Franklin Township Education Association, Janice Regan, and Sheila Holland v. Board of Education of the Township of Franklin, Somerset County AND Franklin Township School Support Association v. Board of Education of the Township of Franklin, Somerset County, 2/28/2023, (#54-23)

54-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Franklin Township Education Association,
Janice Regan, and Sheila Holland,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of Franklin Township,
Somerset County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
The petitioner, Franklin Township Education Association (“petitioner” or “Association”) alleged that the
respondent Franklin Township Board of Education (“respondent” or “Board”) improperly refused to offer an
employee health plan that is equivalent to the New Jersey Educators Health Plan (“NJEHP”) mandated under
N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2 et seq. The Association also filed a related Unfair Practice Charge with the Public
Employment Relations Commission (PERC); the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that PERC was the agency
with the predominant interest in that case.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts at issue here, and the matter is ripe for summary
decision; in July 2020, t he New Jersey Legislature enacted P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, which amended the
health insurance benefits statutes for school employees, requiring that employees at schools that do not
participate in the State Employees’ Health Benefits Plan be offered the NJEHP or an equivalent plan; it is
undisputed that the Board has not offered or provided such a plan; and the Board’s argument that the
parties must negotiate regarding the increase in cost prior to the Board offering the plan is without merit, as
the Board must first offer the required NJEHP equivalent plan and then proceed to negotiations over any
increase in net costs. Accordingly, the ALJ granted petitioner’s motion for summary decision and ordered the
Board to offer its employees a NJEHP-equivalent plan. PERC issued a decision agreeing with the ALJ that the
Board is obligated to first offer a NJEHP-equivalent plan and then negotiate regarding any net cost increase.
Upon review, and addressing the issues within the Commissioner’s jurisdiction, the Commissioner, inter alia,
concurred with the ALJ and PERC that the plain language of N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2 obligates the Board to first
offer a plan equivalent to the NJEHP to Association members, before proceeding to negotiations over any
resulting increase in costs. Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL was adopted as the final decision in this
matter. 	The Board was ordered to offer and implement a NJEHP-equivalent health insurance plan for its
employees, as required under N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It has
been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

54-23
OAL Dkt. Nos. EDU 01442-21 and 01448-21
Agency Dkt. Nos. 1-1/21 and 3-1/21 (consolidated)
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Franklin Township Education Association,
Janice Regan, and Sheila Holland,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of Franklin Township,
Somerset County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by the parties pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, petitioner’s reply to
respondent’s exceptions, and the decision of the Public Employment Relations Commission
(PERC) have been reviewed and considered.1
The Franklin Township Education Association (petitioner or Association) is the majority
representative for certain employees of the Franklin Township Board of Education (Board). In
its petition of appeal, the Association alleges that the Board violated N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2 by
refusing to offer its employees a health insurance plan that is equivalent to the New Jersey
Educators Health Plan (NJEHP). Petitioner also filed an Unfair Practice Charge with PERC. The
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that PERC was the agency with the predominant interest.
1 Respondent did not file a reply to petitioner’s exceptions.

2
Following petitioner’s motion for summary decision, the ALJ found that the Board is
obligated to provide a plan equivalent to the NJEHP and that it was undisputed that the Board
has not offered or provided such a plan. The ALJ rejected the Board’s argument that the parties
must negotiate regarding the increase in cost prior to the Board offering the plan, finding that
the Board must offer the plan and then proceed to negotiations over any increase in net costs.
Accordingly, the ALJ granted petitioner’s motion for summary decision.
In its decision, PERC agreed with the ALJ that the Board is obligated to offer a NJEHP-
equivalent plan and then negotiate regarding any net cost increase. PERC amended the Initial
Decision to specify that the Board’s failure to meet its obligations under N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2
simultaneously violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act.
In its exceptions, petitioner agrees with the merits of the ALJ’s decision but requests
that the remedy be modified to make employees whole for the financial loss suffered as a
result of the Board’s refusal to offer the NJEHP plan. Petitioner contends that it sought
summary judgment solely on the issue of the Board’s liability with respect to its failure to offer
the plan and stated in its moving papers that the make-whole remedy would subsequently be
proven.
Upon review, addressing the issues within the Commissioner’s jurisdiction, the
Commissioner concurs with the ALJ and PERC that N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2 obligates the Board to
first offer a plan equivalent to the NJEHP to Association members, and then to proceed to
negotiations over any resulting increase in costs. The plain language of the statute provides
that an NJEHP equivalent plan “shall” be offered. N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2(a)(1). Accordingly, the
Board’s failure to provide such a plan is in violation of the statute. Furthermore, P.L. 2021, c.

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

New Jersey Is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 01442-2021
AND EDU 01448-2021
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP EDUCATION 	AGENCY DKT. NOS. 1-1/21 AND
ASSOCIATION, JANICE REGAN, AND 	3-1/21
SHELIA HOLLAND,
Petitioners,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FRANKLIN
TOWNSHIP, SOMERSET COUNTY,
Respondent,
AND
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP EDUCATION 	PERC DOCKET NO. CO-2021-139
ASSOCIATION,
Petitioner, 	CONSOLIDATED
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FRANKLIN
TOWNSHIP, SOMERSET COUNTY,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
Richard A. Friedman, Esq., for petitioner/respondent, Franklin Township
Education Association, Janice Regan, and Shelia Holland, (Zazzali,
Fagella, Nowak, Kleinbaum & Friedman. P.C., attorneys)
William C. Morlok, Esq., for respondent/petitioner, Board of Education of Franklin
Township, Somerset County, (Parker McCay P.A., attorneys)
RECORD CLOSED: 	October 31, 2022 	DATED: 	November 18, 2022
BEFORE SARAH G. CROWLEY, ALJ:

OAL DKT NOS. EDU 01442-21, EDU 01448-21 AND PERC CO-2018-142
2
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner brought an action against the respondent alleging the respondent
improperly refused to offer a health plan under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-16.2. 	The matter was
transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as a contested case and assigned
to the undersigned. 	On or about January 8, 2021, the petitioner brought an action
against the respondent alleging an Unfair Practice Charge with the Public Employment
Relations Commission (PERC) on behalf of the same Franklin Township Education
Association. PERC issued a complaint on June 28, 2021. The matters were consolidated
by Order, dated September 30, 2022. 	On September 30, 2022, the petitioner filed a
motion for summary decision. 	Opposition was filed by the respondent, Board of
Education on October 10, 2022. Oral argument was conducted via Zoom on October 31,
2022, and the record closed on that date.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On July 1, 2020, the New Jersey Legislature enacted P.L. 2020, Chapter 44, which
amended the health insurance benefits statues for school employees, which provides:
(1) Notwithstanding the provision of any other law, rule or
regulation to the contrary, beginning January 1, 2021 and for
each year thereafter, a board of education as an employer
providing health care benefits coverage for its employees and
their dependent if any, in accordance with P.L. 1979, c. 291
18A:16-12 et seq. shall offer to its employees, and their
dependents 	if 	any, 	the 	equivalent 	of 	the 	New 	Jersey
Educators Plan in the School Employees’ Health Benefits
Program as that plan design is described in section f. of
section 1 of P.L. 2020,c.44, 52:14-17.46.13.
. . . .
(2) the plan under this section shall be offered by the employer
regardless of any collective negotiation agreement between
the employer and its employees in effect on the effective date
[July 1, 2020] of this act, P.L. 2020, c.44, that provides for
enrollment in other plans offered by the employer.

OAL DKT NOS. EDU 01442-21, EDU 01448-21 AND PERC CO-2018-142
3
With regard to employees who commenced employment prior to July 1, 2020,
N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2(b) provides that:
Prior to January 1, 2020, each employer shall provide an
enrollment 	period 	during 	which 	all 	employees 	who
commenced employment prior to the effective date[July1,
2020] of this act shall be required to select affirmatory a plan
provided by the employer. 	If an employee fails to select
affirmatively 	a 	plan 	during 	this 	enrollment 	period, 	the
employer shall enroll the employee, and the employee’s
dependents 	if any, in the equivalent New Jersey Educators
Health Plan offered pursuant to subsection a. of this section
for the year January 1, 2021, until December 31, 2021.
With regard to employees who commence employment on or after July 1, 2020,
N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2c(1) provides that:
Beginning on January 1, 2021, an employee commencing
employment on or after the effective date [July 1, 2020] of this
act but before January 1, 2028, who does not waive coverage,
shall be enrolled by the employer in the equivalent New
Jersey Educators Health Plan, or equivalent Garden State
Health Plan if selected by the employee, as those plans are
offered 	pursuant 	to 	subsection 	a 	of 	this 	section. 	The
employee shall remain enrolled in either the equivalent New
Jersey Educators Health Plan or the equivalent Garden State
Health 	Plan 	selected 	the 	employee 	at 	the 	annual 	open
enrollment for each plan year until December 31, 2027,
provided that he employee during this period may waive
coverage as an employee and select and change the type of
coverage received under the plan following a qualifying life
event, in accordance with the plan regulations. Beginning
January 1, 2028, the employee may select, during open
enrollment period or at such other times or under such
conditions as the employer may provide, any plan offered by
the employer.
In June 2021, the New Jersey legislature amended the forgoing law to provide that
if the provisions of the foregoing result in an increase net cost, the parties “shall
commence negotiations immediacy, unless mutually agreed upon by the employer and
the majority representative to opt to substantially mitigate the finance impact to the
employer as part of the next collective negotiators agreement.” 	It is undisputed that the
respondent, Franklin Township Board of Education has not offered or provided its

OAL DKT NOS. EDU 01442-21, EDU 01448-21 AND PERC CO-2018-142
4
members with a plan equivalent to New Jersey Educator’s Health Plan (“NJEHP”).
Moreover, the parties have commenced negotiations over this issue.
The foregoing facts are undisputed and are thus FOUND as FACT.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The undisputed facts are that petitioners have not been offered a plan equivalent
to NJEHP. 	And although the “net costs” of such a plan have not, nor could they be
determined without such an offering, the parties have commenced negotiations regarding
this issue. 	Notwithstanding the speculative nature of cost increase of such a plan, the
Board has maintained that it does not have to offer the plan until after the negotiations
are completed. 	However, the law provides that if there is an increase in costs that that
parties shall negotiate. 	Moreover, negotiations have been commenced. The law is not
discretionary and does provide an option to providing an equivalent plan. The language
is clear and unambiguous --- an equivalent plan shall be offered; and if an increase in
cost occurs, the parties shall negotiate it.
N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5 provides that summary decision should be rendered “if the
papers and discovery which have been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is
entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Our regulation mirrors R. 4:46-2(c), which provides
that “the judgment or order sought shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party
is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law.”
A determination whether a genuine issue of material fact exists that precludes
summary decision requires the judge to consider whether the competent evidential
materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are
sufficient to permit a rational fact finder to resolve the allegedly disputed issue in favor of
the non-moving party. 	Our courts have long held that “if the opposing party offers . . .
only facts which are immaterial or of an insubstantial nature, a mere scintilla, ‘fanciful

OAL DKT NOS. EDU 01442-21, EDU 01448-21 AND PERC CO-2018-142
5
frivolous, gauzy or merely suspicious,’ he will not be heard to complain if the court grants
summary judgment.” 	Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (citing
Judson v. Peoples Bank and Trust Co., 17 N.J. 67, 75 (1954)).
The “judge’s function is not himself [or herself] to weigh the evidence and
determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Brill, 142 N.J. at 540 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.
Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 212 (1986)). When the evidence “is so one-sided that
one party must prevail as a matter of law,” the trial court should not hesitate to grant
summary judgment. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S. Ct. at 2512, 91 L. Ed. 2d at
214.
The respondent has not presented any material facts that are in dispute in this
matter. The law in question is clear. It mandates the District to offer the plan equivalent
to the NJEHP, and if there is an increase in cost, it mandates the parties to negotiate the
issue relating to increase cost of the plan. Respondent argues that the financial impact
of offering this plan is substantial and the parties need to negotiate the issue prior to
offering it. They submit documentation outlining the potential increase in cost. However,
even assuming that I accept these projections as fact, it does not relieve the District of
the obligation to provide such a plan. 	They must provide the plan and then proceed to
negotiations over such increase in costs.
I therefore CONCLUDE that the petitioner is entitled to a judgement as a matter of
law on the issue involving the obligation of the District to offer provide a plan equivalent
to the NJEHP to its members. I further CONCLUDE that after offering such a plan to its
members, if there is a net cost increase, the parties SHALL negotiate this issue to mitigate
the financial impact to the employer.

OAL DKT NOS. EDU 01442-21, EDU 01448-21 AND PERC CO-2018-142
6
I hereby FILE this initial decision with PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
COMMISSION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified or rejected by the PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION, who/which by law is authorized to make a
final decision on all issues within the scope of its predominant interest. 	If the PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION does not adopt, modify or reject this
decision within forty-five days and unless such time limit is otherwise extended, this
recommended decision on all of the issues within the scope of predominant interest 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 CHAIR OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYMEN RELATIONS COMMISSION, 495 West State Street, P.O. Box
429, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0429, marked “Attention: Exceptions.” A copy of any
exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
Pursuant 	to 	N.J.A.C. 	1:1-17.8, 	upon 	rendering 	its 	final 	decision 	PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION shall forward the record, including this
recommended decision and its final decision, to CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, which
may subsequently render a final decision on any remaining issues and consider any
specific remedies which may be within its grant of authority.

OAL DKT NOS. EDU 01442-21, EDU 01448-21 AND PERC CO-2018-142
7
Upon 	transmitting 	the 	record, 	PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS
COMMISSION shall, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-17.8(c), request an extension to permit the
rendering of a final decision by the CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION within forty-five days
of the predominant-agency decision. If CIVIL SERVICE COMMISION does not render a
final decision within the extended time, this recommended decision on the remaining
issues and remedies shall become the final decision.
November 18, 2022
DATE 	SARAH G. CROWLEY, ALJ
Date Mailed to Agency:
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION:
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION:
Date Mailed to Parties:
SGC/tat