L.G., on behalf of minor child, J.A. v. Board of Education of the Borough of Metuchen, Middlesex County, 4/29/2021, (#97-21)

97-21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
L.G., on behalf of minor child, J.A.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Metuchen,
Middlesex County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner disputed the respondent Board’s finding that her son, J.A., committed an act of harassment,
intimidation or bullying (HIB) against a fellow student at Metuchen High School pursuant to the
Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.2 et seq. After an investigation by the school’s
anti-bullying specialist, the Board determined that J.A. had committed an act of HIB when he called an
African American student the “N-word.” Petitioner claimed that the Board’s determination of HIB was
arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable as it was based upon an investigation that was improperly limited
in scope, and upon the confession of J.A., which petitioner suggests was coerced. The Board contended
that the HIB investigation was properly conducted and that the Board was not arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable in making the determination that J.A.’s conduct constituted HIB.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: an action by a board of education is entitled to a presumption of
correctness unless it is proven to be arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable; under New Jersey’s Anti-
Bullying Bill of Rights Act, “harassment, intimidation, or bullying” is broadly defined as any gesture, any
written, verbal, or physical act, or any electronic communication that is reasonably perceived as
motivated by any actual or perceived distinguishing characteristic, such as race, color, religion, ancestry,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or a mental, physical, or
sensory disability, that takes place on school property and substantially disrupts the orderly operation of
the school; in the instant case, the record reflects that J.A. admitted using a racial epithet and that the
Board’s HIB investigation showed that the epithet was directed at an African American student; J.A.’s
comments and actions were reasonably perceived as being motivated by a distinguishing characteristic;
and the petitioner has failed to prove that the Board acted in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable
manner in determining that J.A.’s behavior constituted HIB. Accordingly, the ALJ ordered that the
petition be dismissed.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the Administrative Law Judge that the Board did not act
in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner in rendering its HIB determination, pursuant to the
Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq. Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the
OAL was adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition was dismissed.
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.

1
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 05388-19
Agency Dkt. No. 41-2/19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
L.G., on behalf of minor child, J.A.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Metuchen,
Middlesex County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions.
In this matter, the Metuchen Board of Education determined that J.A. committed an act of
harassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB) when he called an African American student the “N-word.”
Upon review, the Commissioner agrees with the Administrative Law Judge that the Board did not act in
an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner in rendering its HIB determination, pursuant to the Anti-
Bullying Bill of Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this
matter, and the petition is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
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.
97-21
April 29, 2021
May 4, 2021

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05388-19
AGENCY DKT. NO. 41-2-19
L.G. ON BEHALF OF J.A.,
Petitioners,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
THE BOROUGH OF METUCHEN,
MIDDLESEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
L.G., petitioner, pro se
Jessika Kleen, Esq., for respondents (Machado Law Group, attorneys)
Record Closed: May 1, 2020 Decided: March 15, 2021
BEFORE ELIA A. PELIOS, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, L.G. on behalf of J.A., filed a Petition of Appeal to the Commissioner of
Education, in which they dispute respondent’s finding that J.A. committed an act of
harassment, intimidation or bullying (HIB) pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.2 et seq.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05388-19
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Department of Education transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL), where it was filed on April 22, 2019. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-
1 to -13. Hearings were held on December 10, 2019. The record was left open for parties
to submit closing briefs, and the record closed on May 1, 2020.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
Susan Paredes testified on behalf of the Board of Education. She is employed as
the assistant principal of Metuchen high school. She discussed her education and
professional background. At the time of her testimony she was in her eleventh year as
assistant principal. She oversees student affairs. She is the school’s anti-bullying
specialist she is also the affirmative-action officer and testing coordinator. She is
responsible for investigating HIB and identifying patterns of behavior. She has been
trained in how to conduct investigations. She had three to five training sessions per year
for the first five years that the HIB law was in place and one to two training sessions per
year since then. She is familiar with the current matter.
Paredes investigated student J.A. J.A.'s mother, L.G. had called stating that another
student, R.S., had airdropped a photograph of J.A. to kids in the cafeteria. J.A. was
flexing for the camera. He was very embarrassed by the picture being circulated and he
stayed home. J.A.’s mother wanted an HIB investigation of R.S. Paredes explained that
airdrop is a wireless transmission to nearby devices without using email or text. Paredes
investigated the matter. She started with a phone call with L.G. She then interviewed
J.A. She interviewed members of a PS4 chat group who had received the image initially.
She interviewed kids at the lunch table and kids in a cooking class. She created a report.
(R-1.)
Each interviewed student was called individually. Paredes tried to be general with
her questions to hear what witnesses saw or had to say and she would get more specific
if she needed to. She described her process - she takes as many notes as possible and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05388-19
3
completed as many interviews as possible on the first day. She reviewed her notes (R-3)
and notes not all interviews were done on the same day. She asked R.S. why the picture
was sent. He admitted that he sent the picture. He told her that he did it because he was
angry at J.A. because J.A. called him a “fat ‘N-word’.” Paredes determined the matter of
sending the picture was not an act of HIB and the case against R.S. was closed. Based
upon what she found out Paredes then opened an HIB investigation of J.A. (R-2) for his
use of the “N-word,” noting that R.S. is an African-American student. She made a finding
that J.A. did in fact use the word. J.A. admitted to using the word in the eighth grade. At
the time of the investigation he was in ninth grade. While in eighth grade he attended a
different school in the District.
Paredes explained that the first case, the one against R.S., did not meet the
definition of HIB. It was a code of conduct violation but did not go to a characteristic as
contemplated by the HIB law and policy. She noted that she interviewed J.A. three times.
The first time was as the victim in the first incident. The second time was after she spoke
to R.S. She interviewed five kids who heard J.A. use the word at different times. Once
she concluded the interviews, she called J.A. back in to explain the findings and results.
Other students and R.S. said that J.A. had used the word in fact in ninth grade.
Paredes did not feel that the students seemed rehearsed in their responses to interview.
At that time J.A. changed his story from never using the word to saying it occurred in
eighth grade. Paredes then contacted J.A.’s mother, petitioner L.G. She wrote up a
report and sent the report to the Board of Education. L.G. appealed the matter to the
Board of Education. The Board of Education upheld its decision. L.G. then appealed the
Board of Education decision. Paredes did not ask leading questions of the students she
interviewed. She has been trained in how to avoid doing so. She interviewed students
who J.A. or R.S. indicated to her may have seen the incident.
On cross-examination Paredes was asked why more kids from the cooking class
were not interviewed if that is where the “N-word” was allegedly used. Her response was
that it did not just occur in cooking class. She was asked why student C.S. was
interviewed as C.S. was neither in the cooking class nor at the lunch table. She

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05388-19
4
responded that C.S. is a cousin of R.S. and the name had been given to her. C.S. came
to see her for the interview and told her that he had heard the epithet used.
Paredes had been suspicious of C.S. but C.S. was not the sole determinant. He
had not indicated when he had heard it but indicated that he heard it himself. Student
A.A. was the first interview of the first case, occurring before R.S. was interviewed so
there were no questions about the “N-word” only about the airdropped picture. A.A. was
called back for a second interview. A.A. did hear the word used in eighth grade and ninth
grade but did not say where or when. A.A. is not in the cooking class. K.S. acknowledged
hearing the word but not say where or when. D.C. said that word was thrown around a
lot as a joke.
L.G., the petitioner, testified on her own behalf. She states that she only knows what
J.A. told her - that he only admitted to saying the word after being badgered for fifteen
minutes. She states that J.A. claims he was told by Paredes that others had told him he
said it so that he should just admit it. J.A. tells L.G. that he said that he said the word just
to get out of her office. L.G. believes her son. She believes there's too many holes in the
District’s story. J.A. has no history of problems with any other students. In eighth grade
he was often bullied he was trying to find a group in the ninth grade - just looking for a
group that he could sit with.
J.A. told petitioner that another student, A.W., spoke to Paredes and told her about
group chats where R.S. had used the “N-word.”
Credibility is best described as that quality of testimony or evidence which makes
it worthy of belief. The Supreme Court of New Jersey considered the issue of credibility
in In Re Estate of Perrone, 5 N.J. 514 (1950). The Court pronounced:
Testimony to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a
credible witness but must be credible in itself. It must be such as the
common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable
in the circumstances.
[Ibid. at 522]

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05388-19
5
See also Spagnuolo v. Bonnet, 16 N.J. 546, (1954), State v. Taylor, 38 N.J.
Super. 6 (App. Div.1955).
In order to assess credibility, the witness’ interest in the outcome, motive or bias
should be considered. Furthermore, a trier of fact may reject testimony because it is
inherently incredible, or because it is inconsistent with other testimony or with common
experience, or because it is overborne by other testimony. Congleton v. Pura- Tex Stone
Corp., 53 N.J. Super. 282, 287 (App. Div. 1958).
In the present matter, both witnesses have testified credibly. Paredes’s description
of the events leading up to the investigation of the present mater, and her handling of the
investigation are essentially unchallenged from a factual basis and were detailed clear
and direct. Her testimony is adopted in its entirety and FOUND as FACT.
L.G. also testified credibly. She truthfully testified to what J.A. told her and there is
no reason to doubt that he told her exactly what she reported. Notably J.A. admitted to
L.G. that he had confessed to Paredes as to using the epithet. There is no reason to
disbelieve that he further told his mother that he really had not used the epithet and only
admitted so under duress. Unfortunately, there is also no way to assess the truth of J.A.’s
statement to his mother based solely upon her re-telling of a hearsay statement. While I
FIND, and it is not in dispute, that he did confess to Paredes, and that he did tell L.G. that
he did so only under duress, there is insufficient evidence to make a finding that his
confession was untrue. It is not unusual that a student in trouble may tell one account to
a school authority and a different account to a parent, nor is it unusual or inappropriate
that a parent will believe the account of their child. Nothing is inherently unbelievable, but
the evidence constrains the findings.
I further FIND that Paredes reasonably relied on J.A.’s confession, but that it was
not the sole determinant in reaching her conclusions. She was also informed by the
interviews she conducted with other students and the totality of her investigation
consistent with her training and applicable policies in doing so.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05388-19
6
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
New Jersey enacted the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act to “strengthen the
standards and procedures for preventing, reporting, investigating, and responding to
incidents of harassment, intimidation, and bullying” occurring both on and off of school
grounds. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.1(f). Definitions relative to adoption of harassment and
bullying prevention policies are found in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14, which states in part:
“Harassment, intimidation or bullying” means any gesture, any
written, verbal or physical act, or any electronic
communication, whether it be a single incident or a series of
incidents, that is reasonably perceived as being motivated
either by any actual or perceived characteristic, such as race,
color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual
orientation, gender identity and expression, or a mental,
physical or sensory disability, or by any other distinguishing
characteristic, that takes place on school property, at any
school-sponsored function, on a school bus, or off school
grounds as provided for in section 16 of P.L.2010, c.122
(C.18A:37-15.3), that substantially disrupts or interferes with
the orderly operation of the school or the rights of other
students and that:
(a) a reasonable person should know, under
the circumstances, will have the effect of physically
or emotionally harming a student or damaging the
student’s property, or placing a student in
reasonable fear of physical or emotional harm to
his person or damage to his property;
(b) has the effect of insulting or demeaning any
student or group of students; or
(c) creates a hostile educational environment
for the student by interfering with a student’s
education or by severely or pervasively causing
physical or emotional harm to the student.
It has not been placed in dispute whether the use of the “N-Word” by one student
against another constitutes HIB, within the meaning of the Act, as HIB is defined at
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14. In this case, the record reflects that J.A. admitted using the epithet
and that Paredes was convinced by her interviews with several other students that J.A.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05388-19
7
had directed it at R.S. I CONCLUDE that those comments and actions are reasonably
perceived to be motivated by the distinguishing characteristic of R.S being an
African-American student. In K.L. v. Evesham Twp. Bd. of Ed. 423 N.J. Super. 337 the
Appellate Division stated that the definition of bullying does not include harmful or
demeaning conduct motivated by other reason, for example a dispute about relationships
or personal belongings, or aggressive conduct without identifiable motivation. The fact
that R.S. felt angered by this action so as to transmit the photo by airdrop demonstrates
that the conduct had an effect of insulting or demeaning R.S. Therefore, I CONCLUDE
that J.A.’s comments constitute a violation of HIB.
Respondent urges this tribunal to conclude that the Board was not arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable in its determination that the HIB investigation was conducted
properly and that J.A.’s conduct did constitute HIB. Therefore, the Petition of Appeal
should be dismissed. Petitioner asserts that the Board limited the scope of its
investigation and essentially coerced a confession out of J.A. and the Board’s decision
was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.
The Commissioner of Education will not overturn the decision of a local board in
the absence of a finding that the action below was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.
T.B.M. v. Moorestown Bd. of Educ., EDU 2780-07, Initial Decision (February 6, 2008)
(citing Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965),
aff’d, 46 N.J. 581(1966)), adopted, Comm’r (April 7, 2008),
<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>. Further, the Commissioner will not substitute
his judgment for that of the board of education, whose exercise of its discretion may not
be disturbed unless shown to be “patently arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by
improper motives.” Kopera v. W. Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App. Div.
1960). New Jersey courts have held that “[w]here there is room for two opinions, action
is not arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even
though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached.” Bayshore
Sewage Co. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199–200 (Ch. Div. 1973), aff’d,
131 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1974). Thus, in order to prevail, the petitioner must
demonstrate that the Board acted in bad faith, or in utter disregard of the circumstances

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05388-19
8
before it. T.B.M., EDU 2780-07, Initial Decision (February 6, 2008),
<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>; see W.C.L. and A.L. ex rel L.L. v. Tenafly Bd.
of Educ., OAL Dkt. No. EDU 3223-12 (2013) (The petitioner challenged the school board’s
decision that a student committed an act of HIB. The administrative law judge, (ALJ)
found that the Board’s actions were consistent with the letter and spirit of the law and
were not taken in bad faith or in disregard of the circumstances. The ALJ concluded that
the petitioner failed to establish that the Board’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable. The Commissioner affirmed the ALJ’s decision to dismiss the petition of
appeal.); J.M.C. ex rel A.C. v. E. Brunswick Bd. of Educ., OAL Dkt. No. EDU 4144-12
(2013) (The petitioner challenged the Board’s determination that the actions of the
petitioner’s son constituted HIB. The Board found that the student called another student
“gay” and said he “danced like a girl.” The demeaning remarks constituted HIB.). In both
cases, the petitioners failed to satisfy their burden to show that the Board’s actions were
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
I have carefully reviewed the record. Petitioner has presented no credible
evidence that the Board acted in an arbitrary manner. As I have previously concluded
that J.A.’s comments and actions are reasonably perceived to be motivated by the
distinguishing characteristic of R.S. being African-American, I CONCLUDE that petitioner
has not met the burden of proof that the Board acted in an arbitrary manner in concluding
that J.A.’s conduct constituted harassment, intimidation or bullying under the New Jersey
Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act. Paredes could have interviewed more students. Perhaps
some of them would have confirmed seeing the incident. Others may not have seen the
incident in question. The record reflects that Paredes interviewed a substantial number
of students and at the conclusion felt comfortable determining that the alleged conduct
had in fact occurred. Merely suggesting that more witnesses could have been interviewed
and that such interviews could have possibly revealed evidence leading to a different
conclusion is not sufficient to deem the action arbitrary, especially when petitioner has
only alleged the possibility that other interviews could have gone differently and not
presented any evidence or testimony showing that it would have.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05388-19
9
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, I ORDER that the petition be DISMISSED.
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 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.
March 15, 2021
DATE ELIA A. PELIOS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: March 15, 2021 (emailed)
Date Mailed to Parties:
EAP/mel

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05388-19
10
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For Petitioner:
L.G.
For Respondent:
Susan Paredes
EXHIBITS
For Petitioner:
None
For Respondent:
R-1 Report by Susan Paredes
R-2 HIB Investigation
R-3 Investigation Notes
R-4 October 22, 2018 Letter to Parent regarding HIB
R-5 November 13, 2018 Parent HIB appeal to Board
R-6 November 27, 2018 Parent HIB Appeal to Board
R-7 December 17, 2018 Board Determination
R-8 February 8, 2019 Petition of Appeal
R-9 April 11, 2019 Answer to Petition of Appeal