D.F., on behalf of minor children D.F. and I.F. v. Board of Education of the Borough of Roosevelt, Monmouth County, 10/8/2024, (#368-24)

368-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
D.F., on behalf of minor children, I.F. and D.F.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Roosevelt,
Monmouth County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner filed a petition of appeal and a motion for emergent relief seeking an out-of-district
placement for her two minor children for alleged violations of the respondent Board’s harassment,
intimidation, and bullying (HIB) policy after the Board’s anti-bullying specialists determined that the student
conduct petitioner reported in her complaint did not constitute HIB under New Jersey’s Anti-Bullying Bill of
Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14. Petitioner contended that the Roosevelt public school was not a safe
environment for I.F. and D.F. because of the HIB that petitioner asserts was inflicted upon them during their
time at the school; 	she therefore sought an out-of-district placement for the children to have them
educated in either the Millstone Township Elementary School or an East Windsor Regional School District
elementary school.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	in this case, petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to emergent relief
pursuant to the standards enunciated in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982), and codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-
1.6; 	petitioner did not show a likelihood of obtaining the relief she sought, namely an out-of-district
placement for I.F. and D.F., as neither the HIB statute nor case law authorizes an out-of-district placement
as a form of relief for a HIB violation. The ALJ concluded that petitioner’s request for emergent relief does
not satisfy the applicable requirements; further, the parties agreed that there are no remaining issues to
be determined. Accordingly, the ALJ denied petitioner’s application for emergent relief.
Upon review, the Commissioner adopted the ALJ’s recommended Order denying petitioner’s application for
emergent relief for the reasons stated therein. 	As the parties represented to the ALJ that there are no
remaining issues to be resolved, the Commissioner dismissed the petition of appeal. 	In so doing, the
Commissioner noted that if petitioner wishes to pursue an appeal of the Board’s HIB determinations, she
may file a separate petition of appeal as that issue is outside of the scope of the within petition.
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.

368-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 11981-24
Agency Dkt. No. 276-8/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
D.F., on behalf of minor children, D.F. and I.F.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Borough 	of
Roosevelt, Monmouth County,
Respondent.
The record of this emergent matter, the sound recording of the hearing at the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL), and the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
have been reviewed. Upon such review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner
has failed to demonstrate entitlement to emergent relief pursuant to the standards enunciated
in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982), and codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6.
Accordingly, the recommended Order denying petitioner’s application for emergent relief
is adopted for the reasons stated therein. As the parties represented to the ALJ that no issues
remain to be resolved,1 the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
1 Petitioner indicated during oral argument that she is seeking reversal of the Roosevelt Board of
Education’s (Board) harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) determinations. However, that issue is
outside the scope of the petition filed in the matter, which is limited to petitioner’s request for a transfer
to an out-of-district placement for her children. To the extent that petitioner wishes to pursue an appeal
of the Board’s HIB determinations, she may file a separate petition of appeal. The Commissioner notes
that any such petition will be subject to the filing timeline established by N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i), as well as
any other applicable statutes or regulations.

2
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	October 8, 2024
Date of Mailing: 	October 9, 2024
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
ORDER ON EMERGENT RELIEF
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11981-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 276-8/24
D.F. ON BEHALF OF
MINOR CHILDREN D.F. AND I.F.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
BOROUGH OF ROOSEVELT,
MONMOUTH COUNTY,
Respondent.
__________________________________________
D.F., on behalf of D.F. and I.F., petitioner, pro se
Bruce W. Padula, Esq. and Janice Arellano, Esq., for respondent (Cleary, Giacobbe,
Alfieri, Jacobs, LLC, attorneys)
BEFORE MAMTA PATEL, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner D.F. seeks an out-of-district placement for her two minor children for alleged
violations of respondent Board of Education of the Borough of Roosevelt’s harassment,
intimidation, or bullying (HIB) policy. Even if there were HIB violations, are D.F.’s children entitled

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11981-24
2
to out-of-district placement? No. The Anti-Bullying Act does not authorize out-of-district
placement for a HIB violation. See N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(7).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 22, 2024, the Board of Education of the Borough of Roosevelt (Board) denied
D.F.’s request for out-of-district placement for D.F.’s two minor children, D.F. (her son) and I.F.
(her daughter), based on her allegations that the school was not safe for her children to attend.
On August 26, 2024, D.F. filed a pro se petition of appeal and a motion for emergent relief with
the Office of Controversies and Disputes of the New Jersey Department of Education (DOE).
On August 28, 2024, without a response from the Board the petition of appeal and motion for
emergent relief were transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-
1.6(c)(3), where it was filed as a contested case N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to
-13. On September 3, 2024, the DOE emailed its response to D.F.’s request for emergent relief.
The appeal and motion for emergent relief were heard via Zoom Communications, Inc., on
September 4, 2024, and I closed the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the testimony the parties submitted and my assessment of its credibility,
together with the documents the parties submitted and my assessment of their sufficiency, I FIND
the following as FACT:
The Roosevelt Public School (the school) is a pre-kindergarten through fifth-grade school
district. The class sizes are small, and the student-to-teacher ratio is approximately 12:1. D.F.’s
son, D.F., and daughter, I.F., have attended the school since September 1, 2020. Both children
identify as biracial, specifically African American and Caucasian. In the 2023–2024 school year,
her son was in the third grade, and her daughter was in the second grade.
I.F. was the only African American student in her class during the 2023–2024 school
year and has texturally different hair. In December 2022, D.F. sent several emails to Dr.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11981-24
3
Karen Barry, superintendent of the Roosevelt Public School, who at the time was also the
anti-bullying coordinator, complaining that students were inappropriately touching I.F.’s hair.
In December 2023, with the assistance of Barry, D.F. filed six HIB complaints on behalf of her
daughter, I.F., regarding incidents between November 2022 and December 2022. Five of
the six HIB complaints involved students engaging in various forms of touching I.F.’s hair
without her consent. The sixth complaint involved a student allegedly telling I.F. that “real
people don’t look like that” about an image of a person I.F. colored red.
The six HIB complaints were assigned to anti-bullying specialists Scot Gershman and
Donna Gazzani for investigation. Gershman and Gazzani are also teachers at the school;
Gazzani was I.F.’s second-grade teacher. All teachers at the school receive annual “anti-
bullying” training. On January 27, 2023, the school sent D.F. six letters notifying her of the
outcome of each HIB complaint. D.F. was advised that the investigations “did not find
evidence of HIB.” Although the allegations were unfounded, several students apologized to
her daughter, and one student was required to sit in Barry’s office for fifteen minutes at the
end of the day. D.F. believes that touching her daughter’s hair without her permission is a
form of discrimination under the “Crown Act.”1
None of the complained-about conduct resulted in the filing of formal charges by law-
enforcement officials for the commission of a violent crime, nor was any student
sanctioned by the district board of education’s code of student conduct, nor was there a
pre-existence of a restraining order against any of the student(s).
D.F. also complained to Barry about other students’ treatment of her son. Specifically,
D.F. complained that other students mispronounced her son’s name. In October 2023, one
student allegedly told her son that he would “make him and his family disappear.” On or
about October 12, 2023, D.F. met with Gina Morrone, principal of the school, regarding the
treatment of her children. Although D.F. believes that her son was mistreated because of his
1 The act establishes that discrimination based on hair texture, type, or style constitutes unlawful race
discrimination in New Jersey. The Crown Act amends the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD),
which bars employers from discriminating against individuals based on race, among other protected
categories. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-12(a).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11981-24
4
race and disability, D.F. did not file any HIB complaints on his behalf. Following the meeting,
on or about October 13, 2023, D.F. removed her children from school and homeschooled
them for the remainder of the 2023–2024 school year.
On November 27, 2023, D.F. emailed Barry requesting an out-of-district placement
for her children—either Millstone Township Elementary School or an East Windsor Regional
School District elementary school. Barry advised that day that the school did not have the
ability to transfer the children to either school.
On August 22, 2024, D.F. appeared before the Board Executive Committee and
requested an out-of-district placement for her children. During the hearing, D.F. did not
challenge the HIB findings but rather premised her request for out-of-district placement on
the Unsafe School Choice Option. The Unsafe School Choice Option (section 9532 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001). See 20 U.S.C. § 7912. Specifically Provision II, Victims of Violent
Criminal Offenses.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
When the subject matter of a controversy is action by a board of education, the
petitioner may file “a separate motion for emergent relief . . . pending the Commissioner’s
final decision in the contested case.” N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(a). Here, D.F. has initiated due-
process proceedings to challenge the Board’s denial of her request for out-of-district
placement of her two children. Based on prior alleged HIB incidents, D.F. claims that the
school is not safe for her children to attend. Although D.F. did not challenge the Board’s
HIB findings, even if the HIB rulings are overturned and affirmed by the DOE, the relief
she requests—both on an emergent and permanent basis—may not be available under
the HIB statute.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11981-24
5
The standards for granting emergent relief are outlined in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90
N.J. 126 (1982), and are codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b). The petitioner bears the burden
of proving all four prongs of the Crowe test stated below:
1. Petitioner will suffer irreparable harm if the requested relief is not
granted;
2. The legal right underlying the petitioner’s claim is settled;
3. Petitioner has a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the
underlying claim; and
4. When the equities and the interests of the parties are balanced, the
petitioner will suffer greater harm than the respondent will suffer if the
requested relief is not granted.
D.F.’s emergent claim fails because she has not shown a likelihood of obtaining
the relief she seeks, an out-of-district placement for I.F. and D.F. The HIB statute requires
the school to adopt a policy that includes “consequences and appropriate remedial action
for a person who commits an act of [HIB].” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(4). The law states that
if a HIB violation is found, the school should implement support and remedial measures,
including the following:
[T]he range of ways in which a school will respond once an
incident of harassment, intimidation or bullying is identified,
which shall be defined by the principal in conjunction with the
school anti-bullying specialist, but shall include an appropriate
combination of services that are available within the district
such as counseling, support services, intervention services,
and other programs, as defined by the commissioner. In the
event that the necessary programs and services are not
available within the district, the district may apply to the
Department of Education for a grant from the “Bullying
Prevention Fund” established pursuant to section 25 of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11981-24
6
P.L.2010, c.122 (C.18A:37-28) to support the provision of out-
of-district programs and services[.]
[N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(7).]
Neither the statute nor case law authorizes an out-of-district placement as a form
of relief for a HIB violation.
Additionally, D.F.’s argument for out-of-district placement under the Unsafe School
Choice Option provision (Title VIII, Part F, Subpart 2, SEC. 8532) under the federal Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 is inapplicable because the ESSA does not
authorize out-of-district placements either. It only authorizes placement in another school
in the district when a student is a victim of a violent offense at school:
[A] student . . . who becomes a victim of a violent criminal
offense, as determined by State law, while in or on the
grounds of a public elementary school or secondary school
that the student attends, be allowed to attend a safe public
elementary school or secondary school within the local
educational agency, including a public charter school.
[See 20 U.S.C. § 7912(a).]
The ESSA specifically indicates the following criteria to determine whether a student is a
victim under the Act: A student is considered a victim of a violent criminal offense when:
• A referral has been made to law enforcement officials for suspicion that one of the
violent criminal offenses enumerated below has occurred; and
• One or more of the following applies:
o Law enforcement officials have filed formal charges against the offender(s)
for commission of the violent crime; or
o The offender(s) has received sanctions in accordance with the district board
of education’s code of student conduct; or

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11981-24
7
o The offender(s) either has not been identified or is not an enrolled
student(s), but it is clear that the student (victim) has become a victim of a violent
criminal offense based on objective indicators such as physical evidence,
eyewitness testimony, and/or circumstantial evidence; or
o The pre-existence of a restraining order against the offender(s).
Parenthetically, there are no facts supporting the application of ESSA in this case.
None of the alleged conduct was deemed violent or resulted in the filing of criminal
charges by law enforcement. The alleged HIB conduct, i.e., inappropriate hair touching
or comments by second and third-graders in this instance, does not meet the criteria
stated above for D.F. and I.F. to be considered victims under ESSA.
The second consideration of the Crowe test is whether the legal right underlying
D.F.’s claim is settled, N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b)(2). Here, as stated above, I CONCLUDE that
D.F. does not meet the second prong of the emergent-relief standard.
Since D.F. cannot meet all four prongs of the Crowe standard, this Order will not
address the other three prongs.
I CONCLUDE that D.F.’s request for emergent relief does not satisfy the applicable
requirements.
I further CONCLUDE upon agreement by the parties that there are no remaining
issues.
ORDER
For the reasons stated above, I hereby ORDER that petitioner D.F.'s application
for emergent relief on behalf of D.F. and I.F. is hereby DENIED.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11981-24
8
This Order on application for emergency relief may be adopted, modified or
rejected by COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who/which by
law is authorized to make a final decision in this matter. The final decision shall be issued
without undue delay, but no later than forty-five days following the entry of this order. If
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION does not adopt, modify or
reject this order within forty-five days, this recommended order shall become a final
decision on the issue of emergent relief in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
September 6, 2024
DATE MAMTA PATEL, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
MP/dw

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11981-24
9
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For petitioner
D.F., parent
For respondent
Dr. Karen Barry, Superintendent of the Roosevelt Board of Education
Exhibits
For petitioner
P-1 Pro Se Petition of Appeal and supporting statement, dated August 23, 2024;
and Certification of Service, dated August 26, 2024
P-2 Emails between Dr. Karen Barry and D.F. regarding son, D.F., incidents,
dated February 6, 2023; May 17, 2023; October 10, 2023
P-3 HIB Finding letter to D.F., dated January 27, 2023
For respondent
R-1 Opposition to Petition for Emergent Relief, and Certification of Dr. Karen
Barry, Superintendent of the Borough of Roosevelt, dated September 3,
2024
R-2 Student Safety Data System Report Form 2022–2023, Incident 1, dated
January 5, 2024
R-3 Student Safety Data System Report Form 2022–2023, Incident 2, dated
January 5, 2024
R-4 Student Safety Data System Report Form 2022–2023, Incident 3, dated
January 5, 2024

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11981-24
10
R-5 Student Safety Data System Report Form 2022–2023, Incident 4, dated
January 5, 2024
R-6 Student Safety Data System Report Form 2022–2023, Incident 5, dated
January 5, 2024
R-7 Student Safety Data System Report Form 2022–2023, Incident 6, dated
January 5, 2024
R-8 Emails between Dr. Karen Barry re I.F. incidents (touching hair and foul
language), dated November 14, 2022; December 7, 9, 13, 22, 2022
R-9 Letter from student to I.F.—apology
R-10 Millstone Township BOE Checklist re Investigation of HIB Reports
R-11 Investigation Notes re Hair Touching from Anti-Bullying Specialist
Joint Exhibits
J-1 Roosevelt Anti-Bullying Specialist Report Form from petitioner
J-2 Email from petitioner to Commissioner of Education regarding HIB, dated
November 27, 2024
J-3 Response to petitioner from Dr. Barry, dated November 27, 2024