M.S., on behalf of minor child, Z.S. v. Board of Education of the Township of East Brunswick, Middlesex County, 5/29/26 (#183-26)

183-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 09400-25
Agency Dkt. No. 137-5/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
M.S., on behalf of minor child, Z.S.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board 	of 	Education 	of the 	Township 	of 	East
Brunswick, Middlesex County,
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 failed
to sustain his burden of establishing that respondent’s harassment, intimidation, and bullying
determination was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition of
appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	May 29, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	May 29, 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
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09400-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 137-5/25
M.S. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD Z.S.,
Petitioner,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF EAST BRUNSWICK BOARD OF
EDUCATION, MIDDLESEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
Jeremy D. Smith, Esq., for petitioner (Vignuolo, Hyman & Stahl, LLC, attorneys)
Janice V. Arellamo, Esq., for respondent (Cleary, Giacobbe, Alfieri, Jacobs, LLC,
attorneys)
Record Closed: February 13, 2026 Decided: March 23, 2026
BEFORE NICOLE T. MINUTOLI, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
M.S. alleged that respondent East Brunswick Board of Education (Board)
intentionally engaged in harassment, intimidation, or bullying (HIB) when it played a video
at a Board public meeting to retaliate against him for his political affiliations and in
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09400-25
2
disregard for the individualized education program (IEP) for Z.S. Respondent
investigated the incident and concluded that there was no incident of harassment,
intimidation, or bullying under the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-
13, et seq. Should respondent’s findings be overturned? No. A school board acting
within the scope of its authority is “entitled to a presumption of correctness . . . unless
there is an affirmative showing that such decision was arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable.” Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div.
1965).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 10, 2025, the Board upheld an October 15, 2024, finding that the
alleged conduct did not meet the definition of HIB. On May 8, 2025, petitioner M.S., on
behalf of minor child Z.S., appealed the Board’s decision to the Department of Education
(DOE). On May 27, 2025, the Board filed an answer. The DOE transmitted the matter to
the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where it was filed on May 29, 2025, to be heard
as a contested case. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23.
On October 20, 2025, I held a prehearing conference call, at which time
respondent requested leave to file a motion for summary decision. On or about October
29, 2025, respondent filed its motion for summary decision, contending that the statutory
definition of HIB had not been met. On or about January 29, 2026, another conference
call was held. On February 5, 2026, petitioner filed an opposition to respondent’s motion
for summary decision. On February 13, 2026, respondent filed its reply brief.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the documents the parties submitted and my assessment of their
sufficiency, I FIND the following FACTS:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09400-25
3
Z.S. is an East Brunswick public school student classified as eligible for special
education and related services.1
On September 26, 2024, the Board held a public meeting and hosted a
presentation entitled “School Bus Safety: A Guide for Parents and the General Public.”2
Resp’t’s Br. Ex. A. During this presentation, a video clip from February 2022 was played.
This 2022 recording showed a white vehicle, driven by petitioner M.S., parent of Z.S.,
driving from out of frame, cutting off and blocking the path of a school bus as the bus
stopped to pick up a child. M.S. exited the white vehicle, approached the bus, and
confronted the bus driver. Meanwhile, Z.S., who had been in the vehicle, never appeared
in the video, and she was never mentioned by members of the Board during the
presentation. The child getting on the bus and M.S.’s face were unrecognizable. The
Board did not identify M.S. or Z.S. Resp’t’s Br. Ex. B.
On October 2, 2024, M.S. filed a HIB complaint, alleging that his children, Z.S. and
H.S., were targets of HIB behavior. Resp’t’s Br. Ex. C. An anti-bullying specialist (ABS)
was assigned to investigate the complaint. Assistant superintendent Bernardo Giuliana,
who is alleged to have been the primary offender in the HIB complaint, was interviewed
first. Giuliana stated that the intent of showing the video was to exhibit what they actually
deal with, and that precautions were taken to conceal M.S.’s identity. Resp’t’s Br. Ex. D.
He mentioned that it was a member of the public who later revealed M.S.’s identity
publicly, and when asked if the video was shown because of M.S.’s political affiliations,
Giuliana replied, “absolutely not.” Ibid.
Z.S. was interviewed next. She believed that the video was inappropriate, causing
stress for her family, yet no other children spoke to her about the video. Ibid. It is unclear
how she found out about the Board meeting. Z.S. went on to explain that, despite 2022
being a “hard” year and her belief that the Board embarrassed the family, the school year
was going well for her. Ibid.
1 At the time of the incident, Z.S. was in ninth grade.
2 All exhibits discussed in this decision use the lettering system within the Board’s Motion for Summary
Decision Brief, rather than the exhibit letters in the Petition of Appeal.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09400-25
4
The ABS interviewed assistant superintendent Bernardo Giuliana. Mr. Giuliano
recalled the video and stated that M.S. said the bus driver ignored Z.S., who was sitting
in his car waiting for the bus. Mr. Giuliano stated that as a result of the incident, M.S. was
charged with motor vehicle and criminal charges. He stated that the Board showed the
video to the community as a safety video, covering dos and don’ts for parents and the
community. Ibid.
The ABS interviewed superintendent Victor Valeski. Dr. Valeski explained that the
video was shown by the Board as a public service announcement and to illustrate that
the Board takes bus safety very seriously. Ibid.
The ABS interviewed Board president Laurie Lachs. Ms. Lachs reiterated that the
video was shown as a public service announcement about bus safety. Although the Board
did not identify M.S. in the video, a member of the public spoke during the public comment
session and disclosed information about M.S. and Z.S. Ibid.
On or about October 15, 2024, the ABS found that the alleged conduct did not
meet the definition of HIB, justifying this in a HIBster report by noting, among other factors,
that “[t]here is no evidence to show that the alleged offenders ever targeted any
identifiable characteristic(s) of the student . . . [who] did not express any substantial
impact that caused disruption to her education . . . [and] the video was used to show the
importance of bus safety . . . .” Ibid. However, M.S. sought a hearing before the Board
on the matter. On January 30, 2025, the Board held a hearing at which M.S. spoke.
Resp’t’s Br. Ex. E.
On February 10, 2025, the Board affirmed the ABS’s finding in a letter to M.S. that
the alleged conduct did not meet the definition of HIB, reasoning that “[1] HIB requires
conduct that is targeted against a student . . . [2] the conduct was not motivated by any
distinguishing characteristic . . . [3] there is no substantial disruption to [Z.S.].” Board’s
Mot. for Summary Decision, Ex. F. The Board’s decision explains that M.S.’s face was
not visible in the recording played publicly, that no student or parent has approached Z.S.
about the video or incident, that Z.S. said her school year was going well, and that the
alleged HIB offenders denied that the video was to retaliate against M.S. Ibid.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09400-25
5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Standard for Summary Decision
Under N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a), “[a] party may move for summary decision upon all or
any of the substantive issues in a contested case.” A motion for summary decision is a
common legal ploy to resolve a case without an evidentiary hearing. A motion for
summary decision may be granted “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.”
N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). Additionally, “[w]hen a motion for summary decision is made and
supported, an adverse party in order to prevail must by responding affidavit set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue which can only be determined in an
evidentiary proceeding.” Ibid.
A determination of 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
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, 529 (1995)
(quoting 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 (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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09400-25
6
Having read the briefs and certifications and having reviewed the exhibits, I
CONCLUDE that no issues of fact exist and that the case is ripe for summary decision.
The Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq., is designed
“to strengthen the standards and procedures for preventing, reporting, investigating, and
responding to incidents of harassment, intimidation, and bullying of students that occur in
school and off school premises.” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.1(f). Under the Act, “harassment,
intimidation or bullying” is defined as:
[A]ny 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.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.]
An action by a board of education “is entitled to a presumption of correctness and
will not be upset unless there is an affirmative showing that such decision was arbitrary,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09400-25
7
capricious or unreasonable.” Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327,
332 (App. Div. 1965) aff’d, 46 N.J. 581 (1966). The Commissioner will not substitute their
judgment for that of a board of education, whose exercise of 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). Our 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
Sewerage 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); G.H. & E.H. ex rel. K.H. v. Bd. of Educ. of the
Borough of Franklin Lakes, Initial Decision, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 19, 20 (February 24,
2014), adopted, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1137 (April 10, 2014). Also, a board’s decision
may be overturned if its determination violates the legislative policies expressed or
implied in the governing act. J.A.H. ex rel. C.H. v. Twp. of Pittsgrove Bd. of Educ., Initial
Decision, 2013 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 58, 11 (March 11, 2013), adopted, 2013 N.J. AGEN
LEXIS 436 (April 25, 2013).
M.S. challenges respondent’s HIB findings, alleging that this recording was played
publicly to retaliate against him “for his support and endorsement of certain candidates
who were running for positions on the Board, and that the video was in disregard for Z.S.’s
IEP. M.S. does not argue that the Board intended to harass his daughter, Z.S.; instead,
he argues that the Board intended to humiliate him. The Act, however, is designed to
protect students’ welfare, not their parents’. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14 requires that a student
be subjected to actual emotional or physical harm, be subjected to fear of harm, be
insulted or demeaned, or be subjected to a hostile educational environment. However,
no conduct is directed toward Z.S. The Board never showed her in the recording nor
revealed identifying information about her. Thus, I CONCLUDE that M.S. is not a
protected person under the Act.3
3 M.S.’s arguments about his political affiliations are altogether irrelevant because he is not protected under
the definition of HIB.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09400-25
8
As to Z.S., while she, as a student, is protected by the Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14
requires that the alleged HIB conduct be motivated by some distinguishing characteristic
that substantially disrupts or interferes with the orderly operation of the school. While
Z.S. has an IEP for anxiety, no evidence was presented that the Board’s motivation for
showing the video was because of Z.S.’s anxiety and/or IEP in any way. The Board used
the video to remind parents/community of their responsibilities regarding bus safety.
Moreover, no evidence was produced that Z.S. was harmed or that the video substantially
interrupted her school environment. The statements made by Z.S. in the HIB
investigation, including that no child or parent had discussed the 2022 incident or video
with her, unless she brought it up, and that she was doing well in school, establish that
Z.S.’s educational setting was not disrupted. In fact, several interviewees were unaware
of M.S.’s relationship with Z.S. Therefore, I CONCLUDE that the Board’s conduct was
not motivated by animus towards Z.S.’s special education status.
Based on the above, I CONCLUDE that petitioner failed to sustain his burden of
establishing that the action of respondent in determining that the September 26, 2024,
incident did not constitute HIB was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that respondent’s motion for
summary decision is GRANTED.
I hereby FILE my 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, which 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 09400-25
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. 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.
March 23, 2026
DATE NICOLE T. MINUTOLI, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: March 23, 2026
Date Mailed to Parties:
NTM/tc

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09400-25
10
APPENDIX
Exhibits
For petitioner:
Opposition to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision
For respondent:
Motion for Summary Decision and Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition