N.U., on behalf of minor child, M.U. v. Board of Education of the Town of Mansfield, Burlington County, 8/10/2022, (#191-22)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

191-22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education

Final Decision

N.U. on behalf of minor child, M.U.,

Petitioner,

Board of Education of the Town of Mansfield,
Burlington County,

Respondent.

Synopsis

In this matter on remand, the petitioner challenged the respondent Board’s determination that M.U.
committed an act of harassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB) in violation of New Jersey’s Anti-
Bullying Bill of Rights Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq., when he told a fellow sixth grader who had
recently dyed his hair and gotten a haircut that he looked like Donald Trump. The classmate took
offense to the comment, and an HIB investigation ensued, resulting in a finding that M.U.’s conduct
constituted HIB. In an April 2020 decision, the Commissioner remanded this matter to the OAL for
further proceedings to develop the record in order to determine if the Board’s HIB determination was
arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.

On remand, the ALJ found, inter alia, that: the Commissioner will not overturn a decision of a local
board of education unless it is determined that the action was arbitrary, capricious or reasonable; the
HIB investigation herein revealed a single incident in which M.U. stated to another student that his new
hair color and style made him look like Donald Trump; the incident occurred on school property; the
distinguishing characteristic in this case was the student’s recent change to his hair color and style; and
the incident interfered with the student’s right to be free from negative, verbal attacks. The ALU
concluded that all elements required to establish an act of HIB under the Act were satisfied, and
petitioner did not meet her burden of proof that the Board acted in an arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable manner in concluding that M.U.’s actions constituted harassment, intimidation or bullying
under the Act. Accordingly, the ALJ issued an Initial Decision dismissing the petition.

Upon review, the Commissioner found that the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, and
unreasonable because it failed to address one of the criteria necessary to prove an act of HIB.
Specifically, there is no documentation of any kind to show that M.U.’s conduct substantially disrupted
or interfered with the rights of other students or the orderly operation of the school. Accordingly, the
Commissioner concluded that the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because
there is no evidence that the Board considered all of the factors required to prove an element of HIB.
The Initial Decision of the OAL was reversed, and any reference to HIB shall be removed from M.U.’s
student record.

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.

OAL Dkt. Nos. EDU 16045-18, EDU 04896-20 (on remand), EDU 09701-20 (on remand)
Agency Dkt. No. 253-9/18
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
N.U., on behalf of minor child, M.U.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Town of
Mansfield, 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.1
This matter concerns an alleged act of harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) by M.U. The
HIB complaint alleged that M.U. had referred to another student as “Donald Trump.” The Board found
that M.U. had committed an act of HIB and imposed an in-school suspension. Following a hearing, the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Board’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable and dismissed the petition.
In her exceptions, petitioner argues that the Board failed to prove all the elements of HIB.
According to petitioner, there is no evidence that the comment M.U. made was related to the alleged
victim’s hair – only speculation by the principal that the recent haircut and color were the reason for
M.U.’s comment – and therefore it cannot have been reasonably perceived as being motivated by a
distinguishing characteristic. Petitioner also contends that there is a lack of evidence that M.U.’s
comment substantially disrupted or interfered with the orderly operation of the school or the right of
1 The Board did not file a reply to petitioner’s exceptions.
191-22

2
other students. Additionally, petitioner argues that the alleged victim first made a comment to M.U.,
such that their exchange was a dispute not within the definition of HIB.
Upon review, the Commissioner concludes that the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious,
and unreasonable because it failed to address one of the criteria necessary to prove an act of HIB. The
Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (the Act) defines HIB as follows:
[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.
Therefore, a finding of HIB requires three elements.2 First, the conduct must be reasonably perceived as
motivated by any actual or perceived enumerated characteristic or other distinguishing characteristic
and, second, the conduct must substantially disrupt or interfere with the rights of other students or the
orderly operation of the school. The third condition is that one of the three criteria enumerated in the
Act regarding the effect of the conduct must also be satisfied. Wehbeh v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of
Verona, Essex County, Commissioner Decision No. 51-20 (decided February 4, 2020).
2 The statute also requires that the conduct take place on school property, at a school-sponsored function, on a
school bus, or off school grounds as provided for in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15.3. This element appears to have been
satisfied in this matter.

3
The Commissioner previously issued a decision in this matter, finding that the record at that
time did not adequately address all of the factors necessary to determine whether the Board’s HIB
decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The Commissioner noted that the letter from the
principal to petitioner, which was affirmed by the Board, only contained specific information regarding
the first factor – that M.U.’s comment was reasonably perceived as being motivated by an actual or
perceived distinguishing characteristic.3 Accordingly, the Commissioner ordered further development of
the record.
On remand, the record now includes a copy of the HIB incident report that was completed
during the investigation. The report goes a step further than the principal’s letter and includes a
statement that the effect of M.U.’s comment was that it insulted or demeaned a student. Accordingly, it
appears that the Board did make a finding regarding the third HIB criteria listed above. However, there
is no documentation of any kind addressing the second criteria – that M.U.’s conduct substantially
disrupted or interfered with the rights of other students or the orderly operation of the school. While
two of the Board’s witnesses testified that the alleged victim shaved his head and felt reluctant to return
to school, there is no documentary support for that information or indication that that information was
presented to the Board. The victim statement included in the HIB report does not reference either the
head shaving or any reluctance to return to school, or any other information that demonstrates that
M.U.’s comments substantially disrupted or interfered with the rights of other students or the orderly
operation of the school.4 The Commissioner therefore concludes that the Board’s decision was
3 The Commissioner did not reach any conclusions regarding the merits of the Board’s decision on this factor, but
only noted that the record demonstrated that the Board had specifically made a finding regarding this factor.
4 In another matter, LK. and T.K., on behalf of minor child, A.K. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of Mansfield, Burlington
Cty., Commissioner Decision No. 318-21, decided December 9, 2021, the petitioners argued that the HIB report
and witness testimony included information that was not contained in the interview notes. The Commissioner
indicated that individuals completing an HIB investigation are not required to take verbatim notes of their
interviews and found that witness testimony was credible even when the information presented in that testimony
was not included in interview notes. The distinction between L.K. and this matter is that in L.K., the HIB report
presented to the board of education included information related to all three criteria necessary to prove an act of
HIB, even though some of that information was not included in the underlying interview notes that formed the

4
arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because there is no evidence that the Board considered all of
the factors required to prove an element of HIB.5
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is reversed, and the decision of the Board finding that M.U.
committed an act of HIB is overturned. Any reference to the HIB decision shall be removed from M.U.’s
student files.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 6
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
basis for the reports. Here, the HIB report – which is the only documentation available in the record – fails to
include any information related to one of the criteria, and the Commissioner is therefore unable to conclude that
that information was presented to the Board, rendering its decision arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. This
conclusion is reached as a matter of law and is unrelated to the ALJ’s credibility finding regarding the testimony of
the Board’s witnesses.
5 The Commissioner does not reach the question of whether the Board’s findings on the other two criteria were
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, as its failure to make findings on all necessary factors is sufficient to
overturn its decision.
6 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.
August 10, 2022
August 10, 2022

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09701-20
AGENCY DKT. NO. 253-9/18
(ON REMAND FROM EDU 04896-20
COMMISSION DECSION 231-20R)
(ON REMAND FROM EDU 16045-18
COMMISSIONER DECISION 106-20)
N.U. ON BEHALF OF M.U.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWN
OF MANSFIELD, BURLINGTON COUNTY,
Respondent.
N.U., on behalf of minor child M.U., petitioner, pro se
Marc G. Mucciolo, Esq. appearing for respondent, (Methfessel & Werbel, P.C.
attorneys)
Record Closed: June 1, 2022 	Decided: June 27, 2022
BEFORE JEFFREY R. WILSON, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, N.U. on behalf of her minor child, M.U., challenges respondent’s, Board
of Education of the Town of Mansfield, Burlington County’s (Board), Harassment
Intimidation and Bullying (HIB) determination relative to M.U.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09701-20
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The petitioner initially filed a challenge of the Board’s HIB determination and
requested a hearing before the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). 	The matter was
transmitted to the OAL on November 2, 2018, where it was filed under Docket No. EDU
16045-18, on November 5, 2018, as a contested case. 	N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to 15 and
N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to 13. 	The petitioner filed an amended petition with the OAL on
February 21, 2019. 	The Board filed its answer to the amended petition on March 11,
2019. The fair hearing was conducted on March 3, 2020. At the close of the petitioner’s
case, counsel for the respondent made an oral motion to dismiss the petition. 	The
respondent’s motion to dismiss was granted and the order of dismissal was entered on
March 10, 2020.
By its Decision No. 106-20, entered April 24, 2020, The New Jersey Commissioner
of Education (Commissioner) remanded this matter to the OAL for further proceedings to
determine if the Board’s HIB determination was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Decision No. 106-20 reads in pertinent part:
The letter to N.U. from the school’s principal1, which the Board
affirmed in its decision, indicates that the investigation found
evidence of the first element (of the HIB Act) that M.U.’s
conduct was reasonably perceived as being motivated by
another student’s distinguishing characteristic. However, the
letter 	does 	not 	provide 	any 	information 	regarding 	the
remaining elements required to prove an act of HIB. Nor does
the Initial Decision address these elements of the statute.
The Commissioner is mindful that when a local board of
education acts within its discretionary authority, its decision is
entitled to a presumption of correctness and will not be
disturbed unless there is an affirmative showing that the
decision was “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). However, in
the instant case, the Commissioner cannot determine whether
the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable based
upon the current record.
1 Entered into evidence as R-1.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09701-20
3
Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the OAL for further
proceedings consistent with this decision.
The remand was transmitted to the OAL, under Docket No. EDU 04896-20, where
it was filed on April 28, 2020. 	The parties were advised that a prehearing telephone
conference was scheduled for August 26, 2020. 	Petitioner did not participate in the
scheduled prehearing telephone conference and did not contact the OAL to explain why
she was unable to do so. Accordingly, the matter was dismissed for the petitioner’s failure
to appear. The order of dismissal was entered on August 31, 2020.
By 	its 	Decision 	No. 	231-20R, 	entered 	October 	9, 	2020, 	The 	New 	Jersey
Commissioner remanded this matter to the OAL for further proceedings necessary to
reach a determination on the merits.
The remand was transmitted to the OAL, under Docket No. EDU 04896-20, where
it was filed on October 15, 2020. 	The matter was heard virtually on July 19, 2021, and
the record remained open for the receipt of transcripts and written summations from the
parties until the record was closed on June 1, 2022.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The following facts of this case are not in dispute; therefore, I FIND as FACT that
in December 2017, M.U. was eleven years old and in the sixth grade. 	At that time, he
approached a fellow classmate, while at school, who had gotten a haircut and bleached
a portion of his hair. 	M.U. told his classmate that he looked like Donald Trump. 	The
classmate 	took 	offense 	to 	the 	comment 	and 	the 	incident 	was 	reported. 	A HIB
investigation was conducted, and it was determined that M.U.’s conduct towards his
classmate constituted HIB.
Testimony
Julie Katz has been employed by the Mansfield Township Board of Education for
five years as a school counselor and was appointed to serve as the school anti-bullying

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09701-20
4
specialist. 	She is primarily responsible for investigating all allegations of HIB arising in
the school and to promote a positive school environment. 	She also provides individual
and group counseling services and chairs the Section 504 Committee.
As part of a HIB investigation, her role is to interview the alleged victim of HIB,
interview the alleged perpetrator as well as any witnesses, and collaborate with the
principal to make a determination as to whether or not an act of HIB occurred. She first
became familiar with M.U. with regard to this incident, in December of 2017, when the
victim’s parents alerted the District to issues between the student and M.U.
Ms. Katz testified she was aware of the Board policy on bullying, and that she was
responsible for investigating the incident and generating a report. 	Based upon meeting
with the victim and his parents, she learned the victim had dyed his hair blonde, and as a
result, M.U. referred to him as “Donald Trump.”
The first step she took was to interview the victim and find out exactly what
happened from his perspective. 	She then interviewed M.U. and four witnesses who
overheard the comment. 	Once the interviews were complete, she collaborated with the
principal, Glenn Kershner. regarding the findings of her investigation and as to whether
or not the allegation of HIB was substantiated.
Ms. Katz testified that the determination from her investigation was that M.U.
committed HIB against the other student. Specifically, she testified that the comment was
related to an actual characteristic of the victim, his hair, and that the comment had an
impact on the student as the student stated that he shaved off his blond hair and did not
feel safe coming to school. 	Under the circumstances, Ms. Katz believed a reasonable
person should have known that the comments were insulting or would have the effect of
being insulting, and that the victim felt insulted and demeaned by the comment.
Ms. Katz testified that her investigation was thorough, and she believed the
investigation and its result were proper and that the Board acted appropriately in
upholding the recommendation of HIB against M.U. Under the circumstances, Ms. Katz
believed the intent of the alleged bully was immaterial to the ultimate determination of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09701-20
5
whether or not HIB was founded. Ms. Katz also testified that M.U.’s statements that the
victim had made a comment to him, leading up to the “Donald Trump” comment, could
not be corroborated by any of the witnesses. Ms. Katz testified that she did not divert in
any way from regular policies and procedures (P-1) in investigating this particular HIB
incident.
Glenn Kershner has been employed by the Mansfield Township Board of
Education for thirteen years as the building principal for the grade three through grade six
building. He holds a principal certificate, teaching certificate, and school safety specialist
certification.
Mr. Kershner stated he first became familiar with M.U. in the fifth grade when M.U.
first enrolled in the District. He identified the letter he sent to N.U. regarding the bullying
investigation that took place. (R-1.) Mr. Kershner testified he received a phone call from
the victim’s parents stating the student was being bullied in school and they wanted to
meet with him and Julie Katz, the school anti-bullying specialist, to discuss the situation.
Mr. Kershner and Ms. Katz met with the parents of the victim during the 2017-2018
school year. 	At the meeting, the student’s parents and the student identified M.U. as
specifically targeting the student in a myriad of ways, including referring to the student as
“Donald Trump” as a result of his hair color and style. Mr. Kershner was told the student
went home the night that M.U. called him Donald Trump and shaved the blond hair off his
head because he was so insulted by the remark.
Mr. Kershner testified there was a list of nine things that M.U was alleged to have
done to the other student, one of which was calling the student “Donald Trump” as a result
of his hair color. 	He spoke to M.U with regard to each allegation, but only investigated
the “Donald Trump” incident as HIB.
Mr. Kershner generally reviews the investigation and notes from Ms. Katz,
discusses the findings with her, and then makes a recommendation to the superintendent.
In this instance, he did all of those things. He and Ms. Katz agreed M.U.’s conduct was
reasonably perceived and motivated by a specific characteristic of the victim, in this case

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09701-20
6
his hair color and style. 	He and Ms. Katz agreed that M.U.’s conduct substantially
interfered with the victim’s rights, specifically that the student shaved off his blond hair
and was reluctant to return to school.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Kershner believed a reasonable person would have
known that these comments would emotionally harm another student, and that this
conduct actually had the effect of insulting and demeaning the other student. As principal,
he is responsible for handing out discipline, and that in this case, the discipline for M.U.
was a lunch and recess detention.
Mr. Kershner attended the Board meeting in February 2018, where the Board
upheld the determination of HIB. Mr. Kershner testified the two students were not friends,
and that under the circumstances, the District acted appropriately in timely investigating
and fulfilling its responsibilities in addressing the incident.
Tiffany 	Moutis 	has 	been 	employed 	by 	the 	Mansfield 	Township 	Board 	of
Education for six years as the school superintendent. 	Her role relative to allegations of
HIB involve presenting the administrative recommendations to the Board of Education for
approval or rejection.
She testified that Mr. Kershner and Ms. Katz met with her and reviewed the within
investigation. 	She took the report and recommendations and met with the Board in
executive session to discuss the recommendations. The Board determined to uphold the
administrative recommendation of HIB against M.U.
N.U. was afforded the opportunity to appear before the Board to state her position
regarding the incident, and the Board heard her out. Ms. Moutis identified the letter she
sent after the Board meeting, upholding the HIB determination. 	(R-2.) 	She also stated
that she agreed with the determination, and with the investigation findings as completed
by Mr. Kershner and Ms. Katz. Under the circumstances, she believed all steps required
were followed correctly.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09701-20
7
Credibility is best described as that quality of testimony or evidence which makes
it worthy of belief. The Supreme Court of New Jersey considered the issue of credibility
in In-re Estate of Perrone, 5 N.J. 514 (1950). The Court pronounced:
Testimony to be believed must not only proceed from
the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in
itself. It must be such as the common experience and
observation of mankind can approve as probable in the
circumstances.
[5 N.J. at 522.]
In order to assess credibility, the witness’ interest in the outcome, motive or bias
should be considered. 	Furthermore, a trier of fact may reject testimony because it is
inherently incredible, or because it is inconsistent with other testimony or with common
experience, or because it is overborne by other testimony. Congleton v. Pura-Tex Stone
Corp., 53 N.J. Super. 282, 287 (App. Div. 1958.)
When assessing credibility, inferences may be drawn concerning the witness’
expression, tone of voice and demeanor. MacDonald v. Hudson Bus Transportation Co.,
100 N.J. Super. 103 (App. Div. 1968.) Additionally, the witness’ interest in the outcome,
motive or bias should be considered. Credibility contemplates an overall assessment of
the story of a witness in light of its rationality, internal consistency, and manner in which
it “hangs together” with other evidence. 	Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718 (9th Cir.
1963.)
Having considered the testimonial and documentary evidence presented and
observing the demeanor of Julie Katz, Glenn Kershner and Tiffany Moutis, I accept their
testimony to be highly credible. 	Julie Katz, Glenn Kershner and Tiffany Moutis merely
stated that facts as they recalled them, without histrionics or magnification. 	Their
testimony was consistent and corroborated by the documentary evidence. None of these
witnesses had an ulterior motive or anything to gain by testifying.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09701-20
8
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
New Jersey enacted the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (Act) to “strengthen the
standards and procedures for preventing, reporting, investigating, and responding to
incidents of harassment, intimidation, and bullying” occurring both on and off of school
grounds. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.1(f). 	Definitions relative to adoption of harassment and
bullying prevention policies are found in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14, which states in part:
Harassment, intimidation or bullying” means any 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.
Here, the investigation revealed that the single incident of M.U. stating to another
student that the student’s new hair color and style made him look like Donald Trump,
occurred on school property. 	The distinguishing characteristic in this case was the
student’s recent change to his hair color and style. 	This incident interfered with the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09701-20
9
student’s right to be free from negative, verbal attacks. A reasonable should know, under
these circumstances, that such a verbal attack would have the effect of emotionally
harming the student. 	Clearly this incident had the effect of insulting or demeaning any
student as is evidenced by him cutting his hair and wanting to avoid returning to school.
The petitioner alleges that the HIB investigation was conducted improperly and
was incomplete. Petitioner urges this tribunal to conclude that there was no HIB, and that
the HIB investigation was conducted improperly and was incomplete therefore the
determination should be reversed.
The Board urges this tribunal to conclude that the Board was not arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable in its determination that the HIB investigation was conducted
properly and that M.U.’s conduct did constitute HIB.
The Commissioner of Education will not overturn the decision of a local board in
the absence of a finding that the action below was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.
T.B.M. v. Moorestown Bd. of Educ., EDU 2780-07, Initial Decision (February 6, 2008)
(citing Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965),
aff’d, 	46 	N.J. 	581(1966), 	adopted, 	Comm’r 	(April 	7, 	2008),
<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>. 	Further, the Commissioner will not substitute
his judgment for that of the board of education, whose exercise of its 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). New Jersey 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
Sewage 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). 	Thus, in order to prevail, the petitioner must
demonstrate that the Board acted in bad faith, or in utter disregard of the circumstances
before it.
Here, based on the whole of the credible evidence presented, I CONCLUDE that
all elements required to establish an act of HIB under the HIB Act have been satisfied. I

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09701-20
10
CONCLUDE that petitioner has not met her burden of proof that the Board acted in an
arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner in concluding that M.U.’s actions constituted
harassment, intimidation or bullying under the Act. Furthermore, I CONCLUDE that the
petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Board acted in bad faith, or in utter disregard of
the circumstances before it.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, I ORDER that the petition be 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 09701-20
11
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.
June 27, 2022
DATE 	JEFFREY R. WILSON, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
JRW/tat

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09701-20
12
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For Petitioner:
Kenneth Nwobu
For Respondent:
Glenn Kershner
Julie Katz
Tiffany J. Moutis
EXHIBITS
For Petitioner:
P-1 	Mansfield Township Board of Education Policy – Harassment, Intimidation
and Bullying
P-2 	Email – N.U. to Glenn Kershner, dated February 9, 2018
For Respondent:
R-1 	Glenn Kershner letter to N.U, dated January 22, 2018; email from N.U. to
Glenn Kershner, dated December 11, 2017; email from Glenn Kirshner to
N.U., dated December 11, 2017; Glenn Kershner letter to unknown parents,
dated, January 22, 2018; HIBster Report, submitted to BOE on January 16,
2018
R-2 	Not Admitted into Evidence
R-3 	Tiffany J. Moutis letter to N.U., dated February 13, 2018
R-4 	Not Admitted into Evidence
R-5 	Not Admitted into Evidence

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09701-20

R-6 Not Admitted into Evidence
R-7 Not Admitted into Evidence

13