Maria Genao-Ramirez v. New Jersey Department of Education, Office of School Bus Safety, 6/25/26 (#224-26)

224-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 01156-26
Agency Dkt. No. 438-12/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Maria Genao-Ramirez,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education, Office of School Bus
Safety,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) have been
reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that petitioner violated
N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28 when she failed to conduct a visual inspection of her school bus at the end of her
transportation route and, as a result, a child remained on board at the end of the route.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter and the petition of appeal
is dismissed. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29(a), petitioner’s “S” endorsement shall be suspended for six months
from the date of this decision. Respondent is directed to notify the Motor Vehicle Commission of its obligation
to suspend petitioner’s “S” endorsement, and to notify petitioner’s employer that she is ineligible during the
period of suspension for continued employment as a school bus driver.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	June 25, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	June 25, 2026
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
DISMISSAL
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01115-26
AGENCY DKT. NO. 438-12/25
MARIA GENAO-RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, OFFICE OF SCHOOL BUS
SAFETY,
Respondent.
________________________________________
Maria Genao-Ramirez, petitioner, appearing pro se
Luke D. Hertzel-Lagonikos, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent New
Jersey Department of Education, Office of School Bus Safety (Jennifer
Davenport, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
Record Closed: May 12, 2026 Decided: May 19, 2026
BEFORE JOHN K. MALONEY, ALJ:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01115-26
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This decision addresses a motion to dismiss under N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.3(a) and
R. 4:6-2(e) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Petitioner Maria
Genao-Ramirez, a school bus driver, left a child behind on the bus at the end of her
route after failing to make a visual inspection of the bus. Must Genao-Ramirez’s school
bus endorsement be suspended? Yes. When a school bus driver is found to have left
a student on a school bus, the driver’s school bus endorsement must be suspended for
six months for a first offense. N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29(a).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 26, 2025, respondent Department of Education, Office of School
Bus Safety (OSBS) notified Genao-Ramirez that it was suspending her school bus “S”
endorsement for six months because it determined that she had left a child on her bus.
On December 4, 2025, Genao-Ramirez filed a Petition of Appeal with the
Department of Education, Office of Controversies and Disputes. On January 19, 2026,
the OSBS filed a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer. The Office of Controversies and
Disputes transmitted the case to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where on
January 20, 2026, it was filed under the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-
1 to -15, and the act establishing the OAL, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23, for a hearing under
the Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6.
On April 7, 2026, I held a telephone conference with the parties, during which
petitioner acknowledged receipt of the OSBS’s motion to dismiss and indicated her
intent to submit a response. Genao-Ramirez was given until May 8, 2026, to submit her
response. To date, petitioner has not filed a response to the motion.
On May 12, 2026, I closed the record, and the information provided as of that
date was considered for this decision.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01115-26
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the evidence before me, I FIND the following as FACT:
1. On November 10, 2025, Genao-Ramirez was a school bus driver for Don
Transit Inc. and dropped off students at the FDR Preschool.
2. Around 11:20 a.m. on that date, a student was found in the parking lot
outside of the bus previously driven by petitioner.
3. When questioned that day, Genao-Ramirez stated that she asked the
aide, who had been on the bus with Genao-Ramirez, if she had checked
the bus, and the aide told her that there was no one on the bus.
4. In her Petition of Appeal, Genao-Ramirez stated that “[t]he alleged
incident was unintentional and isolated.” She further wrote, “[t]his is my
first and only incident of this nature in my professional career,” and
asserted that it “was an isolated incident and . . . will not happen again.”
5. Petitioner’s written statements corroborate the incident report’s finding that
she did not inspect the bus herself as required by statute but instead relied
upon the aide’s statement that no one was on the bus.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Motion-to-Dismiss Standard
In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to advance a cause of action that could
entitle a petitioner to any relief, N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10 permits the Commissioner of
Education to dismiss a petition on the grounds that the petitioner failed to advance a
cause of action. The standard by which to decide a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim in an administrative matter is the same as that governing a motion in Superior
Court under R. 4:6-2(e). See Sloan ex rel. Sloan v. Klagholtz, 342 N.J. Super. 385,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01115-26
4
393−94 (App. Div. 2001). An appeal can be dismissed for failure to state a claim “if it
fails to articulate a legal basis entitling [a petitioner] to relief.” Hoffman v. Hampshire
Labs, Inc., 405 N.J. Super. 105, 112 (App. Div. 2009). Thus, if a petition states no basis
for legal relief and discovery would not provide one, dismissal is the proper remedy.
Banco Popular N. Am. v. Gandi, 184 N.J. 161, 166 (2005).
Genao-Ramirez’s Suspension for Failure to Visually Inspect the Bus
N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28 requires that “[a] school bus driver shall visually inspect the
school bus to which he is assigned at the end of the transportation route to determine
that no pupil has been left on the bus.” Emphasis added. N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29 informs
that “[i]n the event, after notice and opportunity to be heard, a school bus driver is found
to have left a pupil on the school bus at the end of his route, his school bus
endorsement shall be (a) suspended for six months, for a first offense.” N.J.S.A.
18A:39-29 provides Genao-Ramirez the opportunity to challenge the allegation against
her.
Petitioner does not dispute the accuracy of the Office of School Bus Safety’s
determination that on November 10, 2025, while driving a school bus, she failed to
visually inspect the bus and a child was left behind on her bus. In fact, in multiple
documents, some of which she authored, Genao-Ramirez admits that she failed to
conduct the required visual inspection.
Rather than challenging the OSBS’s finding of a failure to visually inspect,
Genao-Ramirez admits the failure but asserts that the failure was unintentional and an
isolated event. She further pleads that financial, personal, and professional hardship
would result from a suspension of her school bus driving “S” endorsement. In lieu of a
suspension, petitioner requests that she be given additional training and safety-
education courses to “ensure that this type of incident does not occur again.” The
penalty enumerated in N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29 is statutorily mandated and nondiscretionary.
A first violation of that statute compels a six-month suspension of the bus driver’s “S”
endorsement.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01115-26
5
Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that Genao-Ramirez failed to conduct the statutorily
required visual inspection of the school bus she was driving on November 10, 2025, which
resulted in a child being left behind on that bus. Since N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29(a) does not
provide for consideration of any mitigating factors, I further CONCLUDE that the
violation of her duty to visually inspect her assigned bus at the end of her transportation route
as required in N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28 necessitates the imposition of a six-month suspension of
her school bus endorsement as mandated by N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29(a). Lastly, I CONCLUDE
that, because Genao-Ramirez’s petition and entreaties provide no basis for legal relief,
dismissal is the appropriate remedy. See Banco Popular, 184 N.J. at 166.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, I ORDER that Genao-Ramirez’s school bus “S”
endorsement is SUSPENDED for six months, that the Department of Education, Office
of School Bus Safety’s, motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and that Genao-Ramirez’s
Petition of Appeal is 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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01115-26
6
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. Exceptions may be filed by email to
ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of Controversies
and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the other
parties.
May 19, 2026
DATE JOHN K. MALONEY, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
JKM/kl

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01115-26
7
APPENDIX
Exhibits
For petitioner:
P-1 Petition of Appeal with supporting documentation
For respondent:
R-A DOE OSBS’s November 26, 2025, Letter to Petitioner
R-B Petitioner’s December 4, 2025, Appeal Petition
R-C November 10, 2025, Incident Report