, and
health. 	Dr. Wilson left Lovett’s classroom and returned later with Principal Ronnie Spring
(Spring). They accompanied Lovett to the principal’s office where Lovett was told that she
had to call her husband to pick her up. After being told that she would not be able to leave
alone, she contacted her husband, who had to leave his teaching job, and then follow her
while she drove herself home.
Prior to leaving the school, Lovett was directed by the District to attend a zoom
appointment later that evening for a risk assessment to be conducted by Tri County
Behavioral Health (Tri County). Lovett participated in the risk assessment on February 10,
and later that day Tri-County’ submitted the risk assessment evaluation to Lovett and
McQueeney (J-3). 	The Tri-County evaluation recommended that Lovett could return to
work, and also reported the following:
Symptoms 	reported: 	anxiety, 	decreased 	appetite, 	avoidance,
depression 	(since 	January 	2021), 	panic, 	avoidance, 	and 	sleep
changes;

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04834-21
4
History: 	migraines, and no history of mental illness, mild anxious
mood, and no cognitive impairment, no suicide, no self-injury, and no
homicide tendency reported;
Triggers reported: reported as “attacks from parents and students”’
Diagnosis: a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety was made;
Treatment: individual out-patient mental health services.
[J-3]
Later the same day on February 10, 2021, after receiving the Tri-County evaluation,
McQueeney send Lovett a letter by email and regular mail, informing her that she was being
placed on administrative leave pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:25-6, pending psychiatric clearance
by Dr. Michael Finkelstein, as a result of “ our [the District’s] concern about your mental
health and well-being.” (J-4). 	McQueeney’s letter to Lovett stated that her return to work
was contingent upon Dr. Finkelstein’s opinion that Lovet was “fit for duty”, and that the
District could begin to charge Lovett “sick days”. Id.
The following day, February 11, 2021, Lovett emailed McQueeney, agreeing to the
District’s conditions, and to meet with Dr. Finkelstein. 	In addition, Lovett explained in her
email about the “stresses” that she had been exposed to due to her interactions with parents
at the school and teaching children in the Covid pandemic, and admitting that “ yes, it has
taken its toll” on her and providing examples of incidents of interactions with parents at the
school, as well as receiving parent emails complaining about the educational changes
related to Covid. (J-5). In her email to McQueeney she refuted Dr. Wilson’s statement that
she would “hurt” herself. Id. Lovett stated specifically:
I never said I would hurt myself. My husband never said he was worried
about me hurting myself. We were very surprised to see that in writing
as a reason for referral. I assure all parties that I would never hurt
myself - in fact that is paradoxical to my requesting accommodations
from the district to teach remotely in order to not contract covid for
concern of high-risk health complications/death for myself and my SMS
daughter.
[Id.]
Lovett was examined by Dr. Finkelstein on February 17, 2021, who concluded that
she was unable to return to teaching in-person classes at that time (J-6). 	Dr. Finkelstein

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04834-21
5
opined that her condition of panic disorder required psychological and psychiatric treatment
and that she should be referred for weekly cognitive behavioral therapy and for psychiatric
evaluation and treatment. He further opined that she remained “very vulnerable” and that
[r]eturning to work in an in-person environment at school at [that] time would most likely
worsen her condition and she would not be able to work.” Id. Dr. Finkelstein concluded that
”[i]f the option of working from home [was] not available, [she] should remain on disability
and be reassessed in 3 months to determine if she is ready to return to in-person teaching.”
Ibid.
Since working from home was not available to the District employees, Lovett
remained out on a paid leave of absence from work. On March 2, 2021, Lovett received Dr.
Finkelstein’s report and recommendations. McQueeney informed Lovett that she would no
longer be on paid administrative leave and that she could take Family and Medical Leave
Act (“FMLA”) 	and/or utilize her accumulated sick days until she returned to work. 	Lovett
would be placed on sick leave from March 2, 2021 through April 23, 2021, for a total of
twenty-eight days (J-20). 	McQueeney further informed Lovett that she should be re-
evaluated the week of May 3, 2021 for her fitness to return to work. (J-7).
Because Lovett was not cleared for in-person instruction and did not elect to take
FMLA leave the District continued to pay her but began charging her sick days on March 2,
2021. 	On March 4, 2021, Lovett wrote to McQueeney informing him that her “two main
stressors” had been resolved and that she no longer had a need to request remote
accommodations. 	She informed him that after completing both doses of the COVID-19
vaccine, she would no longer feel “unsafe” with in-person instruction. Lovett requested to
return to in-person instruction sooner if cleared by her therapist. (J-8).
On March 8, 2021, McQueeney sent Lovett an email and informed her that since Dr.
Finkelstein did not provide recommendations for her treatment should her “stressors be
relieved” he was “hesitant to go against Dr. Finkelstein’s recommendations” of Lovett’s
condition, and informed Lovett that they could “revisit the topic in the future.” (J-9).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04834-21
6
Lovett provided McQueen with a medical note from Dr. Thomas D’Amato, M.D., (Dr.
D’Amato), a psychiatrist who examined Lovett on March 13, 2021 (J-13). 	Dr. D’Amato
diagnosed 	Lovett 	with 	anxiety/panic 	disorders, 	stress 	disorder/adjustment. 	He
recommended that she continue taking psychiatric medication and continue seeing a
therapist weekly. He concluded by clearing her to return to work with no restrictions. Id.
On March 16, 2021, McQueeney wrote to Lovett via email to inform her that he had
received Dr. D’Amato’s note, but that he still wanted her to follow Dr. Finkelstein’s
recommendations to remain out of work for a total of three (3) months while she received
the recommended treatment of three months and that she could then be reevaluated “no
earlier than the week of May 17th (based upon the evaluation date of February 17, 2021).”
(J-14).
On April 14, 2021, in anticipation of Lovett’s return to work on or about May 3, 2021,
McQueeney wrote to Lovett via email to inquire whether she wanted to be re-evaluated by
her own physician at her expense or by Dr. Finkelstein at the Board’s expense. (J-15). 	On
April 19, 2021, Lovett informed McQueeney that she would be re-evaluated by her own
physician, which could be scheduled for April 24, 2021 (J-16), which was acceptable to
McQueeney (J-17).
On April 25, 2021, Dr. D’Amato issued his re-evaluation report clearing Lovett to
return to work. 1 McQueeney sent an email to Dr. D’Amato on April 30, 2021, concerning
certain “inaccuracies” which were contained in the report (J-18). Dr. D’Amato responded on
April 30, 2021, to same explaining the reasons for any “errors” in his re-evaluation (J-19).
Commencing on April 26, 2021, the District no longer charged Lovett sick days but
continued to pay her full salary pending her re-entry meeting. (J-20). Lovett had a re-entry
meeting with the administration on or about May 4, 2021 and she returned to her in-person
teaching position on May 10, 2021.
1 Dr. D’Amato’s re-evaluation report was not produced in the hearing.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04834-21
7
ADDITIONAL FACTS
The following factual discussion is derived from the testimony of the witnesses,
Lovett, McQueeney and Wilson, whose testimony, I FIND credible and as FACT herein:
Lovett
Lovett admitted that she reached a “breaking point” on February 10, 2021, the day
she met and spoke with Wilson. She testified that at that point in the school year, parents
were as stressed as the students and staff. However, that week there was a new level of
aggression from some parents. (T31:9-11). When Wilson stopped her classroom to check
in on Lovett two days later, Lovett stated she was extremely upset because of her
interactions with parents. Lovett testified that she told Wilson she was miserable; didn’t want
to do this anymore; didn’t want to come to work in the morning; didn’t want to be yelled at
by parents; didn’t want to teach remote students and live students simultaneously; didn’t
want to leave her medically susceptible children at home unattended. However, she denied
telling Wilson that she was suicidal, or wanted to hurt herself, or had lost the will to live.
(T34:7-11). She explained that when she told Wilson she “didn’t want to do this anymore,”
she was referring to leaving her children at home, worrying about them, being yelled at by
parents all while doing two instructional jobs simultaneously. (T35:8-11).
Regarding Dr. Finkelstein’s evaluation report. (J-6), Lovett testified about a few
inconsistencies in the document. She denied telling her husband that she was going to hurt
herself and burn her school gear. She denied telling Dr. Finkelstein that she had never been
out on disability, as the District did not place her on disability. (T51:16-20).
Lovett testified that at no time during this process did she dispute McQueeney’s right
as superintendent to direct her to undergo a psychological examination. 	She stated that
she disputed McQueeney’s decision to keep her out of work for three months, as his
decision was contrary to the Tri-County assessment allowing her to return to work on
February 23, 2021; she believed that Dr. D’Amato’s evaluation of March 13, 2021, satisfied

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04834-21
8
Dr. Finkelstein’s recommendations. 	Lovett testified that she did return to work on May 7,
2021, following the submission of a second evaluation by Dr. D’Amato after April 30, 2021.
As a result of McQueeney’s decision to adhere to Dr. Finkelstein’s recommendation
that she not return to work until a second evaluation, Lovett was out on sick time from March
2, 2021 through April 23, 2021 (J-20). Lovett testified that she believed thirty-three (33) sick
days were deducted unnecessarily. 	Resulting in her suffering “an economic loss” of over
$3600 because of McQueeney’s decision. (T67:22-68:5). 2
McQueeney:
McQueeney testified that he requested Lovett to undergo the initial assessment with
Tri-County solely relying on Wilson’s report of her interactions with Lovett. He stated that
when he requested Lovett undergo the initial wellness evaluation with Tri-County, he was
going to have her undergo a psychiatric evaluation. 	He affirmed that Tri-County’s
determination that Lovett could return to work did not change his opinion that she could not
return until she had a psychiatric evaluation. 	He claimed that his concern stemmed from
Wilson’s comments that she was a danger to herself, that her husband had concerns and
that she burnt her Sparta gear. 	He admitted that he never spoke with Lovett’s husband
regarding these alleged statements. He also admitted that he never personally followed up
even after Lovett explained what had happened.
With regard to Dr. Finkelstein’s report, McQueeney testified that there was no
language concerning what would occur should there be alleviation of stressors. McQueeney
affirmed that while Dr. Finkelstein stated that Lovett was cleared for remote work, there was
no remote work available. 	He stated that he determined that Lovett should go on leave
while being charged sick days. When asked about Dr. Finkelstein’s statement that if Lovett
could not work remotely, she should remain on disability, McQueeney admitted that at the
time of the report, Lovett was not on disability; she was on paid administrative leave.
2 The District Absentee Report admitted in evidence reflects twenty-eight days of sick pay from March 2,
2021 to April 23, 2021 (J-20).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04834-21
9
In looking at his own letter detailing Dr. Finkelstein’s report dated March 2, 2021,
McQueeney acknowledged that he did not note the erroneous conclusion that “Lovett was
on disability.” (T126:19-22). McQueeney recalled receiving a report from Dr. D’Amato (J-
13), that Lovett was cleared to return to work. 	McQueeney stated that it did not alter his
opinion because he “was not comfortable with foregoing Dr. Finkelstein’s recommendations
and permitting this to clear her return to work.” (T112:8-11).
On cross-examination, McQueeney admitted that despite Dr. Finkelstein’s error
about Lovett’s placement on disability, and despite Lovett’s email informing him about the
alleviation of stressors, he never reached out to Dr. Finkelstein to request additional
information. He acknowledged that he was aware that Lovett’s therapist reached out to Dr.
Finkelstein as he was copied on the response, however, he still admitted that he did not
reach out to Dr. Finkelstein.
On cross-examination, McQueeney stated that he was aware that Lovett had two
children in the Sparta School System and further understood that one of them had medical
issues. 	He admitted that he approved her remote accommodation for the first part of the
school year in part because of that child.
Wilson
Wilson testified that Lovett had been having parent/student issues which was not
uncommon during COVID. She stated that Lovett had been having issues with parents over
the days preceding days. Wilson stated that “it was a tough time in general to be a teacher,
and I did a lot of checking in on a lot of teachers during that time.” (T165:1-3).
Wilson recalled that when she visited Lovett on February 10, Lovett began venting
about the current situation with the students and teachers and became increasingly upset.
She stated that Lovett claimed to be at a “breaking point and didn’t want to wake up”
anymore. (T156:22-24). 	She testified that Lovett said that she had been sleeping a lot,
found it hard to celebrate her daughter’s birthday; that her husband was worried about her

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04834-21
10
hurting herself and that she burnt her Sparta gear. (T157:1-16). She was also crying at that
point. Wilson said that it “was really, really scary to me…” (T157:25).
Wilson testified that after sitting with her, Wilson testified that she then left Lovett in
the classroom and went to the main office to inform the principal. She stated that she did
not suggest that Lovett accompany her because she wanted to talk to the principal first. She
stated that she then sent an email to the principal and the superintendent describing the
incident. 	(J-2). 	When looking at J-2, Wilson stated that there was a line that could have
been “better articulated.” 	(T162:15). 	She stated that the line about the husband’s fears
could have been rephrased. 	Her only involvement after that was ensuring that Lovett’s
classes were covered while she was out. (T163:5-7).
On cross-examination, Wilson admitted that despite having training at the school
regarding how to handle an employee undergoing an emotional moment, she left Lovett
alone when her training taught her to do so otherwise. 	She admitted she did the same
despite their being a telephone in Lovett’s classroom, that Wilson could have used to call
the principal. Wilson also stated that when she saw Lovett’s husband in the office, she did
not ask him about Lovett’s statements concerning his fears.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
N.J.S.A. 18A:25-6
This matter is before the OAL because McQueeney determined on February 21,
2021, to place Lovett on “administrative leave of absence with pay from all of your
employment duties in the Sparta School District, pending psychiatric clearance based upon
our concerns about your mental health and well-being.” 	(J-4). As a condition to return to
work, McQueeney informed Lovett that she will be able to return to work after conducting a
risk assessment and psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Finkelstein. Id.
Finally, McQueeney advised Lovett that “Should you wish for the Board to pass a
resolution compelling you to go for this examination rather than you going for the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04834-21
11
examination voluntarily, please let me know and I will take the appropriate steps to do so.”
Id.
On February 11, 2021 (J-5), Lovett volunteered to the conditions that McQueeney
had communicated to her. On March 2, 2021, McQueeney received the psychiatric medical
report from Dr. Finkelstein, and based upon the same McQueeney determined that Lovett
would not be returned to work until her psychiatric “reassessment” the week of May 3, 2021.
(J-7). McQueeney would then place Lovett on sick leave until her return to work (J-20).
In making his determination on February 10, 2021 , McQueeney cites N.J.S.A.
18A:25-6, as his authority, which provides in part:
The superintendent of schools may, with the approval of the
president… of the board … employing him, suspend any…
teaching staff member, and shall report such a suspension to
the board … forthwith. 	The board …, each by a recorded roll
call majority vote of its membership, shall take such action for
the restoration or removal of such person as it shall deem
proper.
However, the record reflects that the District did not take a vote to “suspend” Lovett
as required under N.J.S.A. 18A:25-6, and I therefore CONCLUDE that McQueeney’s
decision contained in his letter of February 10, 2021, to place Lovett on leave in accordance
with N.J.S.A. 18A:25-6, is not in conformance with the statutory requirements therein, and
said decision is therefore “patently arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by improper
motives.” Boult v. Bd. of Educ. of Passaic City, 136 N.J.L. 521 (E & A. 1948).
Notwithstanding, my conclusion above, the record reflects that Lovett consented to
McQueeney’s request on February 10, 2021 (J-4), to be put on administrative leave pending
the assessment and psychiatric evaluation, as she “volunteered” to the same in her
response on February 11, 2021 (J-5). While N.J.S.A. 18A:25-6 contains no such consent
provision, Lovett’s Petition of Appeal filed herein, alleges that the District improperly placed
Lovett on psychiatric leave under N.J.S.A. 18A:16-4, and requests a finding that the District’s

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04834-21
12
actions violate N.J.S.A. 18A:16-1 et seq. Moreover, the record reflects that the District and
Lovett respectively argue the applicability of the requirements of N.J.S.A. 18A:16-2 and
N.J.S.A. 18A:16-4, to the District’s decision. 	A review of the District’s compliance with
N.J.S.A. 18A:16-2 and N.J.S.A. 18A:16-4 will follow.
N.J.S.A. 18A:16-2(a) and N.J.S.A. 18A:16-4
N.J.S.A. 18A:16-2(a) states, in relevant part, that “The board may require individual
psychiatric or physical examinations of any employee, whenever, in the judgment of the
board, an employee shows evidence of deviation from normal, physical, or mental health.”
[emphasis supplied]
N.J.S.A. 18A:16-4 sets forth the rights and obligations of the parties in the event of a
finding of deviation from normal health made by the Board under N.J.S.A. 18A:16-2(a) 	,
including the right to continued employment, stating:
If 	the 	result 	of 	any 	such 	examination 	indicates 	mental
abnormality … the employee shall be ineligible for further
service until proof of recovery, satisfactory to the board, is
furnished, but if the employee . . . has tenure, he may be granted
sick leave with compensation as provided by law and shall,
upon satisfactory recovery, . . . be reemployed with the same
tenure 	as 	he 	possessed 	at 	the 	time 	his 	services 	were
discontinued . . . .
The action of a local school board that lies within its discretionary powers may not be
upset unless patently arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by improper motives. Boult
v. Bd. of Educ. of Passaic City, 136 N.J.L. 521 (E. & A. 1948); Kopera v. Bd. of Educ. of
West Orange, 60 N.J. Super. 288 (App. Div. 1960). 	The scope of the Commissioner's
review is extremely narrow, and he may not substitute his judgment for that of those who
made the decision, but rather, can only determine if the local board, and its administration,
had a reasonable basis for their conclusions. 	Bd. of Educ. of Bernards Twp. v. C.M., 96
N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 762.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04834-21
13
I 	CONCLUDE that since 	McQueeney and not the District placed Lovett on
administrative leave, determined that Lovett should undergo psychiatric evaluation, and
thereby utilizing the results of the same to place Lovett on sick leave, the District did not
comply with the requirements N.J.S.A. 18A:16-2 and N.J.S.A. 18A:16-4. Neither N.J.S.A
18A:16-2 or N.J.S.A 18A:16-4, provides an exception to school board approval to have a
school teacher evaluated for mental illness and then place the teacher on sick leave
because of the results of the same.
Notwithstanding my conclusion herein, assuming McQueeney sought the District’s
determination concerning his decisions herein, Lovett does not dispute McQueeney’s initial
decision to have her evaluated by Tri-County or by Dr. Finkelstein, as required by N.J.S.A.
18A:16-2. Lovett maintains that it is the entirety of McQueeney’s actions that were arbitrary,
capricious and unreasonable in maintaining her out of work for three months. In making her
argument, Lovett cites in Bayshore Sewerage Co. v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 122
N.J. Super. 184, 199-200 (Ch. Div. 1973), aff’d 131 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1974), and
Galante v. Bd. of Ed. of the Borough of North Arlington, 2008 WL 2604872, in support of the
same.
The District argues that it acted legally and appropriately under N.J.S.A. 18A:16-2,
when McQueeney placed Lovett on a paid administrative leave, as its decision was neither
arbitrary, nor capricious. 	The District cites Diaz v. Board of Education of the Township of
Mahwah, Bergen County, OAL Docket No. EDU 01751-09, and Cummings v. Board of
Education of the Township of Little Egg Harbor, Ocean County, OAL Docket No. EDU 3912-
17 (2018), in support of the same.
The record reflects, and Lovett does not dispute that on February 11, 2021, she
agreed to McQueeney’s request on February 10, 2021, that she undergo the care
assessment by Tri-County and the psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Finkelstein, which was
performed, and McQueeney would then rely upon when deciding on March 2, 2021, that
Lovett would not be able to return to work until she was “reassessed” to determine her
“fitness” to return to work the week of May 3, 2021.(J-6 and J-7).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04834-21
14
However, a review of the evidence presented herein discloses that whatever,
consent to McQueeney’s decision that Lovett initially made on February 10, 2021, was
withdrawn or at the very least challenged by Lovett, when she wrote to McQueeney on
March 4, 2021 (J-8). 	On said date, Lovett wrote to McQueeney inquiring if McQueeney
would accept a “letter of fitness” for her return to work earlier than the week of May 3. Id.
On March 8, 2021, McQueeney rejected Lovett’s request for an earlier return to work, stating
that he was “hesitant to go against Dr. Finkelstein’s recommendations” (J-9).
The record again reveals Lovett’s challenge of McQueeney’s continued decision to
abide by Dr. Finkelstein’s report, when on March 13, 2021, Lovett submitted a psychiatric
evaluation by Dr. D’Amato, which indicated she was fit to return to work (J-13). However,
McQueeney did not accept the same on March 16, 2021, again relying exclusively on Dr.
Finkelstein’s evaluation. 	(J-14). 	While McQueeney’s response could be viewed as
cautious, there is no record of his or the District’s consideration of her request to return
sooner with medical clearance, other than to default to Dr. Finkelstein’s evaluation.
The record is devoid of McQueeney or the District engaging in any significant
discussion with Lovett or Dr. D’Amato in refusing to accept Dr. D’Amato’s return to work
report until he corrected certain alleged deficiencies. 	Moreover, McQueeney did not
address Lovett’s March 4, 2021 email where she set forth why a continued leave was
unnecessary including but not limited to the vaccination status of herself and her children,
both of whom were now in school as well as her continuing participation in therapy (J-8).
McQueeney’s so called responsive email did not adequately address the situation including
a non-answer to her question about a fitness for work letter from her treating therapist.
McQueeney is not a mental health professional, and it would have been prudent for
him to have sought the input of Dr. Finkelstein in considering Lovett’s request to return to
work on March 4, 2021, and Dr. D’Amato’s initial evaluation. For whatever reason, he chose
to make unilateral decision and use Dr. Finkelstein’s evaluation as a shield to continue
Lovett remaining on sick leave. 	McQueeney’s decision making is highlighted in the very
manner that he decided Lovett could return to work.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04834-21
15
Sometime 	after 	April 	30, 	2021, 	McQueeney 	received 	Dr. 	D’Amato’s 	second
evaluation, and he determined that Lovett was fit to return to work, which Lovett did on May
7, 2021. 	However, I FIND from the record that McQueeney agreed with Dr. D’Amato’s
evaluation only because it was submitted following Dr. Finkelstein’s recommended time
frame for Lovett to remain out of work. I make this finding because the record is lacking any
reason provided by McQueeney for distinguishing between Dr. D’Amato’s second report
from the first report in determining why Lovett was cleared to return. I FIND that the only
reason McQueeney accepted Dr. D’Amato’s second report recommending a return to work
was that it was provided more than the three months recommended by Dr. Finkelstein,
without considering any other factors. Thus, I CONCLUDE this conduct was arbitrary and
to the detriment of Lovett remaining out on sick leave.
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above 	concerning 	McQueeney’s 	actions 	alone, 	I
CONCLUDE that the same was arbitrary as he failed to consider or even address Lovett’s
request on March 4, 202, to return to work and he did not present Dr. D’Amato’s first
evaluation to Dr. Finkelstein or the District for their consideration. I therefore CONCLUDE
that Lovett is entitled to recoup her bank of sick days from March 2, 2021 to April 23, 2021
(J-20).
ORDER
It is ORDERED that Lovett’s Petition of Appeal is granted for the reasons set forth
herein, and she is entitled to recoup her sick days from the District from March 2, 2021
through April 23, 2021.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This 	recommended 	decision 	may 	be 	adopted, 	modified, 	or 	rejected 	by 	the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized to
make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Commissioner of the Department of Education
does not adopt, modify, or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless such time

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04834-21
16
limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final decision in
accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was mailed
to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT 	OF 	EDUCATION, 	ATTN: 	BUREAU 	OF 	CONTROVERSIES 	AND
DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-
0500, marked “Attention: Exceptions.” A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge
and to the other parties.
November 19, 2024
DATE 	JULIO C. MOREJON, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	November 19, 2024
Date E-Mailed to Parties: 	November 19, 2024
JCM/lr

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04834-21
17
WITNESSES
Petitioner
Lara Lovett
Respondent
Patrick McQueeney
Dr. Marisa Wilson.
EXHIBITS
Joint
J-1 	Letter from J. Fisher, M.D., dated January 18, 2021
J-2 	E-Mail from M. Wilson, dated February 10, 2021
J-3 	Tri-County Behavioral Care School District Referral Form Evaluation/Release Form,
dated February 10, 2021
J-4 	Letter from P. McQueeney, dated February 10, 2021
J-5 	E-Mail from L. Lovett, dated February 11, 2021
J-6 	Correspondence from M. Finkelstein, M.D., dated February 23, 2021
J-7 	Letter from P. McQueeney, dated March 2, 2021
J-8 	E-Mail from L. Lovett, dated March 4, 2021
J-9 	E-Mail from P. McQueeney, dated March 8, 2021
J-10 	Therapy 	Resources 	of 	Morris 	County, 	LLC 	Records 	& 	Information 	Release
Authorization, dated March 9, 2021
J-11 	E-Mail from L. Lovett, dated March 10, 2021
J-12 	E-Mail from Miriam Fainsod, dated March 10, 2021
J-13 	Correspondence from Thomas D’Amato, M.D., dated March 13, 2021
J-14 	E-Mail from P. McQueeney, dated March 16, 2021
J-15 	E-Mail from P. McQueeney, dated April 14, 2021
J-16 	E-Mail from L. Lovett, dated April 19, 2021
J-17 	E-Mail from P. McQueeney, dated April 20, 2021

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04834-21
18
J-18 	Letter from P. McQueeney, dated April 30, 2021
J-19 	E-Mail from Thomas D’Amato, M.D., dated April 30, 2021
J-20 	L. Lovett Absence Report for September 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021
J-21 	Sparta Township Board of Education Policy 3,161
J-22 	Sparta Township Board of Education Policy & Regulation 3,432