Philip Brady v. New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners, 1/30/25 (#36-25)

36-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 05372-24
Agency Dkt. No. 61-3/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Philip Brady,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education, State Board
of Examiners,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), the
exceptions filed by petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and respondent’s reply thereto, have
been reviewed and considered.
This matter involves the State Board of Examiners’ (Board) denial of petitioner’s application
for a Teacher of Marketing Certificate of Eligibility (CE). The Legislature authorized the Board to issue
teaching certificates, including CEs, to successful applicants. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38. 	A “certificate of
eligibility” is “a certificate with lifetime validity issued by the State Board of Examiners to candidates
who meet degree, academic, and applicable test requirements for teacher certification.” N.J.S.A.
18A:26-2a. 	Among other requirements, a candidate for a CE must satisfy the endorsement
requirements established by N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-9, including “completing the required subject-area course
requirements.” N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.3(a)(4).
In particular, the candidate must either complete an undergraduate major in the subject area,
hold a graduate degree in the subject area, or complete “at least 30 credits in a coherent sequence

2
of courses appropriate to the subject area as documented by an official transcript from an accredited
college or university, of which 12 semester-hour credits must be at the advanced level of study,
including junior-, senior-, or graduate-level study as documented by the official transcript of an
accredited college or university.” N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-9.1(a)(1).
If an application for certification is deemed deficient, the candidate may provide the Board
with “evidence of alternative education and/or experience that the candidate considers equivalent
to any area(s) of deficiency.” N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12(b). “In this instance, the Board does not waive
requirements, rather, it determines if the experience and/or study presented is equivalent to the
requirements for issuance of the [requested] certificate.” Hutchinson v. N.J. State Bd. of Exam’rs,
EDU 16373-12, Initial Decision at 13 (Apr. 5, 2013), adopted, Commissioner Decision No. 177-13 (May
15, 2013). Specifically, the Board has discretion to determine whether the alternative experience
“establishes a one-to-one correspondence” with the requirements for certification. 	Ibid. 	“The
burden is on the applicant to present the information necessary to establish the ‘one-to-one
correspondence’ of experience/alternate education to the licensing deficiencies.” Ibid.
Petitioner earned a Bachelor’s degree in Liberal Arts, a Graduate certificate in Executive
Leadership, and a Master’s degree in Management with a specialization in Organizational Leadership
from Regis University. 	The Board initially denied his application for a Teacher of Marketing CE
because he lacked the 12 advanced-level credits in marketing required by N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-9.1(a)(1)(iii).
In response, petitioner asked the Board to consider alternative education and work experience as
equivalent to the missing coursework pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12(b). 	He asserted that his
management courses overlapped with those required for a degree in marketing. Upon review of his
submissions, 	including 	official 	transcripts, 	the 	Board 	determined 	that 	the 	leadership 	and

3
management courses were not equivalent to the content covered by 12 credits of advanced-level
marketing courses.
However, the Board granted petitioner 6 credits in marketing based upon a letter from his
former employer, A&S Financial, which stated that he served as the Vice President of Marketing from
1990 through 1996 and led the company’s telemarketing and advertising campaign for life and group
health insurance. 	The Board declined to grant any additional credit based upon information
petitioner submitted regarding several inventions and his efforts to market them. It cited the fact
that the information did not include evidence of sales figures or other information to prove his ability
to successfully market his inventions. 	This meant that although petitioner’s appeal was partially
granted, he was still 6 credits short of the 12 advanced-level credits required by N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
9.1(a)(1)(iii).
Petitioner contends on appeal that the Board should have granted him the additional 6 credits
based upon his alternative coursework, inventions, tradeshow experience, infomercials, and non-
profit work. The Board moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that none of the materials relied
upon by petitioner establish that he successfully marketed any inventions or products. Following oral
argument, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the Board’s motion to dismiss upon concluding
that the Board’s decision was not inconsistent with applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.
Regarding petitioner’s alternative coursework in leadership and management, the ALJ found
that the course descriptions and transcripts submitted did not establish a one-to-one equivalency to
marketing coursework even if there was some overlap between the subject areas. The ALJ reiterated
that petitioner never received any degree or certificate in marketing. As for his inventions, the ALJ
determined that petitioner “is a very personable and creative designer/inventor who has failed to
demonstrate that he has the capacity to either have those products made, or if they are made, to sell

4
them.” 	Initial Decision at 11. 	In particular, the ALJ found that during oral argument, petitioner
“essentially admitted that he has never successfully, either by himself or through others, marketed a
product.” Id. at 12.
While recognizing that petitioner has met with potential investors and endorsers, the ALJ
concluded that “there is simply no evidence that he has ever (save for [a] single item from a quarter
century ago about which next to no detail has been provided) successfully transformed one of those
meetings into the licensing, production and/or sales of a product.” 	Id. at 12-13. Concerning his
experience at two trade shows, the ALJ found that the evidence presented was vague. With respect
to his non-profit work, the ALJ found that while commendable, it was not a marketing job.
In his exceptions, petitioner continues to express disagreement with the Board’s reasoning in
failing to grant him the outstanding 6 advanced-level credits. Without citing any legal authority to
support his position, he asserts that the Board’s bias and lack of understanding of current marketing
practices, concepts, and trends led them to unfairly and arbitrarily discredit his alternative
coursework, inventions, tradeshow experience, infomercials, and non-profit work. He claims that the
Board’s bias violated his due process rights and further alleges “potential age discrimination” by the
Board.
In response, the Board argues that petitioner does not dispute the facts but rather repeats
the same arguments he advanced before the ALJ. It maintains that its decision was reasonable and
consistent with applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. It emphasizes that only the Board has
authority to determine what alternative education or experience it considers equivalent to missing
coursework under N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12(b). 	It reiterates that petitioner did not demonstrate
knowledge of how to market products or inventions in the retail market.

5
Upon review, the Commissioner holds that the Board’s decision is consistent with applicable
statutory and regulatory provisions. At the outset, “[i]t is important to recognize that a decision by
the Board denying an application for a certificate is not entitled to the arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable standard of review that is afforded to appeals filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:4, challenging a
decision of the Board revoking or suspending a certificate.” Nimczyk v. N.J. State Bd. of Exam’rs,
Commissioner Decision No. 98-22 at 2 (May 16, 2022). Instead, “the appropriate standard of review
. . . is whether the [Board’s] decision is consistent with the applicable statutory and regulatory
provisions.” Id. at 3.1
It is undisputed that petitioner lacks the “12 semester-hour credits . . . at the advanced level
of study, including junior-, senior-, or graduate-level study as documented by the official transcript of
an accredited college or university” that are required for the Marketing endorsement. N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
9.1(a)(1)(iii). While the record reflects that he took a course titled Sales Concepts and Practices, the
course description was not supplied and petitioner does not assert that it was an advanced-level
course taken while he was a junior, senior, or graduate student.
Moreover, petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of a one-to-one correspondence
between his alternative coursework and experience and the remaining licensure deficiency—6
advanced-level marketing credits. Although one of petitioner’s graduate-level courses, “Persuasion,
Influence and Motivation,” may have touched upon persuasion in advertising and marketing, its
broad objective was “to enable students to learn and practice powerful persuasion communication
skills that will enhance both personal and professional success,” according to documents contained
1 To the extent the ALJ cited N.J.A.C. 6A:4 and discussed the arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable
standard of review alongside the appropriate standard of review, that portion of the Initial Decision is
modified to clarify that the only appropriate standard of review in this instance is whether the Board’s
decision is consistent with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. N.J.A.C. 6A:4 is not relevant
to this matter, which was filed pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3.

6
in the record. The evidence presented fails to establish that the Persuasion, Influence and Motivation
course was equivalent to an advanced-level marketing course.
Furthermore, the regulations provide that the Marketing endorsement sought by petitioner
“authorizes the holder to teach marketing occupations including sales, advertising and retailing,
global marketing, entrepreneurship, and exploration of related business occupations” (emphasis
added). Spotts v. State Bd. of Exam’rs, EDU 04807-20, Initial Decision at 19 (Nov. 26, 2021) (citing
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-9.4(a)(1)(vii)), adopted, Commissioner Decision No. 1-22 (Jan. 5, 2022). Although he
has many creative ideas, the evidence supplied by petitioner fails to establish that he successfully
marketed any inventions or products in the retail space. While petitioner maintains that he had a
different objective, i.e., to find companies willing to license his products and use their resources to
bring them to market so that he may collect royalties, that does not change the fact that the Board
has the discretion to decide whether his work experience is equivalent to the requisite licensure
requirements. Hutchinson, Initial Decision at 13. In this case, the Board decided that it was not.
Although petitioner believes that the Board’s decision was biased because the Board’s
understanding of marketing practices and concepts is outdated, there is no evidence in the record to
support this contention. In addition, the Commissioner finds that this alleged bias did not infringe
upon petitioner’s due process rights. He exercised his right to appeal the Board’s decision and had
the opportunity to attend its meeting on January 19, 2024. The Board partially granted his appeal by
awarding him 6 of the 12 requisite credits. He then appealed to the Commissioner regarding the
remaining 6 credits, filed written opposition to the Board’s Motion to Dismiss, submitted additional
evidence for the ALJ to consider that was not supplied to the Board, and was heard by the ALJ at oral
argument. He filed exceptions to the Initial Decision, which were fully considered. Throughout the

7
proceedings, he has received due process. Petitioner’s ”potential age discrimination claim” is likewise
unsupported by the record.
In summary, the Commissioner finds that the Board’s determination that petitioner’s
alternative coursework and work experience was not equivalent to the remaining 6 credits of
advanced-level coursework necessary to obtain a Marketing CE is consistent with applicable statutory
and regulatory provisions.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted, with modification, as the final decision in this
matter, and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	January 30, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	January 31, 2025
2 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
DISMISSAL
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05372-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 61-3/24
PHILIP BRADY,
Petitioner,
v
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, STATE BOARD OFEXAMINERS,
Respondent
______________________________________
Philip Brady, petitioner, pro se
David Kalisky, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin,
Attorney General State of New Jersey, attorneys)
Record Closed: November 1, 2024 	Decided: November 8, 2024
BEFORE MATTHEW G. MILLER, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner, Philip Brady, seeks the reversal of the State Board of Examiners
decision denying his 2023 application for a Certificate of Eligibility (CE) in Marketing.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05372-24
2
That application was denied in full by the State Board of Examiners on or about
September 14, 2023 and on or about November 12, 2023, Mr. Brady appealed that denial.
On January 11, 2024, the Secretary of the Board authored a memo outlining the
facts of the denial and the basis of Mr. Brady’s appeal. 	On January 19, 2024, the Board
granted Mr. Brady’s appeal in part and denied it in part, giving him credit* for six of the
twelve necessary educational hours “in light of his documented work experience” in
marketing. This decision was formalized in an Order dated March 1, 2024.
On or about March 12, 2024, Mr. Brady emailed a Petition for Appeal to the State
Department of Education’s Office of Controversies & Disputes (“OCD”) and on April 19,
2024, that appeal was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) for a
hearing as a contested case and assigned Docket No. EDU 05372-24. 	N.J.S.A.
52:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
In the interim, on April 18, 2024, the Board had filed a Motion to Dismiss in lieu of
an answer with the Commissioner.
In response to said Motion to Dismiss, petitioner filed a Motion for Emergent
Relief with the Commissioner, dated April 26, 2024. 	The OCD transmitted the Motion
for Emergent Relief to the OAL, where it was filed on April 30, 2024. 	That Motion was
denied on May 7, 2024 by the Hon. Thomas R. Betancourt, A.L.J. (C-1.)1
Following the filing of opposition and reply briefs, oral argument on the Motion to
Dismiss was held on October 16, 2024 and the record was held open until November 1,
2024 for supplemental briefing.
INITIAL FINDINGS OF UNDISPUTED FACT
The following FACTS of the case are not in dispute:
1 aff’d, Comm’r., June 10, 2024 (Exhibit C-2).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05372-24
3
1. 	In 2023, petitioner, Robert Brady applied for a Certificate of Eligibility
(CE) in Marketing before the State Board of Examiners (“Board”).
2. 	That application was denied in full on or about September 14, 2023
and on or about November 12, 2023, Mr. Brady appealed that denial. (R-2.)
3. 	On January 11, 2024, the Secretary of the Board authored a memo
outlining the facts of the denial and the basis of Mr. Brady’s appeal. (C-3.)
4. 	On January 19, 2024, the Board granted Mr. Brady’s appeal in part and
denied it in part, giving him credit for six of the twelve necessary educational
hours “in light of his documented work experience” in marketing. 	This
decision was formalized in an Order dated March 1, 2024. As noted, this left
petitioner six credits shy of what is needed for the issuance of the certificate.
(R-1.)
5. 	That decision was appealed by Mr. Brady on or about March 12, 2024.
(R-3.)
6. 	In addition to the identical materials that had been supplied to the
Board in his initial appeal, Mr. Brady included new evidence in opposition to
respondent’s Motion. This includes:
• 	A promotional flyer for his Ski Sling invention
• 	A screenshot from his website concerning customization of his
ball-chair invention
• 	A letter of recommendation from the CEO of NADA Chair
UNDERLYING DECISION
In an Order issued on March 1, 2024, but arising out of its January 19, 2024
meeting, the Board of Examiners reviewed the initial denial of Mr. Brady’s application for
the issuance of a Teacher of Marketing Certificate of Eligibility (CE). 	The Board ruled
as follows:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05372-24
4
Brady was denied the Teacher of Marketing CE because he
needs 12 credits in marketing. 	He asked the Board to
consider 	coursework 	he 	completed 	at 	Regis 	University
(Regis). 	Brady received a bachelor's degree in Liberal Arts
in 	2005 	as 	well 	as 	a 	graduate 	certificate 	in 	Executive
Leadership 	and 	a 	master’s 	degree 	in 	Organizational
Development 	in 2007 from 	Regis. 	He asserts 	that the
courses he took in management overlap with those required
for a degree in marketing. 	After review of his submission
including his official transcripts, the Board does not find the
course he took in leadership or management are equivalent
to 	the 	content 	covered 	by 	12 	credits 	of 	coursework 	in
marketing.
Brady 	also 	included 	information 	on 	a 	number 	of 	his
inventions 	and 	his 	efforts 	to 	bring 	them 	to 	the 	retail
marketplace. 	The information he included in his submission
focused on the details of the products but did not include
evidence of sales figures or other information (Blue Ocean)
which would prove his ability to successfully market his
inventions.
Finally, Brady included a letter from his former employer,
A&S 	Financial, 	which 	indicates 	he 	served 	as 	the 	Vice
President of Marketing from 1990 through 1996 at which
time 	he 	spearheaded 	the 	company’s 	telemarketing 	and
advertising campaign. 	In light of this documented work
experience, the Board will grant him six credits in marketing.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, on this 1st day of
March 	2024, 	Phil 	Brady’s 	application 	for 	a 	Teacher 	of
Marketing 	Certificate 	of 	Eligibility 	is 	hereby 	PARTIALLY
GRANTED as to six credits in marketing and PARTIALLY
DENIED as to six credits in marketing.
After 	review 	of 	his 	submission 	including 	his 	official
transcripts, the Board does not find the courses he took in
leadership or management overlap with those required for a
degree 	in 	marketing. 	After 	a 	review 	of his 	submission
including his official transcripts, the Board does not find the
courses he took in leadership or management are equivalent
to 	the 	content 	covered 	by 	12 	credits 	of 	coursework 	in
marketing.
Brady 	also 	included 	information 	on 	a 	number 	of 	his
inventions 	and 	his 	efforts 	to 	bring 	them 	to 	the 	retail
marketplace. 	The information he included in his submission

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05372-24
5
focused on the details of the products but did not include
evidence of sales figures or other information which would
prove his ability to successfully market his inventions.
Finally, Brady included a letter from his former employer,
A&S 	Financial, 	which 	indicates 	he 	served 	as 	the 	Vice-
President of Marketing from 1990 through 1996 during which
time 	he 	spearheaded 	the 	company’s 	telemarketing 	and
advertising campaign. 	In light of this documented work
experience, the Board will grant him six credits in marketing.
MOTION
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that petitioner has “failed to advance
a cause of action as (he) does not meet the standards for a teacher of marketing certificate
of eligibility.” 	More specifically, he argues that the Board’s decision is consistent with the
requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-9.1 and that petitioner “has presented no new evidence
suggesting otherwise”. See N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10.
Petitioner opposes the Motion, arguing that the denial of his certificate and failure to
fully credit his claimed academic experience “show(s) an overemphasis on academics over
work-related experience even though (his) marketing capacities were derived from his
graduate studies”. 	Mr. Brady claims that the Board’s decision does not comply with
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-34 et seq. and that it was an abuse of discretion to award only six of the
twelve needed credits to be eligible for his certificate.
In its reply brief, the respondent points out that in none of the materials presented by
Mr. Brady is there any evidence that he has successfully marketed any of the events or
products contained therein. This includes the materials that were supplied with his original
appeal as well as newly submitted materials which should not be considered here, since
they were never presented to the Board.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A Motion to Dismiss filed per N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.5(g) is the functional equivalent of a
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed in civil court per R. 4:6-2(e). Graves

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05372-24
6
v. State Operated Sch. Dist. of Newark & Cami Anderson, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub.
LEXIS 2417 (App Div., Sept. 26, 2017). 	The Court stated the standard for the granting
of same:
When 	reviewing 	a 	Rule 	4:6-2(e) 	motion, 	a 	court 	must
determine the adequacy of the pleading and decide whether
a cause of action is "suggested" by the facts. 	Printing Mart-
Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989)
(quoting Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 109 N.J. 189,
192 (1988)). The court must "search[] the complaint in depth
and with liberality to ascertain whether the fundament of a
cause of action may be gleaned even from an obscure
statement of claim, opportunity being given to amend if
necessary." 	Ibid. 	(quoting Di 	Cristofaro 	v. 	Laurel 	Grove
Mem'l Park, 43 N.J. Super. 244, 252 (App. Div. 1957)).
Id. at *7.
As noted in Banco Popular N. Am. v. Gandi, 184 N.J. 161, 166 (2005):
Obviously, if the complaint states no basis for relief and
discovery would not provide one, dismissal is the appropriate
remedy. 	Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 4.1
on R. 4:6-2 (2005) (citing Camden County Energy Recovery
Assocs. v. N.J. Depot of Envtl. Prot., 320 N.J. Super. 59, 64,
726 A.2d 968 (App.Div.1999), aff'd o.b., 170 N.J. 246, 786
A.2d 105 (2001)).
While the dispute has been briefed in the macro sense, in reality, it is a “micro”
one. 	Was the Board’s decision to only award petitioner the equivalent of six credits
instead of the required twelve for his combination of college level leadership and
management classes and his documented work experience the correct one? 	Or, more
accurately as will be seen below, was that decision “consistent with the applicable
statutory and regulatory provisions” or was it arbitrary and capricious?
Starting at the beginning. 	The “limited certificate of eligibility” that Mr. Brady
applied for was created by N.J.S.A. 18A:26-2, et seq. 	Per N.J.S.A. 18A: 26-2(b), it is
defined as “a certificate issued by the State Board of Examiners to candidates who
meet the criteria established pursuant to section 4 of this act.” 	Then N.J.S.A. 18A:26-

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05372-24
7
2(e)(4)(a) calls for the State Board of Education to develop specific rules regarding
eligibility as directed;
(1) 	the 	requirement 	to 	complete 	a 	minimum 	number 	of
subject 	area 	course 	credits 	and 	all 	other 	related
alternative 	requirements 	or 	exceptions, 	except 	that 	a
candidate applying for a limited certificate of eligibility
shall hold a bachelor’s degree at a minimum;
(2) 	the minimum grade point average requirement and all
other alternative grade point average requirements or
exceptions;
(3) 	the 	requirement 	to 	achieve 	a 	minimum 	score 	on 	a
Commissioner 	of 	Education-approved 	test 	of 	basic
reading, writing, and mathematical skills and all other
alternative basic skills requirements or exceptions; or
(4) 	the requirement to achieve a minimum passing score on
an appropriate State test of subject matter knowledge
and all other alternative requirements or exceptions to
achieving a passing score on an appropriate State test of
subject matter knowledge.
[See also, N.J.S.A. 18A:26-2(h).]
The basic requirement to obtain an instructional certificate is covered in N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-9.1, which reads as follows (in relevant part):
(a) 	To fulfill the endorsement requirements necessary for an instructional
certificate, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8, the candidate shall:
1. 	Complete one or more of the following coursework requirements
for the subject area in which the candidate is seeking the
endorsement:
i. 	Complete an undergraduate major in the subject
area as documented by an official transcript from
an accredited four-year college or university;
ii. 	Hold a graduate degree in the subject area; or
iii. Complete 	at 	least 	30 	credits 	in 	a 	coherent
sequence of courses appropriate to the subject

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05372-24
8
area as documented by an official transcript from
an accredited college or university, of which 12
semester-hour credits must be at the advanced
level 	of 	study, 	including 	junior-, 	senior-, 	or
graduate-level 	study 	as 	documented 	by 	the
official transcript of an accredited college or
university;
If the initial application is denied, per N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12 et seq., the applicant
can appeal and if there is a specific area of deficiency identified, the candidate is
permitted to supply evidence of alternative education and/or experience that may be
considered an equivalent to that shortcoming:
(a) 	A candidate for certification may appeal to the Board of
Examiners an adverse decision of the Office regarding the
candidate's eligibility.
…
(b) 	If a candidate receives an evaluation that identifies areas
of deficiency in the certification requirements, pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 	6A:9B-5.3(c), 	the 	candidate 	may 	provide 	the
Board of Examiners with evidence of alternative education
and/or experience that the candidate considers equivalent
to any area(s) of deficiency.
As noted above, in reviewing the appeal, the Board maintained its rejection of Mr.
Brady’s college courses as being relevant to a marketing CE, but given his marketing
experience, decided to substitute that experience for six of the required twelve credits of
advanced education. It is this “missing” six credits that is in dispute.
The standard of review in a case such as this was enunciated in Walder v. New
Jersey Dept. of Educ., St. Bd. of Exam’rs, 2014 N.J. Agen. LEXIS 1259 (Dec. 29, 2014).
As opposed to many cases where the standard is “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable”,
here, the standard “is whether the decision is consistent with the applicable statutory and
regulatory provisions.” Id. at *4 - *5. The Commissioner explained more fully;
As a threshold matter, when there is a challenge to a finding
by 	the 	Board 	of 	Examiners 	denying 	a 	request 	for 	the
issuance of a certificate, the Commissioner is not legally

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05372-24
9
mandated 	to 	give 	deference 	to 	his 	staff 	but 	instead
determines 	if 	the 	finding 	was 	legally 	appropriate. 	It 	is
important to recognize that a decision by the Board denying
the issuance of a certificate is not akin to the appellate
review 	of 	a 	final 	agency 	decision 	that 	is 	entitled 	to an
arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable standard of review.
Moreover, where the Department of Education has limited
the scope of review of a subordinate office or division, it has
done so by regulation, i.e., appeals filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:4
challenging a decision of the State Board of Examiners
revoking/suspending a certificate or a decision of the School
Ethics Commission. 	See, Board of Trustees of the Passaic
County Elks Cerebral Palsy Center v. New Jersey Dept of
Educ., 	Office 	of 	Accountability 	and 	Compliance,
Commissioner's 	Decision 	No. 	334-14, 	dated 	August 	14,
2014. 	Therefore, the appropriate standard of review of
the Board's March 2014 decision is whether the decision
is 	consistent 	with 	the 	applicable 	statutory 	and
regulatory provisions.
Ibid. (Emphasis added.)
While a footnote in Walder did cause some confusion, noting that the ALJ who
wrote 	the 	Initial 	Decision 	had 	mistakenly 	utilized 	the 	arbitrary, 	capricious 	or
unreasonable standard, overall when taken together with N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a) and as
argued by respondent, in determining whether a decision of the Board of Examiners is
arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law, the Commissioner (and the ALJ) must determine
whether that decision is “supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record”. 	Id. at
n.2.
N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a) reads as follows:
In determining appeals from decisions of the State Board of
Examiners or the School Ethics Commission pursuant to this
chapter, 	the 	Commissioner 	shall 	ascertain 	whether 	the
decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the
record and shall not disturb the decision unless the appellant
has demonstrated the State Board of Examiners or the
School Ethics 	Commission 	acted 	in 	a manner 	that was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law
This standard has been followed consistently, most recently in Harriman v. New
Jersey Dept. of Educ., St. Bd. of Exam’rs, 2024 N.J. Agen. LEXIS 103 (Jan. 29, 2024):

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05372-24
10
When a petitioner challenges a finding by the Board denying
a 	request 	for 	the 	issuance 	of 	a 	certificate, 	the 	Board's
decision 	may 	be 	reviewed 	to 	determine 	"whether 	the
decision 	is 	consistent 	with 	applicable 	statutory 	and
regulatory provisions." Jessica Walder v. St. Bd. of Exam'rs,
Commissioner's Decision No. 503-14, dated December 29,
2014 	(noting 	that 	in 	making 	this 	determination, 	the
Commissioner is not mandated to give deference to her
staff); see Jaroslaw Nimczyk v. St. Bd. Of Exam'rs, Comm'r
Decision No. 98-22 (May 16, 2022) (citing Br. of Trust. Of the
Passaic Cty. Elks Cerebral Palsy Cntr. v. Office of Fiscal
Account. and Compliance, Comm'r Decision No. 334- 14
(Aug. 14, 2014)); see N.J.A.C. 6A:4-1.3(b)(1) (providing that
appeals of decisions of the Board denying issuance of a
certificate shall proceed as contested cases in accordance
with 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:3). 	Consequently, 	a 	determination 	is
required to determine if the Board's decision was legally
appropriate. 	Ibid. 	Here, 	it 	is 	Harriman's 	burden 	to
demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
Board improperly denied his application for certification after
revocation. 	See McQuilken v. St. Bd. of Exam'rs, OAL Dkt.
No. 	EDU 	8375-11, 	Initial 	Decision 	(Dec. 	13, 	2011),
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/html/initial/edu8375-
11-1.html, adopted Comm'r (January 27, 2012) (citing Farrar
v. St. Bd. of Exam'rs, OAL Dkt. No. EDU 13768-08, Initial
Decision (Sept. 9, 2009), adopted, Comm'r (July 26, 2010)
(finding 	that 	the 	"petitioner 	carries 	the 	burden 	of
demonstrating by a preponderance of the credible evidence
that she is entitled to the endorsement she seeks")).
Id. at *13-*14.
Walder is also illustrative in its review of whether a hearing is necessary or if a
decision on a Motion to Dismiss is appropriate. 	The case involved a determination of
whether certain education/special education courses constitute “liberal arts” semester
hours. 	Id. at *4. 	It was decided that since the nature of the course work was not in
dispute, the dispute was therefore “limited to a legal determination as to whether the
course work constitutes ‘liberal arts’ semester hours for the purposes of satisfying the
requirements for a CEAS in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:9-8.1(b)(3).” 	Id. at *5. 	It was
determined 	that 	“the 	Board’s 	decision 	rejecting 	her 	attempt 	to 	substitute 	twenty

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05372-24
11
semester hours of special education/education course work is consistent with the
applicable regulatory provisions governing the issuance of certificates.” Ibid.
Here, there is a two-pronged analysis/determination that has to be made:
a. 	Do 	any 	of 	the 	petitioner’s 	college 	courses 	meet 	the
requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-9.1(a)(1)(iii)?
b. 	Does the petitioner’s work experience qualify for the full
twelve credits needed per 6A:9B-4.12(b)?
I CONCLUDE that the answer to the first question is easy. No. Petitioner argues
that the Board “showed disregard” for the alleged similarity between management and
marketing graduate studies as well as for his graduate class in Persuasion, Influence
and Motivation2 and his academic experience gained through the co-op program at
Montclair State University. 	Effectively, petitioner is arguing that “management” equals
“marketing”. 	It doesn’t. 	While there may be some overlap in management and
marketing courses, not only did Mr. Brady never receive any degree or certificate in
marketing, but he has also literally never taken a marketing class and arguably the only
other course related to that area was a single three credit class in Sales Concepts and
Practices taken at Montclair State University prior to his transfer to Regis.
As for his practical marketing experience, the issue that the Board had was the
lack of “evidence of sales figures or other information which would prove his ability to
successfully market his inventions.” 	During oral argument, Mr. Brady attacked the
marketing credentials of the Board members who made the decision, and the denial
was “based on an outdated understanding of marketing”.
To put it at its most basic, the evidence presented to the Board (and to the Court
that was not formally submitted to the Board) demonstrates that Mr. Brady is a very
personable and creative designer/inventor who has failed to demonstrate that he has
the capability to either have those products made, or if they are made, to sell them.
2 Where the syllabus stated it is “likely to cover” at least five areas of persuasion, one of which was “persuasion in
advertising and marketing”. (P-A.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05372-24
12
During oral argument, he essentially admitted that he has never successfully, either by
himself or through others, marketed a product.
Just as a “for instance”, I watched the YouTube video linked in his exhibits. 	It
was posted on Mr. Brady’s “WorkSpaceWellness” channel and has a total of 125 views
in the two and a half plus years that it has been posted. It should also be noted that this
particular YouTube channel has only two subscribers and that the number of views is by
far the largest of any of the eight videos posted to the channel over the past six years.34
In fact, Mr. Brady was asked during oral argument that even conceding that some
of his marketing materials/brochures are impressive to a layperson, “what good is any of
that in showing your mastery in marketing if you’ve never sold any of it?” The reply was,
frankly, non-sensical. 	Unless the modern techniques and nuances of marketing do not
involve actually selling an item, then the petitioner has never successfully marketed
anything. 	As for the one product that appears to actually have made it to market (the
Ski Sling), that is alleged to have occurred in 1998 when he “sold some units” of it via a
magazine advertisement.
At its most basic;
Marketing 	encompasses 	every 	part 	of 	a 	plan 	to 	turn 	a
prospective consumer into a happy and satisfied customer.
It includes everything from market research to advertising.
The goal of marketing is to convince a person that your
product is worth investing in, establish brand loyalty and
increase overall sales.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/what-is-
marketing/#marketing_definition_section (last accessed Nov.
1, 2024)
As was noted during oral argument, Mr. Brady has provided some impressive
concepts and product ideas and has met with some potential investors and endorsers.
However, there is simply no evidence that he has ever (save for this single item from a
3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NILqfw3jBM&t=1098s (last accessed Nov. 3, 2024)
4 https://www.youtube.com/@homeworkgyms (last accessed Nov. 3, 2024)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05372-24
13
quarter century ago about which next to no detail has been provided) successfully
transformed one of those meetings into the licensing, production and/or sales of a
product. 	Until that occurs, Mr. Brady cannot be said to be an expert in marketing (over
and above the credit the Board already gave him).
As for his work with Oakland Cares, while it is certainly commendable, his duties
are that of an active volunteer who helped design a flyer and a t-shirt and organized a
local fundraiser to help forward the charitable goals of the organization. This was not a
marketing job. 	Nor frankly, was the fundraiser or logo design for MigrantRelief.org [an
apparently 	now 	dormant 	501(c)(3) 	corporation 	which 	he 	founded]. 	There 	is 	no
indication of whether the “schedual” of five concerts successfully raised any money for
the organization, what the attendance figures for the shows was, etc. 	The letter from
the head of NADA Chair is similarly vague as to Mr. Brady’s contributions and what is
effectively two days at a trade show and an idea that “could well be patented and
market tested at this year's fair”, falls right in line with the Board’s reasoning for the
denial of the CE. (P-H.)
None of this is meant to denigrate Mr. Brady, his efforts, talents or intentions. As
noted, to the untrained eye, some of his designs (the school logoed Back Bliss
backpack and the Tony Little concepts in particular, at least to me) are impressive.
However, I CONCLUDE that none of the evidence submitted to the Board or in
conjunction with this Motion is remotely sufficient to demonstrate that the Board’s partial
rejection of his appeal was inconsistent “with the applicable statutory and regulatory
provisions” or that it was arbitrary or capricious.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that respondent's Motion to
Dismiss be and is hereby GRANTED and;
It is further ORDERED that Mr. Brady’s appeal be and is hereby DISMISSED.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05372-24
14
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, 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.
November 8, 2024
DATE 	MATTHEW G. MILLER, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	November 8, 2024_________________
Date Mailed to Parties: 	November 8, 2024_________________
sej

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05372-24
15
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
FOR COURT:
C-1 	Denial of Emergent Relief Order (May 7, 2024)
C-2 	Commissioner decision (June 10, 2024)
C-3 	Board memorandum (January 11, 2024)
FOR APPELLANT:
P-A 	Regis University Management Masters class COM 437 outline
P-B 	Regis University Management Major FAQ
P-C 	Website for customizable ball chairs
P-D 	Home gym redesign, bag redesign photographs/marketing
P-E 	Northern Valley Regional High School Career Pathways handout
P-F 	Tony Little product design concept; Back Bliss product design concept;
Sit/Stand computer workstation concept
P-G 	Ski Sling magazine advertisement
P-H 	Letter of recommendation from CEO of Nada Chair (March 28, 2024)
P-I 	Exemplar 	memes; 	Goal 	Getter 	sweatband 	design; 	charity 	logos 	and
designs; YouTube interview; letter of recommendation from Mayor of
Oakland (NJ) (October 6, 2023); letter of recommendation from Steve
Sahagian (October 10, 2023)
FOR RESPONDENT:
R-1 	Board of Examiners decision (March 1, 2024)
R-2 	Board of Examiners credential review form
R-3 	Appellant’s Petition of Appeal (March 7, 2024)