PATRICIA CHIODI V. JASON EITNER, WATERFORD TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT, CAMDEN COUNTY, 3/30/17, (#93-17)

93-17
PATRICIA CHIODI, 	:
PETITIONER, 	:
v.
:
JASON EITNER, SUPERINTENDENT, WATERFORD
TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT, CAMDEN COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT, 	:
AND 	:
DEBORAH BORRELLI, 	:
PETITIONER, 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
v.
: 	DECISION
JASON EITNER, SUPERINTENDENT, WATERFORD
TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT, CAMDEN COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT, 	:
AND 	:
DANIEL BITTNER, 	:
PETITIONER, 	:
v.
:
JASON EITNER, SUPERINTENDENT, WATERFORD
TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT, CAMDEN COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT, 	:
SYNOPSIS
Petitioners – three teachers in the Waterford Township school district – sought to have Superintendent Jason Eitner’s
certificate revoked for unbecoming conduct, alleging that Eitner had engaged in conduct ranging from age
discrimination, to invasion of privacy, to violation of school policies prohibiting harassment, intimidation and bullying.
The respondent filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that petitioners failed to set forth a legal basis for which relief can be
granted under New Jersey’s school laws.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: petitioners herein do not allege a cause of action against respondent under the school
laws; any action to remove school administrators must be brought under the tenure provisions of Title 18A:6-10;
moreover, an action against a school administrator for conduct related to their position must be brought via a grievance
and then an appeal from the grievance; and petitioners have not exhausted this remedy. The ALJ concluded that the
instant matter presents no cause of action under the school laws of New Jersey. Accordingly, the respondent’s motion
to dismiss was granted.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction here, and adopted the
Initial Decision as the final decision in this matter. The Commissioner noted that, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38 and
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.5, an administrator’s certificate may only be revoked or suspended by the State Board of Examiners.
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.
March 30, 2017

1
OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 13721-16, EDU 13722-16 and EDU 13723-16 (consolidated)
AGENCY DKT. NOS. 216-8/16, 2/17-8/16 and 218-8/16
PATRICIA CHIODI, 	:
PETITIONER, 	:
v. 	:
JASON EITNER, SUPERINTENDENT, 	:
WATERFORD TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT,
CAMDEN COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT, 	:
AND 	:
DEBORAH BORRELLI, 	:
PETITIONER, 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
v. 	: 	DECISION
JASON EITNER, SUPERINTENDENT, 	:
WATERFORD TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT,
CAMDEN COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT, 	:
AND 	:
DANIEL BITTNER, 	:
PETITIONER, 	:
v. 	:
JASON EITNER, SUPERINTENDENT, 	:
WATERFORD TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT,
CAMDEN COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT. 	:

2
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative
Law 	(OAL) 	have 	been 	reviewed, 	along 	with 	petitioners’ 	exceptions 	– 	filed 	pursuant 	to
N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4 – and the respondent’s reply thereto.
In their exceptions, petitioners argue that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed
to reference that petitioners had filed grievances – including a Harassment, Intimidation, and
Bullying (HIB) complaint – and still had not received the results of the Board’s investigations.
Accordingly, petitioners dispute the ALJ’s finding that no HIB complaint was filed. 	Further,
petitioners contend that the matter should be held in abeyance pending a final determination by the
Board on the grievances that were filed. 	Additionally, petitioners argue that the ALJ erred in
concluding that the Commissioner does not have jurisdiction over personnel matters filed by
individuals, and instead maintain that the matter touches upon school law.
In reply, respondent contends that while petitioners argue that they have not received
the investigation reports regarding grievances that they filed, they indicated in their Opposition to
the Motions to Dismiss that they were “not seeking any determination by this court regarding any
obligation 	Respondent 	Eitner 	would 	have 	to 	furnish 	the 	results 	of 	an 	affirmative 	action
investigation” 	and 	that 	they 	would 	seek 	relief 	from 	the 	Board 	outside 	of 	this 	litigation.
(Respondent’s Reply Exceptions, at 3). 	Additionally, respondent argues that the ALJ properly
found that the Commissioner does not have jurisdiction over these matters because they do not arise
under school law. Instead, respondent points out that issues involving the revocation or suspension
of administrative certificates falls under the jurisdiction of the State Board of Examiners and such a
proceeding cannot be initiated by individual employees. Finally, respondent argues that the matter
should not be held in abeyance until a final determination is made by the Board on the personnel
matters, because the doctrine of exhaustion requires petitioners to exhaust their administrative
remedies prior to filing a petition.

3
Upon review, the Commissioner1 concurs with the ALJ that the Commissioner does
not have jurisdiction over these matters, as they do not arise out of the school laws of this State.
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9. 	Indeed, the authority to revoke or suspend the certificates of teachers or
administrators 	lies 	exclusively 	with 	the 	State 	Board 	of 	Examiners. 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:6-38;
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.5. 	Further, the Commissioner notes that – although petitioners allege in their
Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss that the HIB statute is implicated in this matter – the matter
herein does not involve HIB. This case is not an appeal of an HIB determination, nor would an HIB
allegation be appropriate in this circumstance as the statute does not contemplate HIB complaints
from school employees – only students. 	See N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq. 	The Commissioner does
not find petitioners’ exceptions to be persuasive. 	Although petitioners indicate that they seek the
results of affirmative action complaints filed with the Board and not considered by the ALJ in her
decision, such exception is irrelevant. 	Petitioners have made clear in their submissions that the
Board is not a party to this matter, nor do they seek the results of the investigation from
Respondent Eitner.
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.2
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: March 30, 2017
Date of Mailing: 	March 30, 2017
1 This matter has been delegated to the undersigned Deputy Commissioner, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:4-34.
2 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36
(N.J.S.A 18A:6-9.1).

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION GRANTING
MOTION FOR SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13721-16
PATRICIA CHIODI, 	AGENCY NO. 216-8/16
Petitioner,
v.
JASON EITNER SUPERINTENDENT
WATERFORD TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT,
CAMDEN COUNTY,
Respondent,
AND
DEBORAH BORRELLI, 	OAL DKT NO. EDU 13722-16
Petitioner, 	AGENCY DKT. NO. 217-8/16
v.
JASON EITNER SUPERINTENDENT
WATERFORD TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT,
CAMDEN COUNTY,
Respondent,
AND
DANIEL BITTNER, 	OAL DKT NO. EDU 13723-16
Petitioner, 	AGENCY DKT. NO. 217-8/16
v.
JASON EITNER SUPERINTENDENT
WATERFORD TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT,
CAMDEN COUNTY,
Respondent. 	CONSOLIDATED

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 13721-16, EDU 13722-16, AND EDU 13723-16
5
_____________________________________
Saul J. Steinberg, Esq., for petitioners (Zucker Steinberg & Wixted, P.A.,
attorneys)
Andrew W. Li, Esq., for respondents (Parker McCay, P.A., attorneys)
Record Closed: January 12, 2017 	Decided: February 13, 2017
BEFORE SARAH G. CROWLEY, ALJ:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioners filed a verified petition on August 15, 2016, seeking to have the
respondent’s 	superintendent’s 	certificate 	revoked 	for 	conduct 	unbecoming. 	The
conduct ranges from allegations of sexual harassment, age discrimination and bullying.
The respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss in lieu of an answer on September 6, 2016.
The 	Director 	of 	the 	Bureau 	of 	Controversies 	and 	Disputes 	of 	the 	New 	Jersey
Department of Education transmitted the matters to the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL), where they were filed for hearing as a contested case on September 8, 2016.
N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13. 	These matters were consolidated
by Order dated November 16, 2016. 	Petitioners filed opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss on December 23, 2016, and respondents filed a reply brief on January 12,
2017.
STATEMENT OF CASE AND UNDISPUTED FACTS
The petitioners are all employed by the Waterford Township Board of Education3
(District) and work as teachers in the District. 	Jason Eitner is the superintendent of the
schools in the District. 	The petitioners have filed verified petitions seeking to have his
3 The Board of Education has not been named in this matter and the petitioners have advised that they do not seek to
name the Board in this matter.

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 13721-16, EDU 13722-16, AND EDU 13723-16
6
superintendent’s 	certificate 	revoked 	on 	the 	grounds 	that 	he 	engaged 	in 	conduct
unbecoming, age discrimination, invasion of privacy and a violation of school policies
prohibiting harassment, intimidation and/or bullying. There was a grievance filed by one
of the petitioners, and the superintendent issued a letter of apology in response to
same. 	No appeal was filed with respect to the decision in that matter. 	In response to
allegations by the petitioners of harassment and discrimination, the Board hired an
attorney to do an Affirmative Action investigation. 	The undersigned has no details
regarding this investigation or the results of same. 	However, counsel for the petitioner
has clarified that no relief is sought with respect to that investigation and no appeal for
that finding has been initiated
The respondents have filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the petition
has failed to set forth a legal basis for which relief can be granted under the Educational
Laws of the State of New Jersey. 	Respondent argues that the petitioners have not
alleged any violations of the school laws and that there is no claim for relief under the
jurisdiction of the Commission of Education. It is undisputed that no HIB complaint has
been filed with respect to harassment, intimidation or bullying complaint, or for the
failure of the District to have appropriate HIB policies in place. 	Moreover, there is no
HIB finding that has been appealed. The respondents also allege that the petitioners
have failed to exhaust administrative remedies through a grievance or a claim under the
anti-bullying statute. The petitioners maintain that the Commissioner of Education has
jurisdiction to hear disputes concerning these actions, and that they arise under the
state school and education laws. 	However, no specific authority is provided which
would give the Commissioner jurisdiction over a personnel matter filed by an individual
employee or employees.

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 13721-16, EDU 13722-16, AND EDU 13723-16
7
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The issue presented here is whether the respondents are entitled to a decision
dismissing the petition as a matter of law. 	The respondents have filed a motion to
decision pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10 which provides: “at any time prior to transmittal
of the pleading to the OAL, in the Commissioner’s discretion or upon motion to dismiss
filed in lieu of answer, the Commissioner may dismiss the petitioner on the grounds that
the petitioners have advanced no cause of action even if the petitioner’s factual
allegations are accepted as true or for lack of jurisdiction for failure to prosecute or other
good reason.” 	The motion was filed with the Department of Education and has been
transmitted here for consideration. 	The basis of the motion is that the petitioners have
alleged no claim under the education laws of the State of New Jersey and thus, the
undersigned has no jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The allegations in the verified petitions are that the respondent has shown bias
and engaged in inappropriate behavior, sexual harassment and age discrimination. The
petitioners seek to have respondent’s Administrators Certificate revoked and to have
him suspended from his position as Superintendent of the School District. There have
been no prior proceedings regarding this matter, with the exception of an affirmative
action investigation, which the petitioners did not, nor do they seek to appeal from. 	In
addition, one of the petitioners filed a grievance against the respondent, from which
relief was obtained in the form of an apology letter. No appeal was filed from that
matter. Most of the allegations appear to allege HIB, or lack of appropriate policies.
However, no HIB complaint was ever filed, nor do the petitioners seek relief under the
HIB 	statute. 	The 	petitioners 	seek 	to 	suspend 	the 	respondent 	and 	revoke 	his
administrator’s certificate.
Assuming that all of the petitioners’ factual allegations are true, they do not allege
a cause of action under School Law against the respondent. 	An action to remove the
administrators 	must 	be 	brought 	under 	the 	tenure 	provisions 	of 	Title 	18A:6-10.
Moreover, an action against the administrator of the school for action relating to their
position in the school must be brought via a grievance and then an appeal from the

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 13721-16, EDU 13722-16, AND EDU 13723-16
8
grievance. 	The petitioners have not exhausted this remedy, and the Commissioner of
Education does not have jurisdiction to entertain grievances from individual employees
in 	the 	first 	instance. 	The 	petitioners 	cite 	to 	N.J.S.A.18A:17-7, 	which 	requires
superintendents to hold an appropriate certificate. 	However, there are no allegations
that the respondent does not hold the appropriate certificate and thus, this statutory
provision is inapplicable. The petitioner also cites to several tenure cases in support of
the Commissioner’s jurisdiction. 	However, this is not a tenure matter, and moreover,
the undersigned does not have jurisdiction over tenure matters.
The undersigned’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters falling under the
Education Laws in the State of New Jersey, and assuming all facts alleged as true, I
CONCLUDE that no cause of action under the Education Laws in the State of New
Jersey. Accordingly, the respondent’s motion to dismiss pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10
is hereby granted.
ORDER
It is ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED and the petition
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. NOS. EDU 13721-16, EDU 13722-16, AND EDU 13723-16
9
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.
February 13, 2017
DATE 	SARAH G. CROWLEY, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	February 13, 2017 (emailed)
Date Mailed to Parties:
/mel