R.F., on behalf of minor child, O.F. v. Board of Education of the Township of Montclair, Essex County, 10/10/2024, (#382-24)

382-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
R.F., on behalf of minor child, O.F.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Montclair,
Essex County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner appealed the finding of the respondent Board that his son, O.F., was not the victim of
harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) pursuant to the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (Act),
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq. Petitioner alleged, inter alia, that his fifth-grade child had been the target of a
series of incidents in which O.F. was taunted and kicked by classmates. The Board moved for summary
decision, arguing that these incidents were unsubstantiated and did not constitute HIB as defined within
the Act. 	The parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Facts and Joint Exhibits. 	The petitioner opposed the
motion, asserting that the Board’s determination that there was no HIB was arbitrary, capricious and
unreasonable; further, the petitioner claimed that the Board’s HIB investigation was not conducted in a
timely manner.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts at issue in this case, and the matter is ripe for
summary decision; none of the requisite statutory elements of HIB, codified at N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14, were
satisfied in this matter because the alleged misconduct was unsubstantiated; the Board conducted a
prompt and thorough investigation in compliance with the Act’s procedural requirements; and
petitioner’s claims related to other HIB matters that occurred after the primary incident at issue in this
case, as well as his related theories regarding retaliation by the Board, are beyond the scope of the
matter herein. The ALJ concluded that the Board’s determination that no HIB incident occurred was not
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 	Accordingly, the Board’s motion for summary decision was
granted and the petition was dismissed with prejudice.
Upon review, the Commissioner, inter alia, agreed with the ALJ that the Board’s determination was not
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. However, the Commissioner rejected the ALJ’s finding that the
Board fully complied with the Act’s procedural requirements, as the evidence demonstrates that the
statutory timeframes set forth at N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6) were not strictly adhered to by the Board. But
both the petitioner and the Board contributed to the delays, which alone do not render the Board’s
determination arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL was
adopted as modified herein.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It has been
neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

382-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 09352-23
Agency Dkt. No. 150-5/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
R.F., on behalf of minor child, O.F.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Montclair,
Essex County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), the
exceptions filed by petitioner, R.F., pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the reply filed by respondent,
Board of Education of the Township of Montclair (Board), have been reviewed and considered.
Petitioner challenges the Board’s determination that an alleged series of incidents during
which his minor child was taunted and kicked in his private area was unsubstantiated and did not
constitute harassment, intimidation, or bullying (HIB) as defined within the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights
Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 to -32. 	After the matter was transmitted to the OAL, the Board
moved for summary decision. 	The parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Facts and Joint Exhibits.
Petitioner opposed the motion for summary decision by expressing disagreement with the Board’s
conclusion that no HIB incident occurred and claiming that it was arbitrary and capricious. Petitioner
also asserted that the Board’s HIB investigation was not conducted in a timely manner. Additionally,
petitioner argued that the ALJ should consider the Board’s retaliatory and improper motives, raised

2
in a separate HIB matter then pending before a different ALJ, and should allow that ALJ to determine
the issue of retaliation prior to resolution of the instant matter.
Upon finding that the material facts were undisputed, the ALJ determined that the matter
was ripe for summary decision. 	The ALJ concluded that the Board’s determination that no HIB
incident occurred was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. In so doing, the ALJ agreed with the
Board that none of the requisite statutory elements of HIB, codified at N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14, were
satisfied because the alleged misconduct was unsubstantiated. The ALJ further found that the Board
conducted a prompt and thorough investigation in compliance with 	the Act’s procedural
requirements. Finally, the ALJ rejected as beyond the scope of the record petitioner’s claims related
to other HIB matters that occurred after the incident at issue in this case and his related theories
regarding retaliation by the Board.
In his exceptions, petitioner argues that all three elements of the HIB statute have been
satisfied and that any credibility issues regarding the reported HIB incident should be resolved
through a trial. He contends that the HIB incident in this case was motivated by O.F.’s perceived
gender; that O.F.’s rights were substantially interfered with as he was physically assaulted at school,
which impeded his ability to safely learn; and that a reasonable person should know that assaults on
a child’s genitals are physically or emotionally harmful to a student. He also asserts that the ALJ erred
by ruling that the Board’s determination is entitled to a presumption of correctness despite evidence
demonstrating that he was subject to unlawful retaliation by the Board. 	In response, the Board
requests that the Commissioner adopt the ALJ’s Initial Decision and dismiss the petition. It argues
that the ALJ’s Initial Decision is supported by the appropriate record, which was agreed upon by the
parties, and well-established case law.

3
Upon review, the Commissioner adopts the ALJ’s Initial Decision as the final decision in this
matter, as modified. 	While the Commissioner agrees that the Board’s determination was not
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, the Commissioner rejects the ALJ’s finding that the Board fully
complied with the Act’s procedural requirements. The evidence in the record demonstrates that the
statutory timeframes set forth at N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6) were not strictly adhered to by the Board.
However, both petitioner and the Board contributed to the delays, and the delays alone do not render
the Board’s determination arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, for the reasons explained herein.
In addition, the Commissioner finds that the ALJ properly rejected as beyond the scope of this
proceeding petitioner’s claims related to other HIB matters that occurred after the incident at issue
in this case and his related theories regarding retaliation by the Board.
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. Bd. of Educ. of W. Orange, 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), aff’d, 131 N.J.
Super. 37 (App. Div. 1974). 	Regarding HIB determinations, this standard has been explained as
requiring a petitioner to “demonstrate that the Board acted in bad faith, or in utter disregard of the
circumstances before it.” G.H. and E.H. o/b/o K.H. v. Bd. of Educ. of Borough of Franklin Lakes, Bergen
Cnty., OAL Dkt. No. EDU 13204-13 (Initial Decision Feb. 24, 2014), adopted, Commissioner Decision
No. 157-14 (Apr. 10, 2014).
As discussed in the ALJ’s Initial Decision, the Act defines HIB as:

4
[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.
In 	summary, 	once 	the 	alleged 	written, 	verbal, 	or 	physical 	act, 	or 	any 	electronic
communication is substantiated, a finding of HIB requires that three elements under the Act be
satisfied. First, the substantiated conduct must be reasonably perceived as being motivated by any
actual or perceived characteristic expressly identified in the statute, or by any other distinguishing
characteristic. Ibid. Second, the conduct must substantially disrupt or interfere with the rights of
other students or the orderly operation of the school. Ibid. Third, one of the three conditions set
forth in subsections (a), (b), and (c) must be satisfied. Ibid.; Wehbeh v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of
Verona, Essex Cnty., Commissioner Decision No. 510-20 (Feb. 4, 2020).
Here, the Board could not substantiate that any verbal or physical act occurred in the school
bathroom, nor could it substantiate that O.F. was ever physically assaulted by the alleged offenders.
Because the alleged acts could not be substantiated, it was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable
for the Board to conclude that no HIB incident occurred. 	The record reflects that the Board’s

5
investigation was sufficiently thorough. The anti-bullying specialist (ABS) interviewed O.F. and the
alleged offenders multiple times, and reopened the investigation after petitioner provided new
information. 	The alleged offenders denied that they ever kicked O.F., and they denied playing a
“husband and wife game” involving taunts or a song. The ABS determined that no one witnessed the
alleged incidents. However, the ABS recognized that a social conflict existed between the boys—
likely due to O.F. being new to the school. Administrators implemented mediation sessions and a
safety plan so that O.F. could utilize a private bathroom near the nurse and main office.
Because the Board determined that the alleged acts could not be substantiated, it is not
possible for any of the three requisite elements of the HIB statute to be satisfied. 	Even if the
Commissioner would have decided the outcome differently, that is an insufficient reason to overturn
the Board’s decision so long as the Board has not acted dishonestly or in bad faith. 	Bayshore
Sewerage Co., 122 N.J. Super. at 199. Here, the record fails to support the conclusion that the Board
acted dishonestly or in bad faith. The Board was confronted with a difficult situation wherein the
alleged offenders denied that the incidents took place and no witnesses were identified. Thus, the
Commissioner finds no reason to substitute his judgment for the Board’s and concurs with the ALJ
that the Board’s determination declining to find that a HIB incident occurred as defined under the
Act was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
However, the Commissioner agrees with petitioner that the Board did not strictly adhere to
the 	statutory 	timeframe 	mandated 	by 	the 	Act 	when 	conducting 	its 	HIB 	investigation.
For instance, the Act requires that HIB investigations be completed within 10 school days of the initial
HIB complaint. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(a). The results of the investigation must be reported to the
school superintendent within two school days thereafter, and then to the Board no later than the
date of its next meeting. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(b), (c). After the results of the investigation are

6
reported to the Board, parents shall be notified in writing of the outcome within 5 school days.
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(d). If a parent requests a hearing before the Board upon receiving the results
of the investigation, then that hearing must be held within 10 days of the request. Ibid.
In this case, petitioner reported the initial allegations to O.F.’s teacher on October 11, 2022,
and the ABS began investigating the following day. 	Petitioner made additional reports on
October 15, 2022, filed a formal HIB complaint on October 20, 2022, and the ABS continued
investigating during this time. The ABS finalized the investigation on November 1, 2022, which was
more than 10 school days following the initial report to O.F.’s teacher. However, the investigation
was finalized within 10 school days of petitioner’s filing of the formal HIB complaint. 	Because
petitioner continued to email district staff about the allegations and criticized the nature of the
Board’s investigation, the Board appropriately reopened the investigation on November 22, 2022,
and concluded it for the second time on November 28, 2022.
While the Board hearing was not held within 10 days of petitioner’s request, both petitioner
and the Board contributed to the delay. Petitioner retained counsel and requested discovery, which
the Board provided. The Board retained an independent investigator and considered reopening the
HIB investigation again, but ultimately declined to do so based upon petitioner’s objection to same.
These events resulted in adjournment of the hearing. 	The Commissioner finds that although the
Board did not precisely adhere to the Act’s mandated timeframes, it acted reasonably under the
circumstances in the interest of conducting a thorough investigation and the delays did not interfere
with the due process rights of O.F. or petitioner, who presented testimony and other evidence at the
Board hearing. The Board is reminded to adhere to the Act’s timeframes in the future.
Finally, the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that petitioner’s claims related to other HIB
matters that occurred after the alleged conduct in this case, and his related theories regarding

7
retaliation by the Board, were beyond the scope of this proceeding and properly rejected. 	The
subsequent petitions of appeal filed and pending before other ALJs have no bearing upon the legal
issue in this case, i.e., whether the Board’s determination that no HIB occurred in relation to the
incidents reported on October 11, 2022, and reiterated in the formal HIB complaint filed on
October 20, 2022, was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. There was no need for the ALJ to delay
adjudication of this matter until the other pending matters were decided.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision, as modified, is adopted as the Final Decision in this matter,
and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	October 10, 2024
Date of Mailing: 	October 11, 2024
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 09352-23
AGY. DKT. NO. 150-5/23
R.F. ON BEHALF OF O.F.,
Petitioner
vs.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF MONTCLAIR,
ESSEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
________________________________
R.F., on behalf of O.F. petitioner, pro se
Alexander L. D’Jamoos, Esq., for respondent (Flanagan, Barone & O’Brien,
LLC., attorneys)
Record Closed: August 19, 2024 	Decided: September 4, 2024
BEFORE THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner filed a pro se petition of appeal with the Office of Controversies and
Disputes, New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) challenging a Harassment,
Intimidation and Bullying (HIB) determination by the respondent District regarding O.F.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
2
Said petition was dated May 30, 2023. 	Said petition seeks the reversal of a non-HIB
finding by the Respondent District regarding Case No. 140-101122-012(A)(B).
Petitioner then submitted a supplemental filing on July 13, 2023, regarding
another HIB matter involving O.M. (Case No. 066) which is not before the undersigned.
Petitioner submitted another supplemental filing on August 7, 2023, in response
to Respondent’s Answer.1
Respondent filed its Amended Answer with the Commissioner on September 14,
2023. Petitioner filed a response thereto dated the same date.
The 	Department 	of 	Education 	transmitted 	the 	contested 	case 	pursuant 	to
N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to 15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14f-1 TO 13, to the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL), where it was filed on September 18, 2023.
A prehearing conference was held on October 13, 2023, and a prehearing order
was entered by the undersigned on October 16, 2023.
A motion to quash, dated March 20, 2024, was filed on behalf of a third party,
J.K. on behalf of minor B.K. to quash a subpoena for B.K. to testify at the hearing for the
within matter.
Respondent, who issued the subpoena to B.K., agreed by letter dated March 22,
2024, to accept the certification of B.K. in lieu of testimony.
Respondent, by motion dated April 12, 2024, sought to bar the testimony of
Carlos Mora, M.D., or in the alternative to compel Dr. Mora to provide his medical
records relative to O.F.
1 Respondent’s initial Answer to the Petition of Appeal was not included in the transmittal of this matter to
the OAL.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
3
Petitioner 	filed 	a 	reply 	letter 	brief, 	dated 	April 	2, 	2024, 	in 	opposition 	to
Respondent’s motion.
The genesis of the motion by Respondent to bar Dr. Mora’s testimony, or in the
alternative to compel Dr. Mora to produce his records, lies in a letter by Dr. Mora to
Respondent’s counsel, dated March 6, 2024, that he would not comply with a subpoena
to produce his records.
By Order dated July 24, 2024, the motion to bar Dr. Mora’s testimony was
granted, and the motion to quash was deemed moot as the Respondent agreed to
accept the affidavit of B.K. in lieu of testimony.
Respondent filed a motion for summary decision on July 19, 2024. 	Petitioner
filed his response thereto on August 9, 2024. 	Respondent filed its reply thereto on
August 19, 2024. 	Petitioner then submitted a sur reply and a brief filed in another HIB
matter, EDU 01408-24, before the Honorable Patrice E. Hobbs, ALJ. 	Petitioner was
advised that these additional filings would not be considered as they are not permitted
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5.
ISSUE
Petitioner seeks a reversal of a non-HIB finding by the Respondent Board
regarding an allegation of HIB by R.F. on behalf of O.F. asserting that said decision was
arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.
JOINT STIPULATION OF FACTS
Introduction to the Parties and Witnesses
1. 	Respondent Montclair Board of Education is the public school district for the City of
Montclair, New Jersey, with its central administrative offices located at 22 Valley Rd.,
Montclair, NJ, 07042.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
4
2. 	Montclair 	Board 	of 	Education 	operates 	twelve 	(12) 	Montclair 	Public 	Schools
including Pre-K programs, lower elementary schools, three middle schools, and one
high school. Montclair Public Schools serves a diverse community and educates more
than 6,100 students attending Pre-Kindergarten through 12th Grade.
3. 	Montclair 	Board 	of 	Education established District 	Policy 	5512 	- Harassment,
Intimidation, and Bullying - beginning December 2016 in accordance with the New
Jersey Anti Bullying Bill of Rights.
4. 	During 	the 	2022-2023 	school 	year, 	Dr. 	Jonathan 	Ponds 	served 	as 	the
Superintendent of Schools as appointed by the Montclair Board of Education in 2020.
5. 	Montclair Board of Education operates Northeast Elementary School.
6. 	During the 2022-2023 school year, Dr. David Goldblatt, served as the Director of
Pupil Services for Montclair Public Schools, a District-wide position.
7. 	During the 2022-2023 school year, Ms. Maggie Dock, served as the Mental Health
Coordinator and Anti-Bullying Coordinator for Montclair Public Schools, a District-wide
position.
8. 	Beginning September, 2022, Dr. Terence Somerville was hired by the Montclair
Board of Education and assigned to serve as the Principal of Northeast Elementary
School.
9. 	During the 2022-2023 school year, Ms. Danielle Kupperman, served as the School
Social Worker and Anti-Bullying Specialist of Northeast Elementary School.
10. 	During the 2022-2023 school year, Ms. Kristen McCann, served as a 5th Grade
Teacher of Northeast Elementary School.
11. 	During the 2022-2023 school year, Ms. Christie Rule, R.N., served as Nurse of
Northeast Elementary School.
12. 	During 	the 	2022-2023 	school 	year, 	Ms. 	Donna 	Soprano, 	served 	as 	a
Paraprofessional of Northeast Elementary School and was assigned to supervise and
assist Ms. McCann’s Fifth Grade classroom.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
5
13. 	During the 2022-2023 school year, Petitioner O.F. attended Northeast Elementary
School as a Fifth Grade Student in Ms. McCann’s home room. This was his first year
attending Northeast Elementary School.
14. 	O.F. was home schooled during the 2020 – 2022 period. (See Joint Ex. 3: 9/9/21
letter 	to 	R.F. 	from 	Asst. 	Superintendent 	of 	Montclair 	Public 	Schools 	confirming
continued home schooling of O.F. for 2021-2022 school year.)
15. 	Petitioners R.F. and M.H.A. are O.F.’s parents/guardians, his father and mother,
respectively.
16. 	During the 2022-2023 school year, B.K. and B.M., were also Fifth Grade students
attending Northeast Elementary School and assigned to Ms. McCann’s home room.
Alleged Bullying Incident and Investigations
17. 	On October 11, 2022, R.F. sent an email to Ms. McCann to report that “O.F. had a
problem today with Bodi and Benedict, who he said were looking at his private parts and
taunting him when he was peeing in the bathroom causing him to rush to close his
zipper and ended up peeing on his pants.” “O.F. also said they kicked him from behind
and said it was the second time this has happened.” (Joint Ex. 5, 10/11/22 email
exchange between R.F. and Ms. Kristen McCann.)
18. 	Ms. McCann forwarded this email to the school principal Dr. Somerville and
responded to R.F. within 30 minutes of this report. (Joint Ex. 5).
19. 	On October 12, 2022, R.F. sent an email to Ms. Kupperman to follow up on the
report to Ms. McCann. (Joint Ex. 6, 10/12/22 email exchange between R.F. and Ms.
Danielle Kupperman re: “O.F. 5th Grade”).
20. 	On October 12, Ms. Kupperman met with O.F. who advised her of playground
incident with B.M. and bathroom incident with B.K., which he had not reported to an
adult.
21. 	On October 14, Principal Somerville met with O.F., B.M. and B.K. to work on
resolving the issue through mediation.
22. 	On Saturday, October 15, R.F. sent an email reporting an allegation that “these
incidents with being beat up and kicked in his private parts happened, according to him,
over 20 times.” The allegations include other sexually explicit language, teasing and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
6
harassment. (Joint Ex. 8, 10/12/22 – 10/18/22 R.F. email exchange between R.F.,
Principal Terrance Somerville and Ms. Danielle Kupperman re: “O.F. 5th Grade”).
23. 	On October 18 and 19, Ms. Kupperman met with O.F. to investigate the allegations
made in R.F.’s October 15 email. (Ex. 9, 10/18/22 & 10/19/22 handwritten notes of Ms.
Danielle Kupperman).
24. 	On October 19, Principal Somerville and R.F. spoke on the phone confirming that
HIB procedures will be initiated and to discuss what is being done to keep O.F. safe at
school. (Ex. 10, 10/19/22 R.F. email to Terence Somerville re: “Concern”; Ex. 11,
10/19/22 R.F. emails with T. Somerville & D. Kupperman re: “O.F. (bullying)”).
25. 	On October 19 at approximately 10 PM, R.F. advises of O.F.’s stress, request that
he not be pulled out of class, and demand that the accused students apologize. (Ex. 12,
10/20/22 R.F. emails with T. Somerville & D. Kupperman re: “O.F. (bullying)”).
26. 	On October 20 at approximately 11:30 PM, R.F. files the HIB Form 338 on behalf
of O.F. against 2-3 students alleging that O.F. has been tormented and assaulted since
the first week of school because “they do not like it that he answers questions in class
or is good at math and science and because they know he was National Math Kangaroo
champion two years in a row.” The allegations include other sexually explicit language,
teasing and harassment. (Ex. 14, HIB 338 Form completed by D.Kupperman).
27. 	On Friday, October 21, Ms. Kupperman met with B.K. to investigate the allegations
in the HIB complaint.
28. 	On Friday, October 21 at approximately 11 PM, R.F. sent an email reporting that
O.F. broke down in frustration, a discussion between Ms. Kupperman and M.H.A. at
pick up after school, and allegations that O.F. continues to be emotionally harmed
through a hostile educational environment by unidentified boys in his class. (Ex. 15,
10/20/22 – 10/21/220 emails re: O.F. HIB Form 338).
29. 	On October 24, R.F. sent an email providing additional detail to the allegations of
bullying during the first three weeks of school. (Ex. 20, 10/20/22 – 11/15/22 R.F. email
exchange with T. Somerville & D. Kupperman re: “O.F. HIB Form 338 O.F.”).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
7
30. 	On 	Tuesday, 	October 	25, 	Ms. 	Dock 	and 	Ms. 	Kupperman 	continued 	the
investigation of the HIB complaint by interviewing B.K. and B.M. (Ex. 17, 10/21/22 –
11/22/22 Investigation Notes of D. Kupperman).
31. 	On October 26, R.F. sent an email demanding that the accused students apologize
to O.F.. (Ex. 20, 10/20/22 – 11/15/22 R.F. email exchange with T. Somerville & D.
Kupperman re: “O.F. HIB Form 338 O.F.”).
32. 	On 	October 	27, 	R.F. 	sent 	an 	email 	confirming 	that 	the 	accused 	students
apologized to O.F. (Ex. 20, 10/20/22 – 11/15/22 R.F. email exchange with T. Somerville
& D. Kupperman re: “O.F. HIB Form 338 O.F.”).
33. 	On November 1, 2022, Ms. Kupperman had completed the HIB investigation report
and it was signed by Dr. Somerville. (Ex. 19, 10/26/2022 Genesis Portal and 11/1/22
Confidential HIB Investigation Report).
34. 	On November 7, R.F. sent an email advising of O.F.’s limp, subjecting complaints
of pain, and referral to a psychiatrist. (Ex. 20, 10/20/22 – 11/15/22 R.F. email exchange
with T. Somerville & D. Kupperman re: “O.F. HIB Form 338 O.F.”).
35. 	On November 7, R.F. sent an email reported another incident in the bathroom
when 	a 	4th 	Grade 	student 	peeped 	into 	the 	stall 	while 	O.F. 	was 	urinating. 	R.F.
demanded another HIB investigation. (Ex. 20, 10/20/22 – 11/15/22 R.F. email exchange
with T. Somerville & D. Kupperman re: “O.F. HIB Form 338 O.F.”).
36. 	On November 7 and 14, R.F. and Dr. Somerville correspond to schedule an in
person meeting. (Ex. 20, 10/20/22 – 11/15/22 R.F. email exchange with T. Somerville &
D. Kupperman re: “O.F. HIB Form 338 O.F.”).
37. 	On November 15, R.F. and M.H.A. meet with Dr. Somerville. (Ex. 20, 10/20/22 –
11/15/22 R.F. email exchange with T. Somerville & D. Kupperman re: “O.F. HIB Form
338 O.F.”).
38. 	On November 15 at 9:24 PM, R.F. sends an email criticizing the investigation,
attaching O.F.’s hand written notes, and demanding an appeal. (Ex. 20, 10/20/22 –
11/15/22 R.F. email exchange with T. Somerville & D. Kupperman re: “O.F. HIB Form
338 O.F.”).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
8
39. 	On November 15 and 16, R.F. exchanges emails with Ms. Dock demanding the
results of the investigation. (Ex. 22, 11/15/22 email from Maggie Dock to T. Somerville
re: “HIB IMPORTANT” and 11/15/22 – 11/16/22 email exchange between R.F., Maggie
Dock, D. Kupperman, and T. Somerville re: “Northeast Meeting Questions.”)
40. 	On 	November 	17, 	R.F. 	participated 	in 	a 	phone 	call 	with 	Ms. 	Dock 	adding
allegations of race and gender expression discrimination. (Ex. 23, 11/17/22 – M. Dock
notes re: 012-Re-opened / phone contact to father R.F.).
41. 	On November 22, Ms. Kupperman and Ms. Dock interview O.F. to conduct the re-
opened investigation. (Ex. 27, 11/22/22 – Investigation Notes of D. Kupperman).
42. 	On November 22, O.F. was seen at the Nurse’s Office for evaluation of a purported
injury 	to 	his 	wrist. 	(Ex 	25, 	11/22/22 	Nurse 	visit, 	Nurse 	Turnstile 	Records, 	O.F.
Attendance Calendar).
43. 	On November 22, R.F.’s email speculating about the potential discrimination
theories under which O.F.’s alleged bullying could have been motivated. (Ex. 24,
11/15/22 – 11/22/22 email re: Case Reopened NE O.F.).
44. 	On November 28, 2022, Ms. Dock had completed the HIB Investigation Report of
the re-opened allegations. The report was reviewed and signed by Dr. Somerville on
November 30. (Ex. 39, Confidential HIB Investigation Report Case # 140-101122-012).
45. 	On December 5, 2022, Superintendent Ponds affirmed the HIB Investigation
Report following the re-investigation of the re-opened allegations based on alternative
theories of motivating characteristics. (Ex. 39, Confidential HIB Investigation Report
Case # 140-101122- 012).
46. 	Ms. Dock and her supervisor Dr. David Goldblatt, Director of Pupil Services,
reported the results of this investigation to the Board of Education on December 21,
2022.
47. 	On January 3, 2022, the district issues a letter to R.F. advising of that the
investigation concluded and there was insufficient evidence to meet the criteria of HIB.
(Ex. 29, 1/3/23 letter M. Dock to R.F. re: Notification of Alleged Incident Ruling NON-
HIB). Petitioner’s Appeal of HIB Ruling).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
9
48. 	On January 10, 2023, R.F. sent an email submitting his appeal brief. (Ex. 30,
1/10/23 R.F. email to T. Somerville with O.F. handwritten notes).
49. 	On January 20, 2023, R.F. was sent a letter by the district scheduling the appeal
hearing on January 31, 2023. (Ex. 34, 1/20/23 Dr. Jonathan Ponds letter to R.F. re:
Appeal hearing).
50. 	On January 20, R.F. confirms attendance at the hearing and advising that O.F. and
Dr. Mora may also attend. (Ex. 35, 1/20/23 R.F. email to Nina DeRosa re: “Northeast
R.F. HIB hearing 2/1/23 and Mental Health Evaluation Matter”).
51. 	R.F. advised the district of his new counsel attending the hearing, now scheduled
for February 1, (Ex. 37, 1/26/22 - 1/28/23 email from R.F. to M. Dock re: O.F. (Board
Appeal Meeting/Document Request/New Counsel).
52. 	The hearing was then adjourned to February 22, 2023.
53. 	On February 28, 2023, the district’s attorney issued a letter advising R.F. of the
appointment of an independent investigator and adjourning the hearing scheduled on
February 22. (Ex. 39, 2/28/23 letter from Christine M. Martinez, Esq.re: Independent
Investigator and redacted HIB documents and Confidential HIB Investigation Report
Case # 140-101122-012).
54. 	On March 1, 2023, during Executive Session, the Montclair Board of Education
heard Petitioner’s appeal affirming that an HIB did not occur. (Ex. 40, 3/7/23 letter from
Board Secretary re: Board Affirmed NON-HIB incident on 3/1/23).
55. 	On May 30, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant Petition of Appeal. (Ex. 41, 5/30/23
Pro Se Petition of Appeal re: Addendum to Case# 10122-012(A)(B)).
56. 	On February 7, 2024, Petitioner served its answers to Respondent’s discovery
demands. (Ex 42, 2/7/24 – Petitioner’s Discovery Responses).
57. 	On January 23, 2024, Respondent served its answers to Petitioner’s discovery
demands. (Ex 43, 1/23/24 – Respondent’s Discovery Responses)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
10
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
The Joint Exhibits and Stipulated Facts clearly establish that the Respondent
undertook an investigation into the allegations made by Petitioner that O.F. had been
bullied in the bathroom on October 11, 2023. The email exchanges between Petitioner,
Ms. McCann, Ms. Kuperman and Mr. Somerville during the month of October 2023
show that Respondent addressed the initial complaint set forth in the first R.F. email,
and continued to follow up on the changing facts, as expressed by R.F., during the
October email exchanges. (Joint Exhibits 5 through 15)
The result was that Respondent found the incident did not meet the criteria to be
identified as an act of HIB. 	A review of Ms. Kupperman’s investigative notes (Joint
Exhibit 17) bear out this conclusion.
Petitioner alleged additional HIB violations, and the case was reopened in late
November 2023. (Joint Exhibit 24)
Ms. Kupperman again investigated, and the matter was determined to not be a
HIB violation. (Joint Exhibits 27 and 29)
Respondent responded to the allegations of R.F. on October 11, 2023, and the
continued allegations set forth in the emails between the parties, in a prompt manner.
Respondent reopened the matter based on more allegations in November 2023. 	In all
instances Respondent concluded that there was not a HIB violation. Petitioner does not
assert one material fact that alters the above. 	Petitioner merely disagrees with the
finding.
There are no facts presented that would lead the undersigned to conclude that
Respondent’s decision was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
A motion for summary decision may be granted if the papers and discovery
presented, as well as any affidavits which may have been filed with the application,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
11
show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
prevail as a matter of law. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). If the motion is sufficiently supported,
the non-moving party must demonstrate by affidavit that there is a genuine issue of fact
which can only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding, in order to prevail in such
an 	application. Ibid. These 	provisions 	mirror 	the 	summary 	judgment 	language 	of
R. 4:46-2(c) of the New Jersey Court Rules.
The motion judge must “consider whether the competent evidential materials
presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party . . . , are
sufficient to permit a rational fact finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of
the non-moving party.” Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995).
And even if the non-moving party comes forward with some evidence, this forum must
grant summary decision if the evidence is “so one-sided that [the moving party] must
prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 536 (citation omitted).
The parties submitted a Joint Stipulation of Facts and Joint Exhibits. 	Those
facts, as supported by the Joint Exhibits, demonstrate that no material fact is in dispute.
Having 	read 	the 	briefs 	and 	certification, 	and 	having 	reviewed 	the 	exhibits
attached thereto, it is clear that there are no issues as to material fact and that the
matter is ripe for summary decision.
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.”3 N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.1.(f).
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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
12
consideration[,]” and the Commissioner will not substitute his judgment for that of the
board. Bayshore Sewerage Co. v. Dep’t. of Envtl. Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199 (Ch.
Div. 1973), aff’d, 131 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1974).
The Act defines HIB as follows:
[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.
Therefore, 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 and, second, the conduct must
substantially disrupt or interfere with the rights of other students or the orderly operation
of the school. 	The third condition is that one of the three criteria enumerated in the Act
regarding the effect of the conduct must also be satisfied. Wehbeh v. Bd. of Educ. of the
Twp. of Verona, Essex County, Commissioner Decision No. 51-20 (decided February 4,
2020).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
13
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.
Regarding the first element, in defining HIB as an action “that is reasonably
perceived as being motivated either by any actual or perceived characteristic . . .”,
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14 (emphasis added), the statute requires an analysis of how the
actor’s motivation is perceived and whether that perception is reasonable. It does not
require an analysis of the actual motivation of the actor. Wehbeh, supra. Certainly,
evidence that the actor was motivated by a distinguishing characteristic would meet the
standard of this section of the Act, but evidence that the actor was not so motivated
does not end the analysis. 	Here, it was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable for
the Board to conclude that this element was not found.
Regarding 	the 	second 	element, 	the 	investigation 	did 	not demonstrated 	the
conduct substantially disrupt or interfere with the rights of other students or the orderly
operation of the school. 	it was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable for the Board
that this element also was not found.
Regarding the third element, an act of HIB is one 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 a student,” or “creates a
hostile educational environment . . .”. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14(a) (emphasis added). None of
these criteria require the actor to have actual knowledge of the effect that her actions
will have, or to specifically intend to bring about that effect. The first requires only that a
reasonable person should know there would be a harmful effect, not that the actor
knows there would be such an effect. The second two criteria address only the actual
effect of the act, without any reference to what either the actor or a reasonable person
does or should know. Wehbeh, supra. As such, a board of education can find that an
individual committed an act of HIB even if the individual did not intend to cause harm.
In the instant matter the investigation did not conclude that an act of HIB
occurred. 	Accordingly, there could be no determination that the alleged act or acts,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
14
would have a harmful effect. 	It was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable for the
Board to reach that conclusion.
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. Once an alleged HIB
incident is reported to the school principal, the principal must initiate an investigation
within one school day of the report. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6). The investigation shall be
conducted by a school anti-bullying specialist and shall take no longer than ten school
days to be completed. 	The results of the investigation shall then be quickly reported to
the superintendent of schools, who may take certain remedial action. 	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.” Ibid.
Pursuant to the Act, the parents of the students involved in any alleged HIB
incident are entitled to receive information about the nature of the investigation and the
result of the investigation. The parents may request a hearing before the board, and the
hearing must be held within ten days of the request. 	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 about the incident, recommendations for discipline or
services, and any programs instituted to reduce such incidents. The board must issue a
decision at the first meeting after its receipt of 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.
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). Thus, in order to prevail, those challenging an HIB decision made
by a board of education “must demonstrate that the Board acted in bad faith, or in utter
disregard of the circumstances before it.” G.H. & E.H. ex rel. K.H. v. Bd. of Educ. of the
Bor. of Franklin Lakes, EDU 13204-13, Initial Decision (February 24, 2014) (citation

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
15
omitted) <http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>, adopted, Comm’r (April 10, 2014).
Also, a board’s decision may be overturned if its determination violates the legislative
policies expressed or implied in the governing act. J.A.H. ex rel. C.H. v. Twp. of
Pittsgrove 	Bd. 	of 	Educ., 	EDU 	10826-12, 	Initial 	Decision 	(March 	11, 	2013)
(citing Campbell v. Dep’t of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556 (1963), 562 (1963)), adopted,
Comm’r (April 25, 2013) <http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>.
There are reported cases in which HIB determinations by boards of education
have been both affirmed and overturned. In R.G.B. v. Vill. of Ridgewood Bd. of Educ.,
EDU 	14213-12, 	Initial 	Decision 	(May 	15, 	2013)
<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>, adopted, Comm’r (June 24, 2013), the ALJ
found that the Board did not act in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner in
determining that a student engaged in HIB when he repeatedly called a female student
“fat,” “fat ass,” and “horse.” According to the ALJ, such verbal statements satisfied all of
the necessary elements under N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14. And, in G.H., supra, the ALJ also
upheld a Board’s finding that a white student who repeatedly called a black student
“Kool-Aid” engaged in HIB. The ALJ found that the “use of the word ‘kool-aid’ was
directed at [the other student] because of his race; insulted and demeaned [the other
student]; and . . . interfered with [the other student’s] education” because “[u]pset and
embarrassed children are not fully available for learning.” However, in J.A.H., supra, the
Board’s finding that an incident in which one student stuffed a crumbled piece of paper
down the shirt of another student constituted an act of bullying was overturned as
arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because the incident was merely a prank that
was part of an ongoing, mutual conflict between the two boys and did not “contain the
more 	serious 	and 	aggravating 	elements 	either 	‘expressed 	or 	implied’ 	under
[N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.]” The ALJ found that the incident was not improperly motivated by
a distinguishing characteristic and that the facts “only support[ed] a finding of ordinary
student conflicts rather than the more serious behavior of bullying.”
In the instant matter, the parties submitted a Joint Stipulation of Facts and Joint
Exhibits supporting the stipulated facts. 	These facts are agreed upon and lead to the
conclusion that the Respondent comported with the law, did a HIB investigation and
concluded, twice, that an act of HIB was not substantiated.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
16
Petitioner, in his reply brief, raises issues not before the undersigned. 	He refers
to other HIB matters involving O.F. 	Indeed, most of Petitioner’s argument is based
upon other HIB matters. 	The basis of Petitioner's reference to other HIB matters
involving O.F. is to raise the specter of retaliation. 	That argument fails as the matter
before the undersigned predates the additional HIB matters. Further, there are no facts
asserted by Petitioner that substantiate a claim of retaliation. None.
Petitioner asserts that Respondent’s actions in the instant matter were arbitrary
and capricious as it failed to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation and did not
follow procedural and substantive HIB law. 	The Joint Stipulation of Facts and Joint
Exhibits belie these assertions, as noted above.
Petitioner further argues that the undersigned should not decide this matter until
a matter before ALJ Hobbs is resolved. 	That matter, while involving O.F., is not
germane to the instant matter, notwithstanding Petitioner’s repeated allegations of
retaliation, none of which are supported by facts.
I agree with Respondent that Petitioner seeks to introduce matters not part of this
case. 	Much of Petitioner's arguments, and statement of facts are not relevant to the
instant matter. 	All that the undersigned need find is whether Respondent acted in an
arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner. Respondent did not.
It is the obligation of Petitioner to assert a material fact in dispute that would
require a hearing. This was not done.
Given the totality of the facts in the instant matter I cannot conclude that the
Board acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner in determining that an
HIB incident did occur. See In Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327,
332 (App. Div. 1965); R.G.B. v. Vill. of Ridgewood Bd. of Educ., EDU 14213-12, Initial
Decision (May 15, 2013) <http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>, adopted, Comm’r
(June 24, 2013); and, J.A.H. ex rel. C.H. v. Twp. of Pittsgrove Bd. of Educ., EDU 10826-
12, Initial Decision (March 11, 2013) (citing Campbell v. Dep’t of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
17
(1963), 	562 	(1963)), adopted, 	Comm’r 	(April 	25, 	2013)
<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>.
While 	the 	undersigned 	may 	have 	come 	to 	a 	different 	conclusion 	than
Respondent in the instant matter, that does not mean that the Board acted in an
arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner.
Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that Respondent’s motion for summary decision must
be GRANTED.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED as follows:
Respondent’s 	motion for 	summary 	decision 	is 	GRANTED; 	and, 	Petitioner’s
petition is dismissed, with prejudice.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is
authorized to make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Acting 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 	ACTING
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,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
18
New Jersey 08625-0500. 	A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to
the other parties.
September 4, 2024
DATE 	THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	September 4, 2024
Date Mailed to Parties: 	September 4, 2024
db

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
19
APPENDIX
Moving papers:
For Respondent:
Motion for Summary Decision with Brief
Certification of Alexander L. D’Jamoos, Esq., with Joint Exhibits J1 through J45
Certification of Service
Reply Brief
For Petitioner:
Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Decision with Petitioner’s
Exhibits A through Q
Certification of Service
Joint Exhibits:
1. September 2012 Guidance for Parents on the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights.
2. District Policy 5512- Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying.
3. 9/9/21 letter to R.F. from Asst. Superintendent of Montclair Public Schools re:
confirming continued home schooling of O.F. for 2021-2022 school year, Montclair
Local article on O.F. (p27-32), and CogAT Abilities Test, results where O.F. scored in
the 98th percentile.
4. 9/29/22 Nurse Visit Summary Form and 9/30/22 Nurse Visit Summary Form.
5. email exchange between R.F. and Ms. Kristen McCann.
6. 10/12/22 email exchange between R.F. and Ms. Danielle Kupperman re: “O.F. 5th
Grade.”
7. 10/11/22 – 10/13/22 email exchange between Ms. Kristen McCann and Principal
Terrance Somerville and Ms. Danielle Kupperman re “O.F.”
8. 	10/12/22 	– 	10/18/22 	R.F. 	email 	exchange 	between 	R.F., 	Principal 	Terrance
Somerville and Ms. Danielle Kupperman re: “O.F. 5th Grade.”
9. 10/18/22 & 10/19/22 handwritten notes of Ms. Danielle Kupperman.
10. 10/19/22 R.F. email to Terence Somerville re: “Concern.”
11. 10/19/22 R.F. emails with T. Somerville & D. Kupperman re: “O.F. (bullying).”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
20
12. 10/20/22 R.F. emails with T. Somerville & D. Kupperman re: “O.F. (bullying).”
13. 10/19/22 - 10/20/22 R.F. emails with T. Somerville & D. Kupperman re: “O.F.
(bullying).”
14. 10/20/22 R.F. email submitting HIB Form 338 O.F. dated 9/9/2022.
15. 10/20/22 – 10/21/220 emails re: O.F. HIB Form 338.
16. HIB 338 Form completed by D. Kupperman.
17. 10/21/22 – 11/22/22 Investigation Notes of D. Kupperman.
18. 10/26/22 Genesis Portal and 11/1/22 Confidential HIB Investigation Report.
19. 11/1/22 – Nurse Visit.
20. 10/20/22 – 11/15/22 R.F. email exchange with T. Somerville & D. Kupperman re:
“O.F. HIB Form 338 O.F..”
21. 10/27/22 letter from Dr. Li Zhang with medical records.
22. email from Maggie Dock to T. Somerville re: “HIB IMPORTANT” and 11/15/22 –
11/16/22 email exchange between R.F., Maggie Dock, D. Kupperman, and T.Somerville
re: “Northeast Meeting Questions.”
23. 11/17/22 – M. Dock notes re: 012-Re-opened / phone contact to father R.F.
24. 11/15/22 – 11/22/22 email re: Case Reopened NE O.F..
25. 11/16/22 – 11/21/22 emails between J.K. & D. Kupperman re: “HIB issue.”
26. 11/22/22 Nurse visit, Nurse Turnstile Records, O.F. Attendance Calendar.
27. 11/22/22 – Investigation Notes of D. Kupperman.
28. 12/23/22 Fifth Grade Report Card of O.F.
29. 1/3/23 letter M. Dock to R.F. re: Notification of Alleged Incident Ruling NON-HIB.
30. 1/11/23 – Emails re: Appeal board of education and more instances of bullying (OF)
enclosing Request for Appeal.
31. 1/10/23 R.F. email to T. Somerville with O.F. handwritten notes.
32. 1/12/23-1/14/22 emails re: “OF HIB matter.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
21
33. 1/19/23 R.F. email to T. Somerville re: “OF (Bullying).”
34. Joint Exhibit 34 is a true and accurate copy of the 1/20/23 Dr. Jonathan Ponds letter
to R.F. re: Appeal hearing.
35. 1/20/23 R.F. email to Nina DeRosa re: “Northeast O.F. HIB hearing 2/1/23 and
Mental Health Evaluation Matter.”
36. 1/22/23 - 1/26/23 email from M. Dock to R.F. re: O.F. NE update.
37. 	1/26/22 	- 	1/28/23 	email 	from 	R.F. 	to 	M. 	Dock 	re: 	O.F. 	(Board 	Appeal
Meeting/Document Request/New Counsel).
38. Undated letter from Dr. Mora to Superintendent Pond re: Confirming attendance at
2/1/23 HIB Appeal meeting.
39. 2/28/23 letter from Christine M. Martinez, Esq. re: Independent Investigator and
redacted HIB documents.
40. 3/7/23 letter from Board Secretary re: Board Affirmed NON-HIB incident on 3/1/23.
41. 5/30/23 Pro Se Petition of Appeal re: Addendum to Case# 10122-012(A)(B).
42. 2/7/24 – Petitioner’s Discovery Responses.
43. 1/23/24 – Respondent’s Discovery Responses.
44. the Genesis HIB Data.
45. Program 	for May 4, 2023, 2022-2023 National PTA Reflections Art Program
National Winner O.F., Northeast for Intermediate Visual Arts-"Stop Bullying"; Leaflet for
May 21, 2023 NJ PTA Reflections Student Art and Award's Showcase; Show Your
Voice! National PTA Reflections 2022-2023 Award Presented to O.F., Outstanding
Interpretation-Visual Arts.
Petitioner’s Exhibits:
A. Affidavit of R.F.
B. email dated February 16, 2023 from R.F. to Ms. Kupperman
C. email dated February 17, 2023 from R.F. to Ms. Dock
D. email dated March 6, 2023 from Ms. Dock to R.F.
E. email dated March 10, 2023 from R.F. to Ms. Dock
F. email dated March 25, 2023 from R.F. to Ms. Dock
G. email dated March 31, 2023 from R.F. to Jonathan Irizarry, Esq.
H. email from Jonathan Irizarry, Esq. to R.F.
I. 	Initial HIB determination against O.F. dated May 22, 2023; and HIB investigation
form
J. 	email dated July 23, 2023 from R.F. to Ms. Dock

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09352-23
22
K. email dated June 20, 2023 from R.F. to Ms. Dock
L. 	email dated July 13, 2023 from David Goldblatt to R.F.
M. email dated August 3, 2023 from Christine Martinez, Esq. to R.F.
N. letter dated August 23, 2023 from Cristina Hunt to R.F.
O. letter dated September 1, 2023 from Cristina Hunt to R.F.
P. email dated September 1, 2023 from R.F. to Ms. Hunt
Q. Respondent Answer to Petition in HIB matter pending before ALJ Hobbs