C.W., on behalf of minor child, C.W. v. Board of Education of the Township of Mount Olive, Morris County, 9/2/2025 (#428-25)

428-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 00362-25
Agency Dkt. No. 391-12/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
C.W., on behalf of minor child, C.W.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Mount
Olive, Morris 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, while the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
that the Board did not act arbitrarily, without rational basis, or induced by improper motives in
reaching its harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) determination, the Commissioner finds
that the Board did not fully comply with the procedural requirements of the Anti-Bullying Bill of
Rights Act (Act). The Act requires that all acts of HIB be reported verbally to the school principal
on the same day when the school employee witnessed or received reliable information regarding
any such incident. N.J.S.A. 18A: 37-15(b)(5). In this case, petitioner reported the alleged incident
to her child’s teacher on September 23, 2024; however, the principal was not informed verbally
of the allegations until September 26, 2024. 	Nonetheless, the violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:37-

2
15(b)(5) did not substantively impact the case and therefore does not warrant a reversal of the
Board’s decision. The Board is reminded to adhere to the Act’s timeframes in the future.
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: 	September 2, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	September 5, 2025
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
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00362-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 391-12/24
C.W. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD C.W.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP
OF MOUNT OLIVE, MORRIS COUNTY,
Respondent.
________________________________________
C.W., petitioner appearing pro se
John G. Geppert, Esq. for respondent (Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, attorneys)
Record Closed: May 8, 2025 	Decided: June 2, 2025
BEFORE: KIMBERLY K. HOLMES, ALJ
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
When a Board acts within its discretion, its decision must stand unless “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).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00362-25
2
On September 23, 2024, petitioner alleged that a student said a “black person is a
monkey” in front of her daughter in class. 	After a thorough investigation, respondent
decided that the allegation was unfounded because no evidence exists to corroborate it.
Therefore, respondent’s decision must stand.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 23, 2024, petitioner alleged that a classmate of her daughter made
inappropriate statements in front of her daughter, C.W., and asked the Board to
investigate.
On September 26, 2024, the Board began an HIB investigation under N.J.S.A.
18A:37-13 et seq., and its HIB Policy. 	After thoroughly investigating the allegation, the
Board concluded that it was unfounded because no one corroborated the statements.
On December 10, 2024, petitioner filed a petition of appeal with the Department of
Education, 	Board 	of 	Controversies 	and 	Disputes, 	challenging 	the 	respondent’s
determination.
On January 3, 2025, the Board of Controversies and Disputes transmitted the case
to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as a contested case under the Administrative
Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to-15, and the Act establishing the OAL, N.J.S.A.
52:14F-1 to-13, for a hearing under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C.
1:1-1.1 to -21.6.
On February 10, 2025, and March 10, 2025, I held prehearing conferences and
scheduled a hearing for May 19, 2025.
On April 3, 2025, the Board filed a motion for summary decision. 	On April 25,
2025, petitioner filed her opposition. On May 8, 2025, the Board filed its response, and I
closed the record.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00362-25
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
In considering the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion
for summary decision, and in viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to petitioner,
I FIND the following as FACT for purposes of this motion only:
The Board is the public school district board for the Township of Mount Olive in
Mount Olive, New Jersey. It is authorized under N.J.S.A. 18A:10-1 to operate the Mount
Olive public schools, which is a pre-kindergarten through high school district. Mount Olive
adopted District Policy 5512 Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying on August 18, 2002,
and revised it on May 8, 2023, to comply with the New Jersey Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights.
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13, et seq. (Resp. Ex. C.)
Petitioner is the mother of her minor child C.W. who was in the sixth grade in the
school district on September 23, 2024, the date of the alleged incident.
On September 23, 2024, C.W. told her mother that another student, C.H., stated
that “a monkey is a black person” in her presence and in the presence of another student
while in science class.
On September 23, 2024, C.W. told her teacher, Nicolas Gonzalez, what C.H.
allegedly said.
On September 23, 2024, petitioner asked Gonzalez and another teacher, Shannon
Carlson, to conduct an HIB investigation.
On September 25, 2024, the vice principal, Daniel Barcia, advised petitioner how
to file an HIB complaint.
On September 27, 2024, the principal, Agatha Wilke, advised petitioner that the
Board had received her complaint.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00362-25
4
On October 8, 2024, petitioner met with Wilke and the anti-bullying specialist, Anna
Crumm, who conducted the HIB investigation.
In investigating the complaint, Crumm followed all district policies and state law.
She interviewed both students, C.W. and C.H.; the two teachers, Gonzalez and Carlson;
and two other students, Student One and Student Two. 	Crumm also reviewed the
school’s CCTV footage. The school’s CCTV footage contains video; it does not contain
audio.
In her written statement, C.W. reported that she felt comfortable returning to class
on the day of the alleged incident.
On October 2, 2024, Crumm interviewed C.H. who denied making any statement
about a monkey being a black person.
Crumm also interviewed Student One, who sat near C.H. on the day of the alleged
incident and reported that he did not hear C.H. make any statements about a monkey
being a black person.
On October 4, 2024, Crumm interviewed Gonzalez and Carlson, both of whom
were in class the day of the alleged incident and reported that they did not hear C.H.
make any statements about a monkey being a black person.
On October 7, 2024, Crumm interviewed Student Two, who sat near C.W. on the
day of the alleged incident and reported that she did not hear C.H. make any statements
about a monkey being a black person. 	Student Two merely reported that C.W. was
“getting called down to the office because C.H. said something racist to [C.W.] in class!”
Student Two also reported that C.H. “does not target people in class but just says some
things to make people laugh.” No other students sat near either C.H. or C.W. on the date
of the alleged incident.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00362-25
5
Since no one corroborated that C.H. said that “a monkey is a black person” on the
date of the alleged incident, the Board advised petitioner on October 8, 2024, that the HIB
complaint was unfounded. The Board also advised that the HIB complaint was unfounded
because C.W. felt comfortable returning to class on the day of the alleged incident and
did not experience a substantial disruption to her education.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
When a local board of education acts within its discretionary authority, its decision
is entitled to a presumption of correctness that 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). 	To overcome that presumption, the petitioner must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the board “acted in either bad faith or in disregard to
the circumstances.” 	T.B.M. v. Moorestown Bd. of Educ., EDU 2780-07 (February 6,
2008), aff’d, Comm’r (April 25, 2013) (citing Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J.
Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965), aff’d, 46 N.J. 581 (1966)). In other words, the burden
is a heavy one.
In this case, no one corroborated petitioner’s allegation that C.H., stated that “a
monkey is a black person” in her daughter’s presence on September 23, 2024. 	No
student, neither Student One nor Student Two, heard C.H. make that statement.
Likewise, no teacher, neither Gonzalez nor Carlson, heard C.H. make that statement.
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that the Board did not act arbitrarily, without rational basis, or
induced by improper motives, and that it’s HIB determination must stand.
A party may move for summary decision upon any or all substantive issues in a
contested case. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a). The motion for summary decision shall be served
with briefs and may be served with supporting affidavits. Ibid. “The decision sought may
be rendered 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).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00362-25
6
In this case, petitioner alleges that the Board acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable manner because the Board failed to interview another student and review
the 	CCTV 	footage. 	Petitioner 	asserts 	that 	the 	HIB 	allegation 	would 	have 	been
substantiated had the Board interviewed another student and found a way to use the
CCTV footage to hear Gonzalez speak with C.H. 	No other student, however, sat near
either C.H. or C.W. on the date of the alleged incident. 	In addition, the CCTV footage
contains no audio. Therefore, I CONCLUDE that no genuine issue of material fact exists
concerning the corroboration of the alleged statement and that the Board is entitled to
summary decision as a matter of law.
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that respondent’s
motion for summary decision is GRANTED and that this case 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.
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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00362-25
7
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.
June 2, 2025
DATE 	KIMBERLY K. HOLMES, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	June 2, 2025
Date Mailed to Parties: 	June 2, 2025
lsr