J.M.C., on behalf of minor child, A.C. V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EAST BRUNSWICK, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, 1/9/13, (#10-13)

1
#10-13 (OAL Decision: Not yet available online)
J.M.C. on behalf of minor child A.C., 	:
PETITIONER, 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
V. 	: 	DECISION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE 	:
TOWNSHIP OF EAST BRUNSWICK,
MIDDLESEX COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT. 	:
SYNOPSIS
The petitioner challenged the determination of the respondent Board that his son, A.C., engaged in
behavior that fell under the school district’s policy against harassment, intimidation and bullying
(HIB). This case stems from a single incident in November 2011, wherein A.C. – a sixth grader at
the time – insulted and demeaned a fellow classmate by saying that he “danced like a girl” and by
calling him “gay”. 	In his appeal, the petitioner asked that all charges be “dropped”; that punitive
damages and legal expenses be awarded; and that the classmate who accused A.C. of harassment be
given the same punishment – a three day detention – that A.C. had received. The Board contended
that its actions had at all times been compliant with applicable statutes and regulations governing
student conduct.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: pursuant to New Jersey’s Anti-Bullying Law, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14,
A.C.’s actions in November 2011 were verbal acts motivated by distinguishing characteristics, i.e.,
gender and sexual orientation; A.C.’s conduct accordingly constituted HIB as that term is defined by
law; A.C. was not a chronic troublemaker, but his actions were hurtful and unkind; the school
district’s response of assigning him to detention was designed to redirect A.C.’s behavior in a manner
that was consistent with his age and that recognized that this was his first offense; the actions of
school personnel relative to this incident were consistent with the letter and spirit of N.J.S.A. 18A:37-
14 and N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.9; petitioner failed to carry his burden to prove that the actions of the Board
or any of its personnel were taken in bad faith or in disregard of the circumstances; and petitioner
failed to prove that the Board, through its administration, had been procedurally non-compliant with
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15, which requires school districts to adopt comprehensive policies prohibiting HIB,
outlining expectations for student behavior, setting forth consequences for inappropriate behavior,
and creating procedures for reporting HIB-related concerns. 	Accordingly, the ALJ ordered the
petition dismissed.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ that the petitioners failed to sustain their
burden to show that the Board’s actions regarding A.C.’s conduct in November 2011 were arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable. Accordingly, the Commissioner adopted the Initial Decision as the final
decision in this matter.
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.
January 9, 2012

2
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 4144-12
AGENCY DKT. NO. 62-3/12
J.M.C. on behalf of minor child A.C., 	:
PETITIONER, 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
V. 	: 	DECISION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE 	:
TOWNSHIP OF EAST BRUNSWICK,
MIDDLESEX COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT. 	:
____________________________________
Before the Commissioner is a challenge to the respondent Board of Education’s
determination that petitioner’s minor child had committed an act of bullying or harassment. The
Commissioner has carefully reviewed the record1 and the Initial Decision of the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL), and has considered petitioner’s exceptions and respondent’s replies
thereto.
Upon such review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) that respondent’s determination that A.C. had committed an act of bullying or harassment
was reasonably grounded in the facts and applicable law. More specifically, it was harmonious
with the documentary record, including Counselor Danielle Blalock’s initial report and notes
(Respondent’s Exhibits R-1 and R-2), Specialist Margaret Haas’s report (Respondent’s Exhibit
R-3), and written witness statements by six other students (Respondent’s Exhibits R-10 through
R-15).2 It 	was 	also 	consonant 	with 	the 	accounts 	of 	Principal 	Michael 	Gaskell 	and
1 No transcripts of the October 22, 2012 hearing are present in the record.
2 Respondent’s Exhibit R-9 is a later statement by A.C. which contradicts his early account of the incident and is at
odds with everyone else’s statements.

3
Counselor Blalock, who had testified that A.C. – on the day of the incident – had admitted that
he had insulted a student in his gym class, Initial Decision at 3, and with the testimony of
Specialist Haas, who explained that she had concluded that A.C. had violated the school anti-
bullying policy after interviewing both A.C. and other students who had been present during the
incident which precipitated this controversy. (Ibid.)
Given the foregoing evidence, respondent correctly determined that an act of
harassment, intimidation or bullying (HIB) had occurred as defined by N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14:
[A]ny gesture, any written, verbal or physical act . . . 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 . . . or by any other distinguishing
characteristic . . . 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 a 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 be severely or pervasively
causing physical or emotional harm to the student.
As N.J.S.A. 18A: 37-15(b)(4) directs that each school district’s anti-bullying policy shall contain
“consequences and appropriate remedial action for a person who commits an act of harassment,
intimidation or bullying,” respondent did not act arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably in
imposing upon A.C. three days of detention as discipline for his conduct.

4
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this case, and
the petition is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.3
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: January 9, 2013
Date of Mailing: 	January 9, 2013
3 	This decision may be appealed to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36
(N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1).