C.M, on behalf of minor child, D.M. v. Board of Education of the Village of Ridgewood, Bergen County, 10/20/25 (#497-25)

497-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 02698-25
Agency Dkt. No. 11-1/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
C.M., on behalf of minor child, D.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Village of Ridgewood,
Bergen 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 the Ridgewood
Board of Education’s harassment, intimidation, and bullying decisions involving petitioner’s child were not
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: 	October 20, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	October 20, 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 02698-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 11-1/25
C.M. ON BEHALF OF MINOR
CHILD D.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE VILLAGE
OF RIDGEWOOD, BERGEN COUNTY,
Respondent.
C.M., petitioner, pro se
Arsen Zartarian, Esq., for respondent (Cleary, Giacobbe, Alfieri, Jacobs, LLC
attorneys)
Record Closed: August 15, 2025 	Decided: September 18, 2025
BEFORE PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner’s son was accused of being intentionally verbally abusive to Victim One
based on her race, causing her to cry and be fearful. 	Respondent investigated the
incident and concluded that there was an incident of harassment, intimidation and bullying

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02698-25
2
(HIB) under the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13, et seq. (ABBRA).
Petitioner filed a reciprocal HIB complaint against Victim One based on petitioner’s anger
issues. 	Respondent investigated and concluded that there was no HIB because anger
issues were not characteristics identified under ABBRA. Should the respondent’s findings
be overturned? No. A school board acting within the scope of its authority is “entitled to
a presumption of correctness unless it’s arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.” Thomas
v. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 15, 2024, a teacher at the Somerville Elementary School filed a HIB report
(HIB I) alleging that D.M. used inappropriate racial language towards another student,
Victim One. 	Respondent’s Anti-Bullying Specialist (ABS) initiated an investigation into
the alleged incident. On June 18, 2024, the ABS concluded that D.M. committed an act
of HIB and submitted a report of her findings to the principal of the Somerville Elementary
School. 	On June 19, 2024, the principal submitted that report to the Superintendent of
Schools.
On August 27, 2024, C.M. submitted a HIB report (HIB II) to respondent against
Victim One, alleging that Victim One was verbally abusive to D.M. because of his anger
issues. 	On September 4, 2024, the ABS initiated an investigation into the alleged
incident. On September 5, 2024, the ABS concluded that there was no HIB and submitted
a report of her findings to the principal of the Somerville Elementary School. 	C.M. was
notified of the findings and requested a hearing before the board under N.J.S.A. 18A:
37-15(b)(6)(d). On October 14, 2024, a closed session hearing was held, and the Board
unanimously affirmed the findings of HIB I and HIB II.
On January 6, 2025, petitioner C.M., on behalf of minor child D.M., filed a petition
of appeal with the Commissioner of Education, Office of Controversies and Disputes. On
January 30, 2025, respondent filed its answer. 	On February 5, 2025, the case was
transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law as a contested case under N.J.S.A.
52:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02698-25
3
On February 24, 2025, a prehearing conference was held, and on March 4, 2025,
I entered an order outlining the deadlines for discovery and motions for summary
decision. On June 5, 2025, respondent filed a motion for summary decision. On July 18,
2025, petitioner filed their opposition. On August 15, 2025, respondent filed its reply, and
petitioner requested and was granted time to file a sur-reply. 	On September 2, 2025,
petitioner declined to file a sur-reply, and, on that date, I closed the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the documents the parties submitted and my assessment of their
sufficiency, I FIND the following FACTS:
The Board operates the public school district for the Village of Ridgewood, New
Jersey. There are six elementary schools, two middle schools and one high school. The
Board 	enacted 	District 	Policy 	5131.1, 	Harassment, 	Intimidation, 	and 	Bullying, 	in
December 2009 to comply with the New Jersey Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights, N.J.S.A.
18A:37-13, et seq.
In June 2024, D.M. was a general education student and was enrolled in the fifth
grade at Somerville Elementary School. 	On June 14, 2024, during recess, D.M. and
several other students, including Victim One, were engaged in a game of kickball. Victim
One approached D.M. and stated, “You have anger issues, you weird ass b****.” 	In
response, D.M. stated, “Shut your black ass up.”
HIB I
Two of the students who witnessed the exchange of words between D.M. and
Victim One reported it to Jaclyn Grippaldi, a teacher at Somerville Elementary School.
Grippaldi completed the HIB 338 Form. (R-A.) On June 15, 2024, the HIB 338 form was
sent to Principal Lorna Oates-Santos and forwarded to Anti-Bullying Specialist Jane
Gerald. (R-B.) On June 18, 2024, Gerald completed her investigation and prepared her
report for Oates-Santos. (R-C.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02698-25
4
On June 17 and June 18, 2024, Gerald interviewed Grippaldi, D.M., Victim One,
and four other elementary school students. D.M. admitted that he told Victim One to “shut
your black ass up.” 	The witnesses confirmed that they did hear the words “black ass”
and confirmed that Victim One did say that D.M. had “anger issues.” 	Gerald concluded
that the comment “black ass” was clearly motivated by race and that Victim One was
upset and crying because of the comment. 	Gerald further concluded that there was an
incident of HIB by D.M. and recommended disciplinary counseling. 	On June 19, 2024,
Oates-Santos concurred and forwarded the report to Superintendent of Schools Mark
Schwarz.
HIB II
On June 19, 2024, C.M., father of D.M., prepared HIB 338 (R-D) and submitted it
to Oates-Santo and several other employees at Somerville Elementary School. On July
2, 2024, Richard Freedman acknowledged receipt of the HIB Form 338 and notified C.M.
that they received the report, school was in recess, the investigation will be completed at
the start of the new school year, and the investigation would be conducted by Meagan
Papapietro, the anti-bullying specialist at the Benjamin Franklin Middle School, where all
students would be registered. (Petition at 36.)
The HIB 338 form completed by C.M. iterates that the students were all playing
kickball, and at the conclusion of the game, D.M. was in an emotional state; that Victim
One stated, “You have anger issues, you weird ass b****,” and that D.M. responded, “Shut
your black ass up”; that D.M. was visibly shaking and could not eat lunch; that D.M. did
not return to class for the remainder of the day; and that D.M. had interaction issues with
his friends and family after the incident. (R-D.)
On August 27, 2024, Papapietro acknowledged receipt of HIB 338, and on
September 4, 2024, she began her investigation. 	Papapietro interviewed Victim One,
D.M., one student witness and Oates-Santos. 	On September 5, 2024, Papapietro
concluded that Victim One did say “you have anger issues”; D.M. did say “shut your black
ass up”; D.M. does not typically exhibit angry behavior; neither Victim One nor D.M. was
angrier than the other; Victim One and D.M. have not had any prior negative interactions;

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02698-25
5
and D.M.’s mother came to the school unsolicited and voluntarily removed D.M. from
school on the date of the incident. D.M. stated he was able to return to school and attend
normal end-of-school activities without any expectation of physical or emotional harm,
and that he was able to start middle school without any expectation of physical or
emotional harm. 	D.M. does not describe himself as an angry person. 	There was no
documented disability or prior incident citing anger as a distinguishing characteristic in
any of D.M.’s school records, and none of D.M.’s classmates described D.M. as an angry
person or that D.M. angers easily. 	Papapietro concluded that the anger as complained
of here was not a distinguishing characteristic. Papapietro also concluded that D.M. was
able to complete the rest of his day as a normal day and attended all 2024 year-end
school-related events. 	Papapietro further concluded that there was no incident of HIB
against D.M. and recommended disciplinary counseling for both D.M. and Victim One.
Principal Wisniewski concurred and forwarded the report to Schwarz.
On September 30, 2024, Schwarz presented both reports to the Board. 	At the
request of the parents of D.M., on October 14, 2024, the Board held a hearing on HIB I
and HIB II, heard testimony from the parents of D.M., considered the reports of HIB I and
HIB II, and unanimously adopted both reports.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Summary decision “may be rendered if no genuine issue of facts exist and the
moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). This rule is
substantially like the summary judgment rule embodied in the N.J. Court Rules, R. 4:46-2.
See Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67, 74 (1954). 	All
inferences of doubt are drawn against the movant and in favor of the non-movant. Id. at
75. 	The judge’s function is to determine whether genuine issues of fact must be
adjudicated. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520 (1995).
Having read the briefs and certifications and having reviewed the exhibits, I
CONCLUDE that no issues of fact exist and that the case is ripe for summary decision.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02698-25
6
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 [HIB] of students that
occur in school and off school premises.”
A finding of HIB requires three elements. 	First, the conduct must be reasonably
perceived as being motivated by any actual or perceived enumerated characteristic or
other distinguishing characteristic. 	Enumerated characteristics include race, color,
religion, 	ancestry, 	national 	origin, 	gender, 	sexual 	orientation, 	gender 	identity 	and
expression, 	mental, 	physical 	or 	sensory 	disability, 	or 	any 	other 	distinguishing
characteristic. Second, the conduct must substantially disrupt or interfere with the rights
of other students or the orderly operation of the school. 	Third, one of the three criteria
enumerated in the Act regarding the effect of the conduct must also be satisfied. N.J.S.A.
18A:37-14. The conduct must also 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.
Finally, HIB means any gesture, any written, verbal or physical act, or any electronic
communication that “a reasonable person should know, under the circumstances, will
have the effect of physically or emotionally harming a student,” “has the effect of insulting
or demeaning any student,” or “creates a hostile educational environment.” 	N.J.S.A.
18A:37-14.
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). Furthermore, “where there is room for two opinions, action is not
arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration,” and the
commissioner will not substitute his judgment for that of the board. Bayshore Sewerage
Co. v. Dep’t of Env’t. Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199 (Ch. Div. 1973).
There is no dispute that D.M. said, “Shut your black ass up.” There is no dispute
that this statement is based on Victim One’s race. There is also no question that race is
one of the enumerated characteristics of N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq. 	The incident

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02698-25
7
occurred on school property, caused Victim One to become visibly upset and cry, and
disrupted Victim One’s education because of the emotional harm. 	I CONCLUDE that
D.M.’s statement to Victim One was an incident of HIB because it was motivated by
Victim One’s race, took place on school property, disrupted her rights, and caused her to
become emotionally harmed, as she was visibly upset and crying.
The incident was immediately reported to Grippaldi, who completed and submitted
a HIB form, triggering an investigation. 	The very next day, Gerald interviewed all the
student witnesses and Grippaldi. 	D.M. and Victim One admitted to both statements.
Gerald concluded her investigation within four days of the incident and reported her
findings to the Oates-Santos, who promptly forwarded the report to Schwarz.
HIB II filed on behalf of D.M. alleges an incident of HIB because D.M. was visibly
upset, and that this was a vulnerable characteristic that was exploited by Victim One.
There is no dispute that D.M. was angry. 	However, anger is not an enumerated
characteristic. D.M., Victim One and other students concur that D.M. does not normally
exhibit angry behavior, does not have a reputation of being angry and does not anger
easily. 	D.M. has no history of angry behavior and no documented disability for anger
issues. Although D.M. was removed from school on the day of the incident voluntarily by
a parent and not at the behest of school personnel, D.M. reported that he had a normal
day after the incident. D.M. also confirmed that he felt safe going to school and had no
issues crossing paths with Victim One while at school. I CONCLUDE that Victim’s One
statement to D.M. was not an incident of HIB because anger is not an enumerated
characteristic.
HIB II was filed while the school was in recess for the summer. Schwarz
acknowledged receipt of the HIB II complaint and confirmed that the incident would be
investigated; however, it would be investigated by the receiving school, Benjamin Franklin
Middle School, because all the students would be at that school. Once school resumed
for the fall, Papapietro investigated the complaint and concluded her investigation within
one day. 	She reported her findings to Wisniewski, which were relayed to Schwarz on
September 14, 2024.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02698-25
8
HIB I and HIB II were thoroughly and timely investigated by Gerald and Papapietro.
The parents of D.M. requested a hearing to present their case to the Board. The Board
considered the reports of HIB I and HIB II and the testimony of the parents and affirmed
the findings in HIB I and HIB II. 	The Board complied with the Statute. 	It retained an
anti-bullying investigator at both schools. 	HIB I and HIB II were reported to the
investigator, were promptly investigated, and the results were promptly reported to the
parents. 	The investigation concluded that there was a violation in HIB I and that there
was no violation in HIB II. 	The statute permits the Board to affirm, reject, or modify the
investigator’s decision, which it did. 	The Board heard the parents’ appeal and affirmed
the determinations made. I CONCLUDE that the Board did not act arbitrarily, capriciously
or unreasonably in affirming HIB I and HIB II.
ORDER
I ORDER that respondent’s motion for summary decision is GRANTED, and the
petition 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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02698-25
9
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.
September 18, 2025
DATE 	PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	September 18, 2025
Date Mailed to Parties: 	September 18, 2025

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02698-25
10
APPENDIX
Moving Papers for Petitioner:
Brief of petitioner in support of Opposition to Motion for Summary Decision, dated
July 18, 2025
Moving Papers for Respondent:
Brief of respondent, Ridgewood Board of Education, in support of Motion for
Summary Decision, dated June 5, 2025, with Exhibits A through J
Letter, dated August 12, 2025, with more legible Exhibits D, E and F
Reply Brief, dated August 15, 2025.
Exhibits
For Petitioner
Petition (need proper designation)
For Respondent:
Exhibit A 	Ridgewood Public Schools HIB 338 LEA Form, dated June 14, 2024
Exhibit B 	Ridgewood Public School’s HIB 338 Family Form, dated June 15,
2024
Exhibit C 	Ridgewood Public School’s HIB Anti-Bullying Specialist Investigation
Report regarding the HIB report, dated June 18, 2024
Exhibit D 	Petitioner’s HIB 338 Family Form, dated June 18, 2024
Exhibit E 	Ridgewood 	Public 	Schools 	HIB 	Incident 	Tracking 	Form, 	dated
August 27, 2024
Exhibit F 	Ridgewood 	Public 	School 	Anti-Bullying 	Specialist 	Investigative
Report, dated September 5, 2024
Exhibit G 	Emails between petitioner and respondent regarding the October
Board of Education meeting
Exhibit H 	Ridgewood Public School Board Resolution X.A. regarding HIB I

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02698-25
11
Exhibit I 	Ridgewood Public School Board Resolution X.B. regarding HIB II
Exhibit J 	Ridgewood Public School Board voting records and minutes from the
October 14, 2024 meeting