W.C. on behalf of minor child, S.C. v. Board of Education of the Borough of Sayreville, Middlesex County, 4/7/26 (#123-26)

123-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 02764-25
Agency Dkt. No. 9-1/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
W.C., on behalf of minor child, S.C.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Sayreville,
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 establish that the Sayreville Board of Education’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: April 7, 2026
Date of Mailing: April 7, 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
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02764-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 9-1/25
W.C. ON BEHALF OF S.C.,
Petitioners,
v.
BOROUGH OF SAYREVILLE BOARD
OF EDUCATION, MIDDLESEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
W.C., pro se
Marc G. Mucciolo, Esq., for respondent (The Busch Law Group, attorneys)
Record Closed: January 9, 2026 Decided: February 2, 2026
BEFORE NICOLE T. MINUTOLI, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Respondent upheld a harassment, bullying, or intimidation (HIB) determination,
finding that on October 8, 2024, and October 23, 2024, petitioner’s daughter, S.C., was
not a victim of HIB. Should the HIB conclusions stand? Yes. Respondent’s
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02764-25
2
determinations are entitled to a presumption of correctness, and petitioners have not
established that the decisions were arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 18, 2024, respondent, Sayreville Board of Education (Board),
upheld a November 20, 2024, finding that S.C. was not a victim of HIB on October 8,
2024, or October 23, 2024. On January 7, 2025, petitioner W.C., on behalf of S.C.,
appealed the Board's decision of December 18, 2024, to the Department of Education
(DOE). The DOE transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where
it was filed on February 5, 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.
After several prehearing conference calls with the Honorable Sarah Surgent, the
matter was transferred to me on or about June 9, 2025. During my first prehearing
conference on July 23, 2025, I was advised that petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss with
Prejudice filed on or about April 1, 2025, remained undecided. After reviewing the
petitioner’s motion and respondent’s opposition, I denied the motion by order dated July
29, 2025.
On September 30, 2025, I held the hearing but kept the record open for the parties
to obtain transcripts and provide post-hearing submissions. I closed the record on
January 9, 2026.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF FACTS
Based upon a review of the testimony and the documentary evidence presented
and having had the opportunity to observe the demeanor and assess the credibility of the
witnesses who testified, I FIND the following pertinent FACTS and accept as FACT the
testimony set forth below.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02764-25
3
S.C. attended preschool at Project Before at Selover’s (Selover) for the 2024–2025
school year. Selover’s preschool program is for three- and four-year-olds. There are
approximately fifteen children in each preschool classroom.
Nina Obryk (Obryk) is the principal at Selover, Dr. Ricard Labbe (Labbe) is the
superintendent of the Sayreville Public School District (District), and Kathleen McDade
(McDade) is the District’s anti-bullying specialist. (P-13.)
Obryk has worked in the education sector for thirty years and served as principal
at Selover for four years. As principal, Obryk assists, answers questions, and, when
necessary, conducts HIB investigations in consultation with McDade.
On October 18, 2024, W.C. filed a HIB complaint regarding the incident that
occurred on October 8, 2024. During this time, S.C. was three years old. In the HIB
complaint, W.C. alleged that on or about October 8, 2024, Student A inappropriately
touched his daughter, S.C., while on the playground and in the classroom.1 W.C. said
S.C. was visibly upset and didn’t want to return to school. (P-13.)
Obryk sent the HIB complaint to McDade, and on October 18, 2024, Obryk began
conducting the HIB investigation herself, in consultation and collaboration with McDade,
who had training assigned for the days when the investigation was to be initiated. (R-1.)
Obryk began her investigation by reviewing video footage from throughout the
building from October 8, 2024, to determine whether S.C. and Student A interacted.
There are cameras in the hallways, gymnasium, and playground, but not in individual
classrooms. Obryk did not find any interactions between S.C. or Student A on October
8, 2024, in the video footage. (R-1.)
1 While W.C. testified that S.C. told him that Student A hit her in the buttocks four times on October 8,
2024, the HIB report states that this happened on October 23, 2024. The HIB report did not specify which
type of physical actions against S.C. allegedly occurred on October 8, 2024.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02764-25
4
Next, Obryk interviewed S.C.’s teacher, Renee Lujo (Lujo), the Classroom
Paraprofessional, Shannon Elardo (Elardo), and S.C.’s physical education teacher,
Jackie Burns (Burns).
Lujo did not recall any interactions between S.C. and Student A. S.C. and Student
A do not sit near each other, are not in the same small groups, and do not rest near each
other. (Ibid.) S.C. and Student A are not friends and choose not to play together. There
have not been any issues between the two. (Ibid.) Lujo reported that S.C. has made
several additional allegations against other students; however, these incidents were
witnessed by adults and found to be untrue.
First, on October 22, 2024, during a Creative Movement class, a student grabbed
a handful of grass and threw it into the air. (R-1.) S.C. shouted, “stop touching me,” and
told the teachers, “he hit me.” Elardo observed the student's actions and then spoke to
S.C. about the importance of telling the truth.
Second, on October 23, 2024, S.C. accused another student of hurting her
stomach. However, it was observed that a student walked past S.C. to put something in
their cubby while S.C. was in line, without any physical contact. (Ibid.)
Third, on October 23, 2024, S.C. alleged that Student A smacked her four times
on her buttocks and back. (P-3.) W.C. filed a second HIB complaint alleging this. On or
about October 24, 2024, Obryk contacted W.C. and advised that the second HIB
complaint had been reviewed and would be included in the previously reported HIB
incident, as it involved the same participants and the same complaint. (P-10.)
Fourth, on October 25, 2024, S.C. accused another student of throwing and
breaking something. When asked how she knew the student broke it, S.C. didn’t answer.
When S.C. was asked again whether she saw the other student throw something, she
stated no. (R-1.)
Obryk interviewed Elardo, who did not witness any interactions or physical contact
between S.C. and Student A. (Ibid.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02764-25
5
Obryk interviewed Burns, who stated that she had never witnessed any interaction
between S.C. and Student A. Burns reported that Student A does not “notice or
acknowledge S.C.” (Ibid.)
Obryk then interviewed S.C. by asking non-direct questions, because, in Obryk’s
experience, asking a three-year-old a direct question about physical contact is not age-
appropriate and may plant a seed regarding a specific event.2 Obryk asked S.C. about
her friends and anyone who made her sad. S.C. reported that Student A makes her sad
because “[he] hurt my hand, leg and feet.” (Ibid.) Obryk followed up by asking how
Student A did that, but S.C. didn’t respond. Obryk then asked S.C., “How did [Student A]
hurt your foot?” S.C. responded, “[Student A] drew on my legs.” (Ibid.)
After S.C.’s interview, Obryk spoke to several school employees and questioned
them about the mark on S.C.’s legs. All reported that S.C. and Student A were completely
separated and had no interactions. Additionally, dry-erase markers were used during the
creative literacy class, but S.C. and Student A were not at the same table when the
markers were used, so there would be no physical means by which Student A could have
done it. (Ibid.)
Obryk interviewed Student A, who stated that he knows he shouldn’t hit people
and that he doesn't. (Ibid.)
Upon completion of the investigation, Obryk and McDade concluded that the
allegations of physical contact by another student were insufficient for a finding of HIB.
That is, the alleged actions against S.C. were not motivated by a distinguishing
characteristic, and W.C.'s HIB complaints were unfounded because they were not
corroborated by witnesses and were not corroborated by S.C. during her interview. Obryk
input the investigation into the HIB report.
2 The school nurse was present during S.C.’s interview.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02764-25
6
On or about October 30, 2024, Obryk then sent the determination to Dr. Labbe.
(R-1.) Dr. Labbe has served as the superintendent/chief school administrator of the
District for approximately twelve years. He confirmed that the District’s HIB policy aligns
with the State HIB policy.
Upon receiving the HIB investigation determination, Labbe met Obryk and
McDade. During the meeting, Obryk and McDade explained that the investigation could
not corroborate S.C.’s allegations or any direct interactions between S.C. and Student A.
Dr. Labbe agreed with the determination that HIB could not be substantiated.
On the same day, and upon request, Obryk also sent W.C. a copy of the
preliminary notification regarding the outcome of the HIB investigation. (P-12.)
During the November 19, 2024, Board meeting, Dr. Labbe reported the findings of
the HIB investigation to the Board. (R-2.) By letter dated November 20, 2024, W.C. was
advised that the Board approved the HIB findings and recommendations. (Ibid.) In the
same letter, W.C. was informed of his appeal rights, specifically:
Thus, in accordance with the provisions of N.J.S.A. 18A:37-
15(b)6, if you disagree with the action taken by the district you
may request a hearing before the Board of Education. The
hearing shall be held within ten days of the request. . . .
[R-2.]
On or about November 27, 2024, W.C. appealed the Board’s HIB determination.
(P-4.) On December 2, 2024, Dr. Labbe confirmed receipt of W.C.’s request and advised
W.C. that the next scheduled Board meeting was on December 17, 2024. (Ibid.) Dr.
Labbe was unable to schedule a board meeting prior to December 17, 2024, because he
could not obtain a quorum. W.C. requested to attend the Board meeting virtually, rather
than in person. (Ibid.) W.C. attended the December 17, 2024, board meeting virtually
and presented his appeal. (Ibid.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02764-25
7
By letter dated December 18, 2024, Dr. Labbe advised W.C. that the Board
affirmed the HIB determination. (R-3.)
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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” (HIB) 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.]

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02764-25
8
Each school district must adopt a policy that prohibits HIB and provides for a
prompt response to any alleged HIB incident. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(a). Once an alleged
HIB incident is reported to the school principal, the principal or their designee must initiate
an investigation within one school day of receiving the report. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-
15(b)(6)(a). A school anti-bullying specialist shall conduct the investigation, which must
be completed within ten school days from the date of notification of the incident. Ibid.
The results of the investigation shall then be quickly reported to the superintendent of
schools, who may take certain remedial action. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(b). The results
shall also be reported to the board of education “no later than the date of the board of
education meeting next following the completion of the investigation, along with
information on any services provided, training established, discipline imposed, or other
action taken or recommended by the superintendent.” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(c).
Under the Act, the parents of students involved in any alleged HIB incident are
entitled to receive information about the nature and results of the investigation. N.J.S.A.
18A:37-15(b)(6)(d). Parents may request a hearing before the board, which must be held
within ten days of the request. Ibid. Any hearing shall be held in executive session to
protect the identity of any students involved. The board may hear from the anti-bullying
specialist regarding the incident, recommendations for discipline or services, and any
programs implemented to prevent such incidents. Ibid. The board must issue a decision
at the first meeting after receiving the investigation report. The board may affirm, reject,
or modify the superintendent’s decision. The board’s decision may be appealed to the
Commissioner of Education. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(e).
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,
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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02764-25
9
though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached.” Bayshore
Sew. 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, to prevail, petitioners must demonstrate that the
Board acted in bad faith or in utter disregard of the circumstances before it. T.B.M. v.
Moorestown Bd. of Educ., 2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 67 (February 6, 2008) (citing Thomas,
89 N.J. Super. at 332).
Against this backdrop, W.C. challenges respondent’s determination that on
October 8 and October 23, 2024, Student A did not commit an act of HIB against S.C.
First, W.C. contends that the District failed to hold a board meeting within ten days of his
request for a hearing before the Board. The parties agree that the Board meeting was
held twelve days after W.C. requested the hearing, which was the next scheduled Board
meeting. Understanding the Act requires a board meeting within ten days of the parents’
request for a hearing this may not be practicable in every case, as in this instance. A
meeting could not be scheduled before December 17, 2024, because Dr. Labbe was
unable to obtain a quorum. Respondent's holding of the Board meeting two days late
does not constitute a violation of W.C.’s due process rights. W.C. was advised of the
December 17, 2024, Board meeting well in advance, chose to attend virtually, and
presented his appeal to the Board. Thus, whatever procedural irregularity occurred in
this matter was cured. Therefore, I CONCLUDE that respondent’s actions in response
to the timeliness of the Board hearing requirement complied with the Act.3
As to the substantive issues, W.C. alleges that respondent erred in its
determination that the October 8 and 23, 2024, incidents did not constitute HIB because
that determination was unsubstantiated. I disagree.
Obryk conducted a thorough and prompt investigation in collaboration with
McDade. After Lujo, Elardo, Burns, and Student A, no one was able to corroborate S.C.’s
3 Although not in W.C.’s appeal, he argued at the hearing that the District’s investigation was flawed
because Obryk conducted the interviews. I rejected this argument because Obryk collaborated with
McDade. Additionally, District Policy 5512 and the Act permit persons other than the anti-bullying specialist
to assist in HIB investigations. See also, Dunkley v. Bd. of Educ., 216 F. Supp. 3d 485, 495 (D.N.J. 2016);
see also A.M. and A.M. ex rel. B.M. v. Somerset Hills Pub. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., EDU 08742-24, Initial
Decision (March 6, 2025), adopted, Comm’r (May 23, 2025), http://nj.gov/education/legal/

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02764-25
10
allegations. S.C.’s classroom teacher, Lujo, reported little to no interaction between S.C.
and Student A. Lujo also reported that S.C. claimed to have been hit or slapped, or
otherwise harmed, even though adults present did not observe any actual contact with
another student. For example, after investigating S.C.’s claim that Student A wrote on
her leg with a marker, it was confirmed that S.C. and Student A were not at the same
table when the markers were used, so there would be no physical means by which
Student A could have done it. Further, Obryk reviewed all available video footage from
the building, including hallways, the gym, and the playground, but found no evidence of
interactions between S.C. and Student A. Because the alleged incidents could not be
substantiated, I CONCLUDE that the actions of respondent in determining that the
October 8 and 23, 2024, incidents did not constitute HIB were not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.
ORDER
Following my conclusions above, I ORDER that W.C.’s Petition of Appeal be and
hereby 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.
commissioner/2025/270-25.pdf (determining that the Anti-Bullying Act does not require the Anti-Bullying
Specialist to be the only school official who may conduct the investigation. Both principals and vice
principals may participate in the investigation.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02764-25
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. 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.
February 2, 2026 _______________________________
DATE NICOLE T. MINUTOLI, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date emailed to Parties:
NTM/tc

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02764-25
12
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For petitioner:
W.C.
For respondent:
Nina Obryk
Dr. Richard Labbe
Exhibits
For petitioner:
P-1 Not entered in evidence
P-2 Not entered in evidence
P-3 October 23, 2024, email to Labbe
P-4 Email exchange between petitioner and the District, dated November 2024
through December 2024
P-5 Not entered in evidence
P-6 Not entered in evidence
P-7 Not entered in evidence
P-8a Email exchange between petitioner and the District dated October 29, 2024
P-8b Not entered in evidence
P-9 Not entered in evidence
P-10 Email exchange between petitioner and the District dated October 24, 2024
P-11 Missing
P-12 Email exchange between petitioner and the District dated October 30, 2024
P-13 Email exchange between petitioner and the District dated October 13, 2024
P-14 Not entered in evidence
P-15 Not entered in evidence
P-16 Not entered in evidence

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02764-25
13
For respondent:
R-1 HIB investigation report
R-2 November 20, 2024, letter to petitioner from the District
R-3 December 18, 2024, letter to petitioner from the District
R-4 Not entered in evidence
R-5 Not entered in evidence
R-6 District’s HIB policy