Willingboro Education Association and Sabrina Austin v. Board of Education of the Township of Willingboro, Burlington County, 10/25/1954, (#398-24)

398-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Willingboro Education Association, individually and on
behalf of member Sabrina Austin,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Willingboro, Burlington County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner, a tenured teacher employed since 2004 by the Willingboro Board of Education (Board or
respondent), asserted that the respondent abolished her position as Reading Specialist, created the
substantially similar position of Literary Learning Specialist (LLS), and failed to appoint the petitioner to the
newly created position in violation of her tenure and seniority rights. 	Petitioner holds a Teacher of the
Handicapped certificate and earned a Master’s degree in Curriculum and Instruction with an emphasis in
Reading as well as a Master’s degree in Special Education. The Board hired a non-tenured teacher for the
LLS position, transferring petitioner to the position of Special Education Pre-K teacher—a transfer that did
not result in a reduction of petitioner’s salary or benefits. The respondent denied violating the petitioner’s
rights, contending that she was appropriately transferred when her position was abolished. Respondent
further argued that petitioner is not qualified for the LLS position because she does not hold the necessary
certifications. The parties filed cross motions for summary decision.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts at issue in this case and the matter is ripe for
summary decision; the Board did not violate petitioner’s tenure or seniority rights when it abolished the
Reading Specialist position, declined to hire her for the substantially similar LLS position, and transferred
her to a position within her certification that did not result in any reduction of her salary or benefits;
petitioner does not meet the eligibility requirements for the LLS position, as she does not have a Reading
Specialist, Teacher of Reading, or Teacher of Supplemental Reading and Math certificate; further, petitioner
failed to present evidence that the Board acted in bad faith or for an unlawful purpose. Accordingly, the
ALJ granted the Board’s cross-motion for summary decision and dismissed the petition.
Upon review, the Commissioner, inter alia, rejected the ALJ’s findings that the LLS position required dual
certification, and that petitioner was not qualified for the position. However, the Commissioner noted that
school boards have the managerial prerogative to transfer teaching staff members pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:25-1. Accordingly, the Commissioner adopted the Initial Decision of the OAL as modified and dismissed
the petition.
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.

398-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 08364-23
Agency Dkt. No. 210-8/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Willingboro Education Association, individually
and on behalf of member Sabrina Austin,
Petitioner,
v.
Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Township 	of
Willingboro, Burlington County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
and the exceptions filed by petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, have been reviewed and
considered. 	Respondent, Board of Education of the Township of Willingboro (Board), did not
reply to petitioner’s exceptions.
Petitioner, a tenured teacher who holds a Teacher of the Handicapped certificate, began
working for the Board in 2004.1 She earned a Master’s degree in Curriculum and Instruction with
an emphasis in Reading as well as a Master’s degree in Special Education. During the 2021-2022
and 2022-2023 school years, she worked as a Reading Specialist. 	In April 2023, the Board
1 	More accurately, “Teacher of the Handicapped” is an endorsement issued with an instructional
certificate. See, e.g., Melnyk v. Bd. of Educ. of Delsea Reg’l High Sch. Dist., 241 N.J. 31, 36 (2020). An
“instructional certificate” is the certificate category that permits an individual to teach in a classroom
setting. N.J.A.C. 6A:9-2.1. An “endorsement” is an authorization allowing a certificate holder to teach
one or more specific subject areas or to serve in one or more specific teaching staff roles. Ibid.

2
abolished the Reading Specialist position effective June 30, 2023, along with ten other positions.
The Board then created a new position, Literacy Learning Specialist (LLS), which petitioner
applied for but did not obtain. The Board hired a non-tenured teacher for the LLS position and
transferred petitioner to a different position, Special Education Pre-K teacher, effective
September 1, 2023. The transfer did not result in a reduction of petitioner’s salary or benefits,
and she has remained continuously employed with the district. However, petitioner alleges that
the Board violated her tenure and seniority rights when it hired a non-tenured teacher for the
LLS position and bypassed her. She asserts that she was qualified for the LLS position, which is
substantially similar to her prior position of Reading Specialist.
The parties cross-moved for summary decision. 	At oral argument on July 15, 2024, it
appears that the ALJ sought clarification regarding the certification requirements for the LLS
position, which resulted in the parties’ submission of additional information. 	The Board
submitted a certification dated July 22, 2024, from Dr. Malcolm X. Outlaw, Superintendent,
stating that the LLS job description stipulated to in the record contained a typographical error.
Outlaw’s certification explains that the job description incorrectly stated that candidates must
possess a “New Jersey Department of Education Permanent Teacher’s Certificate,” a “New Jersey
Special Education Teaching Certificate and/or Reading Specialists Certificate, Teacher of Reading,
or Teacher of Supplemental Reading and Math Certificate.” According to Outlaw, the LLS position
“requires dual certification, therefore possession of a New Jersey Special Education Teaching
Certificate and an additional Certification is required,” and because petitioner only possesses a
Teacher of the Handicapped certificate, she is not qualified for the LLS position.

3
In response, petitioner submitted a certification also dated July 22, 2024, from Nadine
Tribbett, Interim Superintendent, which was filed on behalf of the Board in a related PERC matter.
There, Tribbett certified that the LLS job description was accurate and that candidates for the
position must possess a “New Jersey Department of Education Permanent Teacher’s Certificate,”
a “New Jersey Special Education Teaching Certificate and/or Reading Specialists Certificate,
Teacher of Reading, or Teacher of Supplemental Reading and Math Certificate.” According to
Tribbett, petitioner is not qualified for the LLS position because she “does not possess a New
Jersey Department of Education Permanent Teacher’s Certificate.”2
Relying primarily upon Carpenito v. Board of Education of the Borough of Rumson, 322
N.J. Super. 522, 529 (App. Div. 1999), the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the
Board did not violate petitioner’s tenure or seniority rights when it abolished the Reading
Specialist position, declined to hire her for the substantially similar LLS position, and transferred
her to a position within her certification that did not result in any reduction of her salary or
benefits. Citing Outlaw’s certification, the ALJ further concluded that petitioner does not meet
the eligibility requirements for the LLS position, as she does not have a Reading Specialist,
Teacher of Reading, or Teacher of Supplemental Reading and Math certificate. 	The ALJ also
concluded that petitioner failed to present evidence that the Board acted in bad faith or for an
unlawful purpose. 	Thus, the ALJ granted the Board’s cross-motion for summary decision and
dismissed the petition.
2 Petitioner disputes this. A “standard certificate” is a permanent certificate issued to a person who has
met all certification requirements. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:9-3.1. 	“Provisional” and “emergency” certificates are
temporary. Ibid.

4
Petitioner takes exception to the ALJ’s finding that candidates for the LLS position must
hold dual certification—i.e., a Teacher of the Handicapped certificate and a Reading Specialist,
Teacher of Reading, or Teacher of Supplemental Reading and Math certificate—to qualify. She
notes that the Board did not previously allege a typographical error in the LLS job description.
She points out that Tribbett’s certification, which is not mentioned in the ALJ’s Initial Decision,
makes no reference to a typographical error in the LLS job description and confusingly claims that
petitioner is not permanently certified as a teacher. She contends that the Board’s newly raised
argument that she was not qualified further supports the conclusion that she was singled out for
a transfer on a prohibited basis. Along those lines, petitioner also takes exception to the ALJ’s
conclusion that she failed to prove that she was qualified for the LLS position and failed to prove
that the Board acted in bad faith, or arbitrarily or capriciously, when it bypassed her for the
position.
Teaching staff members who have acquired tenure “shall not be dismissed or reduced in
compensation except for inefficiency, incapacity, or conduct unbecoming such a teaching staff
member or other just cause . . . .” 	N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5. 	However, “[a] school board has the
managerial prerogative to transfer teaching staff members by a majority vote of the board.”
N.J.S.A. 18A:25-1. “Seniority is a by-product of tenure and comes into play only if tenure rights
are reduced by way of dismissal or reduction in tangible employment benefits.” Carpenito, 322
N.J. Super. at 531. “[A]bsent allegations of bad faith or unlawful purpose, a tenured teacher’s
seniority rights are not triggered when a school board abolishes the teacher’s position and
assigns the teacher to teach different subjects within his or her certification without reducing the

5
teacher’s salary or other employment benefit” so long as “the teacher is not singled out for the
transfer on a prohibited basis.” Id. at 528-29.
Upon review, the Commissioner adopts the ALJ’s Initial Decision, as modified. 	The
Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that Board did not violate petitioner’s tenure or seniority
rights when it abolished the Reading Specialist position, declined to hire her for the LLS position,
and transferred her to a position within the scope of her certification that did not result in any
reduction of her salary or benefits. Like the appellant in Carpenito, petitioner has not suffered a
loss of employment. The Board was within its rights to transfer her to a different position, so
long as it did not reduce her salary or benefits. 	Petitioner admits that she has remained
continuously employed by the district and her salary and benefits have not decreased. 	The
Commissioner also concurs with the ALJ that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Board
acted in bad faith or for an unlawful purpose. The record reflects that the Board eliminated ten
other positions when it abolished the Reading Specialist position. Thus, the Board’s apparent
reorganization did not solely affect petitioner, and the evidence fails to establish that she was
singled out for a transfer on a prohibited basis.
However, the Commissioner rejects the ALJ’s finding that the LLS position requires dual
certification, and that petitioner was not qualified for the LLS position. As petitioner explains in
her exceptions, the current record contains conflicting evidence regarding the certification
requirements for the LLS position. Tribbett’s certification—which does not appear to have been
considered by the ALJ—makes no reference to a typographical error and recites the certificate
requirements for the LLS position exactly as they appear in the job description. Furthermore,
Tribbett’s certification and Outlaw’s certification are both dated July 22, 2024, yet proffer two

6
different reasons as to why petitioner is not qualified. In any event, the Commissioner holds that
it is unnecessary to make findings regarding whether the LLS position requires dual certification,
or whether petitioner was qualified for the LLS position, because petitioner’s tenure and seniority
rights were not violated by the Board. Although she may prefer the LLS position over a Pre-K
position, an employee’s desires for a particular position cannot “subvert a school board’s
managerial authority to lawfully assign and transfer its staff within the scope of their certification,
absent disciplinary reasons or bad faith.” Carpenito, 322 N.J. Super. at 534.
Additionally, the Commissioner rejects the ALJ’s conclusion that the Reading Specialist
and LLS positions are substantially similar because the ALJ did not render any findings regarding
the duties of either position, whether they overlap, or whether they differ. 	Moreover, since
petitioner’s tenure and seniority rights were not violated, the Commissioner holds that it is
unnecessary to determine whether the Reading Specialist and LLS positions are substantially
similar and, therefore, makes no findings on that issue. 	This matter is distinguishable from
Dennery v. Board of Education of Passaic County Regional High School District #1, 131 N.J. 626
(1993), where the Court analyzed whether the terminated employee’s abolished position was
substantially similar to a newly created position she sought. There, the employee’s termination
triggered the protections afforded by her tenure and seniority rights. See Dennery, 131 N.J. at
639-40 (holding that “[w]hen the duties of the position in which a teaching-staff member has
acquired tenure are substantially identical to those of the position that the person seeks, a local
school board may not sidestep an educator’s tenure rights by simply renaming the position or
taking on additional meaningless requirements” but “[i]f a newly-created position is similar to a
tenure holder’s abolished position but also requires additional duties or different responsibilities,

7
then the newly-created position is not considered to be substantially similar to the former
position”). 	In contrast, here, petitioner was not terminated and did not suffer a reduction in
salary or compensation. Therefore, the “substantially similar” analysis is unnecessary.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted, as modified, the Board’s motion for summary
decision is granted, and the petition of appeal is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.3
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	October 25, 2024
Date of Mailing: 	October 28, 2024
3 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
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08364-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 210-8/23
WILLINGBORO EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF MEMBER
SABRINA AUSTIN,
Petitioner,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF WILLINGBORO,
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Respondent.
Amy L. Gillette, Esq., for petitioner (Zeller & Wieliczko, LLP, attorneys)
Patrick Carrigg, Esq., for respondent (Lenox, Socey, Formidoni, Giordano, Lang,
Carrigg & Casey, LLC, attorneys)
Record Closed: July 29, 2024 	Decided: September 12, 2024
BEFORE NICOLE T. MINUTOLI, ALJ:
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08364-23
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The petitioner, Sabrina Austin (Austin or petitioner), a tenured teacher employed
by the respondent, Township of Willingboro Board of Education (respondent), asserts that
the respondent abolished her position, created a substantially similar and newly titled
position, and failed to appoint the petitioner to the newly created position in violation of
her tenure and seniority rights. The respondent denies violating the petitioner’s tenure or
seniority rights, contending that after the petitioner’s position was abolished, she was
appropriately transferred with no reduction in salary or benefits. 	Additionally, the
respondent argues that the petitioner is not qualified for the Literacy Learning Specialist
position because she does not hold the necessary certifications.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 2, 2023, Austin filed a petition with the Department of Education, Office
of Controversies and Disputes (DOE), alleging that the respondent violated her tenure
and seniority rights by bypassing her for the newly created Literacy Learning Specialist
position. 	The DOE transmitted this matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
where it was filed on August 29, 2023, for determination as a contested case. 	N.J.S.A.
52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13. 	A prehearing conference was held on
November 11, 2023; however, the respondent failed to appear. The parties appeared for
prehearing conferences on December 11, 2023, and January 23, 2024. On April 22, 2024,
the parties filed individual motions for summary decision. On May 6, 2024, the respondent
filed a letter brief responding to the petitioner’s motion for summary decision. On June 7,
2024, the parties appeared via Zoom for an oral argument on the motion. 	On July 23,
2024, the respondent submitted supplemental documentation; on July 29, 2024, the
petitioner also submitted supplemental documentation. 	Upon receipt of all further
submissions, the record closed on July 29, 2024.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08364-23
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
The parties submitted a Joint Stipulation of Facts and Joint Exhibits. Based upon
a review of the documentary evidence presented, I FIND the following undisputed
FACTS:
The petitioner began employment with the respondent in April 2004. 	Petitioner
holds a Special Education Teacher of the Handicapped Certification. 	Petitioner has a
master’s degree in curriculum and instruction with an emphasis in reading, a master’s
degree in special education, and is certified in the Wilson Reading Program. 	She
obtained tenure with the respondent under her special education certification. 	Joint
Stipulation of Facts and Exhibits (March 8, 2024) (Joint Stip) at 1.
During the 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 school years, the petitioner held the
position of Reading Specialist. This position integrated all reading instructional programs.
Ibid.
On or about April 24, 2023, the respondent abolished the petitioner’s Reading
Specialist position as of June 30, 2023. Ibid.
The petitioner was directed to apply for and interview for the newly created and
substantially similar position of Literacy Learning Specialist. 	Joint Stip at 2. 	To be
qualified for this position, the candidate must hold dual certification—a New Jersey
Special Education Teaching Certificate and a Reading Specialist Certificate, Teacher of
Reading 	Certificate, 	or 	Teacher 	of 	Supplemental 	Reading 	and 	Math 	Certificate.
Respondent’s July 23, 2024, Letter Br. in opposition of motion for summary decision,
Certification of Dr. Malcolm X. Outlaw (Outlaw Cert.) at ¶ 4.
On June 22, 2023, the petitioner received a letter notifying her of the transfer from
her current position as a Reading Specialist at the Country Club Administrative Building
to the role of Special Education Pre-K teacher at J. Cresswell Stuart Early Childhood
Development Center (ECDC), effective September 1, 2023. Joint Stip at 2.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08364-23
4
Petitioner’s transfer did not result in any change in salary or benefits, and she has
remained continuously employed with the respondent. Ibid.
The respondent hired a non-tenured staff member subjected to a reduction in force
to the newly created Literacy Learning Specialist position. Ibid.
Under the Willingboro Educational Association Collective Bargaining Agreement
Article XII, section D, 1–2, the petitioner met with Ca’Meshia L. Mitchell, director of Human
Resources, to discuss the involuntary transfer on Monday, June 26, 2023. 	Ms. Mitchell
told the petitioner she was new to the director of Human Resources position and following
directives. 	The petitioner received no further information regarding why she was not
entitled to the newly entitled position. Ibid.
On July 10, 2023, the Board approved the petitioner’s transfer from Pre-K–K
Teacher at ECDC to Special Education Science Teacher at Memorial Middle School,
effective September 1, 2023. Ibid.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Summary decision may be granted when “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.” N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). The rule further provides that an adverse party must respond
by affidavit setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue which can
only be determined at an evidentiary hearing. 	Ibid. 	The OAL rule is modeled on New
Jersey Court Rule 4:46-2. 	The New Jersey Supreme Court has explained that when
deciding a motion for summary judgment under R. 4:46-2,
a determination whether there exists a “genuine issue” of
material fact that precludes summary judgment requires the
motion 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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08364-23
5
factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the
non-moving party.
[Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540
(1995).]
Accordingly, the undisputed facts will determine whether the petitioner has met her
burden of proving that the respondent’s decision to bypass her for the Literary Learning
Specialist 	position 	violated 	her 	tenure 	rights 	and 	was 	arbitrary, 	unreasonable, 	or
capricious. 	The petitioner has the burden of proving a tenure right. 	Canfield v. Bd. of
Educ. of Pine Hill, 51 N.J. 400 (1968).
According to N.J.S.A. 18A:28-1 to -18, tenure laws define the conditions under
which teaching staff members are entitled to job security. Tenure has been described as
a “statutory right” imposed upon a teaching staff member’s contractual employment
status. Zimmerman v. Newark Bd. of Educ., 38 N.J. 65, 72 (1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S.
956 (1963). 	The tenure laws create exceptions to the protections afforded to tenured
teaching staff members. 	A school board has the managerial prerogative to transfer
teaching staff members by a majority vote of the board. N.J.S.A. 18A:25-1.
A transfer refers to a school board’s right to assign a teacher to a position within
their certification scope. 	A tenured teacher may be involuntarily transferred to another
position within his or her certification where no loss of salary or other reduction in
employment is suffered, and the teacher is not singled out for the transfer on a prohibited
basis. Carpenito v. Rumson Bd. of Educ., 322 N.J. Super. 522, 529 (App. Div. 1999). In
Carpenito, a tenured teacher was transferred after his position was eliminated, but he did
not suffer any pay discrepancy or loss of benefits. Several years later, when his previous
position reopened, he applied for it, but it was given to a non-tenured teacher. He alleged
that the school acted improperly and violated his seniority rights. Id. at 526. However, the
court agreed with the board, ruling that his seniority rights were not violated when the
board transferred its tenured staff to other positions within their certification. 	Id. at 534.
The Appellate Division agreed that the board could transfer a teaching staff member
between appropriate assignments if the transfer aligns with the teacher’s instructional

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08364-23
6
certificate and subject-area endorsements unless allegations of bad faith or unlawful
purpose exist. Id. at 533–34.
When a school board deems it necessary to eliminate a position, “seniority” is a
right afforded to tenured employees entitling the employee to either continue in an existing
job opening based on their longevity of employment or be placed on an eligible list for
reemployment when a new position becomes available. 	Id. at 531. 	Seniority is a by-
product of tenure and comes into play only if tenure rights are reduced by way of dismissal
or reduction in tangible employment benefits. Ibid.
The petitioner claims that her seniority and tenure rights were violated when a non-
tenured teacher was appointed to the Literacy Learning Specialist position instead of her,
despite her being qualified for the position and its substantial similarity to a position she
previously held. The petitioner alleges that the respondent bypassed her tenure rights by
renaming the position, appointing a non-tenured employee, and moving her to different
positions.
On the other hand, the respondent argues that it had the authority to transfer
teaching staff members and that the petitioner was appropriately transferred. 	It claims
that her seniority and tenure rights were not violated, so she had no entitlement to the
Literacy Learning Specialist position.
First, like the petitioner in Carpenito, the petitioner was neither dismissed, nor was
her salary reduced due to the respondent’s decision to assign her to a different position;
she suffered no loss of employment. Her employment was continued within the scope of
her certification. Her seniority relative to non-tenured or tenured employees is irrelevant.
Seniority rights are not triggered when a school board merely transfers or assigns a
tenured teaching staff member to another position within the teacher’s appropriate
certification.
Second, the evidence presented establishes that the petitioner is not qualified for
the Literacy Learning Specialist position. 	She does not possess a Reading Specialist

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08364-23
7
Certificate, a Teacher of Reading Certificate, or a Teacher of Supplemental Reading and
Math Certificate—a requirement for the position.
Last, the petitioner did not present evidence that the respondent’s actions were
motivated by bad faith or an unlawful purpose.
Based on the above, I CONCLUDE that the respondent’s action in abolishing the
petitioner’s Reading Specialist position and transferring her to a position within her
certification did not violate the petitioner’s tenure or seniority rights and that it was not
arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious.
I further CONCLUDE that the petitioner has failed to prove, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that she was qualified for and entitled to the Literary Learning Specialist
position and that the respondent acted in bad faith or was arbitrary and capricious in
bypassing her for the position.
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that the petitioner’s
motion for summary decision is DENIED. I further ORDER that the respondent’s motion
for summary decision is GRANTED, and the petitioner’s appeal is DISMISSED.
I hereby FILE this Initial Decision with the ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the ACTING
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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08364-23
8
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed 	to 	the 	parties, 	any 	party 	may 	file 	written 	exceptions 	with 	the 	ACTING
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.
September 12, 2024 	___________________________
DATE 	NICOLE T. MINUTOLI, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
NTM/dw

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08364-23
9
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For petitioner:
None
For respondent:
None
Exhibits
Joint:
Stipulated Facts and Exhibits
For petitioner:
April 22, 2024, Motion for Summary Decision
July 29, 2024, letter
For respondent:
May 6, 2024, Opposition to Summary Decision
July 23, 2024, letter attaching the July 22, 2024, certification of Dr. Malcolm X.
Outlaw