Joseph Muniz v. Board of Education of the Hudson County Schools of Technology, Hudson County, 6/13/25 (#304-25E)

304-25E
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 09176-25
Agency Dkt. No. 154-5/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Order on Emergent Relief
Joseph M. Muniz,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Hudson County Schools of
Technology, Hudson County,
Respondent.
The record of this emergent matter and the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) have been reviewed and considered.
Upon such review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner has failed to
demonstrate entitlement to emergent relief pursuant to the standards enunciated in Crowe v. DeGioia,
90 N.J. 126, 132-34 (1982) and codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6.
Accordingly, the recommended Order denying petitioner’s application for emergent relief is
adopted for the reasons stated therein. This matter shall continue at the Office of Administrative Law
with such proceedings as the parties and the ALJ deem necessary to bring it to closure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	June 13, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	June 16, 2025

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ORDER DENYING
EMERGENT RELIEF
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09176-25
AGY REF NO. 154-5/25
JOSEPH M. MUNIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE HUDSON
COUNTY SCHOOLS OF TECHNOLOGY,
HUDSON COUNTY,
Respondent.
_________________________________________
Stephen J. Edelstein, Esq., for petitioner (Weiner Law Group, attorneys)
Roshan Shah, Esq. and Chris Khatami, Esq., for respondent (Shah Law Group,
attorneys)
Record Closed: June 2, 2025 	Decided: June 2, 2025
BEFORE THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09176-25
- 2 -
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner filed a motion for Emergent Relief with the Office of Controversies and
Disputes in the New Jersey Department of Education (DOE). The contested matter was
transferred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:6A-12.1,
where it was filed on May 23, 2025, to be heard on an emergent basis.
Petitioner seeks, inter alia, reinstatement to his position of employment with the
Respondent. Petitioner is currently suspended with pay.
Respondent filed a Notice of Motion to dismiss in lieu of an Answer.
Oral argument on the motion for emergent relief was heard on June 2, 2025.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner 	is 	employed 	as 	the 	Assistant 	Business 	Administrator 	and 	Board
Secretary for the Respondent District. He has been employed by the District for twenty
years.
On November 25, 2024, Petitioner was suspended with pay pursuant to a letter
issued by then Superintendent Amy Lin-Rodriguez. 	Thereafter, petitioner received a
Rice Notice that his employment would be discussed at a Board meeting on December
12, 2024. Superintendent Lin-Rodriguez was also suspended after she issued her letter
of suspension, and prior to the December 12, 2024 Board meeting. 	That suspension
was then approved by the Board at said meeting. 	Petitioner remains suspended with
pay to date.
The basis for the suspension, pursuant to Superintendent Lin-Rodriguez’ letter of
November 25, 2024, was due to “your conduct today was unprofessional, insubordinate,
profane, and threatening.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09176-25
- 3 -
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The threshold question in the instant matter is whether the District can place the
petitioner on administrative leave, or otherwise suspend him.
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.3 states, “Any employee or officer of a board of education in
this State who is suspended from his employment, office or position, other than by
reason of indictment, pending any investigation, hearing or trial or any appeal therefrom,
shall receive his full pay or salary during such period of suspension, except that in the
event 	of 	charges 	against 	such 	employee 	or 	officer 	brought 	before 	the 	board 	of
education or the Commissioner of Education pursuant to law, such suspension may be
with or without pay or salary as provided in chapter 6 of which this section is a
supplement.”
While there are no tenure charges pending, or even contemplated by the District,
the above provides for suspension provided the petitioner receives his full remuneration
under his contract. 	It is not disputed that he is receiving his salary during the
suspension.
The New Jersey Supreme Court has set forth a four-prong test for determining
whether an applicant is entitled to emergent relief. Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126, 132-
34 (1982) (enumerating the factors later codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:14.2-7(s)1.
The four factors (“the Factors”), include:
1. The petitioner will suffer irreparable harm if the requested
relief is not granted;
2. The legal right underlying petitioner's claim is settled;
3. The petitioner has a likelihood of prevailing on the merits
of the underlying claim; and
4. 	When 	the 	equities 	and 	interests 	of 	the 	parties 	are
balanced, the petitioner will suffer greater harm than the
respondent will suffer if the requested relief is not granted.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09176-25
- 4 -
The moving party bears the burden of proving each of the Crowe elements
“clearly and convincingly.” 	Waste Mgmt of N.J. v. Union County Util. Auth., 399 N.J.
Super. 508, 520 (App. Div. 2008).
Petitioner asserts that mere fact of the suspension causes irreparable harm.
Petitioner does not dispute that he is receiving full pay and benefits. 	Certainly, there is
no financial hardship imposed by his current status.
Petitioner submitted no affidavit to set forth facts that support the claim of
irreparable harm. 	Rather, it is simply argued that his status alone causes such
irreparable harm. Without more it is not possible for petitioner to meet the first prong of
the Crowe test.
Petitioner cites Sancez v. Board of Education of the City of Camden, OAL Dkt.
No. 	EDU 	23-03; 	Agency 	Dkt. 	No. 	403-12/02 	(2003). 	That 	case 	is 	factually
distinguishable for the present matter. 	In Sanchez the petitioner was demoted, not
suspended. 	She was assigned as an Acting Vice Principal from her Principal position.
In the instant matter petitioner was suspended for cause. 	See Lin-Rodriguez letter of
suspension.
Other than cite Sanchez, supra, and claim irreparable harm without further
evidence of the same does not satisfy the first prong of the Crowe test.
As the burden is upon petitioners to prove each element of Crowe, and I have
concluded that petitioners are unable to satisfy factor one, no further analysis is
required.
Based upon the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that petitioner’s request for emergent
relief be DENIED.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09176-25
- 5 -
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that petitioner’s request for emergent relief is DENIED.
This Order on application for emergency relief may be adopted, modified or
rejected 	by 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE 	DEPARTMENT 	OF 	EDUCATION,
who/which by law is authorized to make a final decision in this matter. 	The final
decision shall be issued without undue delay but no later than forty-five days following
the 	entry 	of 	this 	order. 	If 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE 	DEPARTMENT 	OF
EDUCATION does not adopt, modify or reject this order within forty-five days, this
recommended order shall become a final decision on the issue of emergent relief in
accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
June 2, 2025
DATE 	THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ
Date Received at Agency 	__________________________
Date Mailed to Parties:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09176-25
- 6 -
List of Moving Papers
For Petitioner:
Verified Petition of Appeal
Notice of Motion for Immediate Relief
Letter brief
For Respondent:
Notice of Motion to Dismiss
Letter brief
Certification of Jonathan Busch, Esq.
List of Exhibits:
Petitioner:
P-1 	Letter dated January 15, 2025 from Jonathan Busch, Esq
Respondent:
None