In the Matter of the Suspension of the Teaching Certificates of Jesenia Chester, Board of Education of the Township of South Brunswick, Middlesex County, 9/14/2023, (#276-23)

276-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of the Suspension of the
Teaching Certificates of Jesenia Chester,
Board of Education of the Township of
South Brunswick, Middlesex County.
Synopsis
The petitioning Board alleged that the respondent – a non-tenured kindergarten teacher – resigned her
position without providing the notice required under N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10 and sought the suspension of
respondent’s teaching certificate for a period of one year. Respondent taught kindergarten in a South
Brunswick school during the 2021-2022 school year and the Board asserted that her contract was
renewed at a Board meeting on May 12, 2022. 	However, on August 4, 2022, respondent sent the
District an email resigning her position effective September 1, 2022 and did not return to her position
for the start of the new school year. The parties filed cross motions for summary decision.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts at issue in this case and the matter is ripe for
summary decision; there is no dispute that there was a contract in place between the parties, or at least
that there was an implied contract; petitioner did not present any reasons justifying her resignation
other than personal motives; under N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10, any teaching staff member employed by a board
of education who ceases to perform his or her duties before the expiration of their term of employment,
without the consent of the board, shall be deemed guilty of unprofessional conduct and the
Commissioner may thereafter suspend his or her teaching certificate for a period not to exceed one
year. 	The ALJ concluded that respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct by failing to give the
required 60-day notice. 	Accordingly, the ALJ granted the Board’s motion for summary decision and
ordered that respondent’s teaching certificate be suspended for one year.
Upon review, the Commissioner, inter alia, remanded the matter to the OAL for further fact-finding as
the present record is devoid of information necessary to reach a final determination in this case.
Specifically, it is necessary to review the contract under which respondent was employed in the 2021-
2022 school year and whether it contained a 60-day notice provision or some other length of time, as
well as respondent’s written acceptance of the Board’s offer of continued employment following the
May 12, 2022 Board meeting. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the OAL for further findings as
noted 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.

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 10542-22
Agency Dkt. No. 284-10/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of the Suspension of the
Teaching Certificates of Jesenia Chester,
Board of Education of the Township of
South Brunswick, Middlesex County.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed and considered.
Respondent Jesenia Chester, a teacher employed by the South Brunswick Board of
Education (Board), notified the Board on August 4, 2022, that she would be resigning effective
September 1, 2022. The Board filed an Order to Show Cause seeking the suspension of
respondent’s teaching certificates for resigning from her teaching position without providing
the required 60-day notice. Following the Board’s motion for summary decision, the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct
by failing to give the required notice. The ALJ found that there is no dispute that there was a
contract in place between the parties, or that there was at least an implied contract. The ALJ
also concluded that petitioner did not present any reasons justifying her actions other than
personal motives. Accordingly, the ALJ granted the Board’s motion for summary decision and
ordered that respondent’s teaching certificates be suspended for one year.
276-23

2
Respondent filed exceptions to the Initial Decision; however, they were not considered
because they were not timely filed. N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4 requires exceptions be filed within 13 days
from the date the judge’s initial decision was mailed to the parties. The Initial Decision was
mailed on August 2, 2023, making the due date for any exceptions August 15, 2023. The
tracking information for respondent’s exceptions shows a mailing date of August 21, 2023, with
delivery to the Department of Education on August 23, 2023. Respondent did not request an
extension of time to file her exceptions.1
Upon review, the Commissioner concludes that this matter must be remanded to the
OAL. Initially, the Commissioner notes that N.J.S.A. 18A:28-8, which requires tenured teachers
to give 60 days’ notice before resigning, does not apply to respondent, who was not tenured.
Instead, respondent’s notice obligations are established by the terms of her employment
contract. IMO the Suspension of the Teaching Certificate of Melissa Van Pelt, Gray Charter
School, Newark, Essex. Co., Commissioner Decision No. 170-09 (May 29, 2009), aff’d, 414 N.J.
Super. 440 (App Div. 2010). If respondent’s resignation was not in accordance with the terms
of her contract, then she is guilty of unprofessional conduct and the Commissioner may
suspend her certificates for up to one year. N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10.
The ALJ determined that there was a contract or an implied contract between the
parties at the time of respondent’s resignation. However, the Commissioner finds that the
record does not contain sufficient evidence to reach that conclusion. N.J.S.A. 18A:27-10
requires a board of education to provide nontenured teaching staff members with a written
1 Because respondent’s exceptions were not considered, the Board’s reply thereto was also not considered.
Furthermore, a September 23, 2023 email sent from respondent to counsel for the Board, in reply to the Board’s
exceptions, was not considered, as sur-replies are not permitted under the applicable regulations.

3
offer of a contract for employment, or a written notice that employment will not be offered, on
or before May 15 of each year.2 N.J.S.A. 18A:27-12 requires the employee to accept the offer in
writing on or before June 1. If the employee does so, employment continues, on at least the
same terms and conditions as the previous school year, with such salary increases as may be
required by law or board policy. N.J.S.A. 18A:27-12; N.J.S.A. 18A:27-10. If the employee does
not accept the offer in writing, her employment is not renewed. N.J.S.A. 18A:27-12. The
principles pertaining to implied contracts do not apply when the applicable statute specifically
requires acceptances to be in writing.
There is no evidence in the record to demonstrate whether respondent accepted her
employment in writing. Respondent did indicate that she remembered “saying thank you for
the opportunity.” Response to Order to Show Cause, ¶23. If that statement was made in
writing, it may be sufficient to constitute written acceptance. Alternatively, respondent may
have accepted the offer in writing in another manner. However, if she did not accept her offer
of employment in writing, then she was not under contract at the time of her resignation and
had no notice obligations regarding her resignation.
Additionally, if respondent did accept the Board’s offer, her employment continued
under the same terms and conditions established by her contract for the 2021-2022 school
year, including any provisions regarding her notice obligations. However, the record does not
2 It is not clear to the Commissioner that the Board complied with its obligation to make a written offer of
employment. While respondent’s summative evaluation indicated that she was being recommended for a
contract for the 2022-2023 school year, that evaluation was neither from the Board nor an offer of employment.
Nonetheless, N.J.S.A. 18A:27-11 provides that when a board of education fails to give an employee either an offer
of employment or notice of non-employment, the board is deemed to have offered the employee continued
employment for the next school year. Accordingly, the Board is deemed to have offered respondent employment
for the 2022-2023 school year.

4
contain a copy of respondent’s 2021-2022 contract. Therefore, the Commissioner is unable to
determine whether the contract contained a 60-day notice provision or some other length of
time.
Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the OAL for further findings regarding
respondent’s acceptance of the Board’s offer of employment and, if such acceptance was given,
the terms of the 2021-2022 contract.
IT IS SO ORDERED.3
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
3 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.
September 14, 2023
September 18, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION GRANTING
MOTION 	FOR 	SUMMARY
DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10542-2022
AGENCY DKT. NO. 284-10/22
IN RE SUSPENSION OF THE TEACHING
CERTIFICATES OF JESENIA CHESTER,
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH BRUNSICK,
MIDDLESEX COUNTY.
Marie-Laurence Fabian, Esq., for petitioner (Porzio Bromberg & Newman,
attorneys)
Jesenia Chester, respondent, pro se
Record Closed: June 26, 2023 	Decided: August 2, 2023
BEFORE JOAN M. BURKE, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The South Brunswick Board of Education (“Board” or “petitioner”) seeks an order
suspending the teaching certificate of respondent Jesenia Chester (“respondent”) for

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10542-22
2
failing to provide adequate notice of resignation, in violation of her employment contract
and N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
At the request of the Board, the Commissioner of Education issued an Order to
Show Cause on October 7, 2022, ordering respondent to show cause why her teaching
certificate should not be suspended for unprofessional conduct pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:26-10. 	Respondent filed an answer on November 14, 2022, and the matter was
transferred to the Office of Administrative Law on November 28, 2023, for determination
as a contested case. A status conference was scheduled for February 9, 2023, but the
respondent? requested an adjournment based on her work schedule. 	A status
conference was held on March 29, 2023. At that time, the parties informed this tribunal
that they would prefer the matter to be determined based on the papers that were
submitted. On March 30, 2023, this tribunal received a letter wherein both parties
requested that the matter be decided in a “summary fashion” without a hearing based on
the papers that were submitted to date. The Board requested the motion based on upon
the affidavit, with attachments, of Kimberly Maloy-White dated October 12, 2022. 	The
respondent requested the motion based on her Reply to the Order to Show Cause, with
attachments dated November 14, 2022. 	On May 9, 2022, I requested from the parties
letter briefs or memorandum of law addressing the appropriateness of summary decision
and why each side is entitled to summary decision. The briefs with supporting documents
were received and the record closed on June 26, 2023.
BACKGROUND FACTS
The following facts are found to be undisputed based on the record. On June 10,
2021, the Board hired respondent to serve as a Kindergarten teacher for the 2021-2022
school year. Certification of Maloy-White at ¶ 3. Respondent was assigned to Constable
Elementary School District (the “District”). 	Ibid. 	Respondent began working in her
position on or about September 1, 2021, where she continued until the end of the school
year. Certification of Maloy-White at ¶ 5. On April 23, 2022 the respondent was notified
through her summative evaluation that she was being recommended for a contract for the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10542-22
3
2022-2023 school year. Certification of Maloy-White at ¶ 6. 	The respondent’s contract
was renewed by the Board of Education at its meeting on May 12, 2022. Certification of
Maloy-White at ¶ 7.
On August 4, 2022, the respondent sent an email to the District informing them
that she had decided to pursue her career as a teacher elsewhere, thereby submitted a
resignation effective September 1, 2022. 	(Petitioner’s Exhibit F.) 	Respondent was
advised by Maloy-White that by law she was required to provide the District with sixty
days’ notice prior to resigning in order to give the District sufficient time to secure a
replacement. Certification of Maloy-White at ¶ 10. Respondent was further notified that
the failure to give the required sixty-day notice would jeopardize her teaching certificate.
Ibid. Nevertheless, respondent did not return to her position when the school year began
on September 1, 2022. Certification of Maloy-White at ¶ 12. Thus the respondent resigned
without providing the requisite notice to the Board. (Petitioner’s Brief dated June 8, 2023.)
The District filled the position quickly with a teacher slated for another position, however
the District was not fully staffed. See Supplemental Affidavit of Kimberly Maloy-White at
3. The district had to juggle positions and use substitutes in other classes. Ibid.
RESPONDENT’S POSITION
Respondent argues that her contract states that the effective date to start the 2022-
2023 school year was ”9/30/2022 and terminates on 6/30/2023.“ See Respondent’s Letter
Brief at ¶ 2. Respondent further argues that she was not in receipt of a contract and since
her resignation was placed on 10/4/221(sic), she was not under tenure of service. Ibid.
The respondent did not dispute the sixty days but instead emphasizes that without
knowledge of salary, benefits and classroom designation, she was well within her right to
explore options for her benefit. In addition to her economic situation, the salary at South
Brunswick was not enough “to stabilize her life between student loans, numerous
undisclosed 	medical 	emergencies, 	general 	cost 	of 	living 	expenses, 	without 	any
guarantee, I . . . gave as short notice as possible.” See Respondent’s Letter Brief at ¶
1 Respondent submit her resignation on August 4, 2022. This was determined to be a typo.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10542-22
4
2. 	Moreover, her fiancée accepted a job in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania and as such she
needed to plan accordingly. Id. at ¶ 3.
Respondent states that she is not certified to teach students with registered IEP
and 504 Plans. 	However during the 2021-2022 school year, she was assigned an
inclusion class where the teacher of record resigned midway through the school year. Id.
at ¶ 4. In this position she states that she was forced to work as a teacher of record as
well as a general education teacher. Ibid. 	She states that she takes her students’ needs
above anything else and felt that the “administration did not do their part to prove they
cared for the children’s (sic) needs as much” as she did. Ibid. Respondent also points to
several reasons why she did not return for the 2022-2023 school year. 	These reasons
include mental anxiety for which she sought help, depression, feelings of abandonment
by 	the 	administration and by 	fellow 	Kindergarten 	teachers. Id. at 	¶ 6,and ¶ 	14.
Respondent argues that stripping her of her certificate would devastate and disable her
from doing what she loves and is passionate about. Id. at ¶ 16. She points to her
summative evaluation where it states:
An example of Ms. Chester’s work this year is her
commitment to 	strong 	home/school partnerships to support
student learning, as evidenced by her weekly newsletters and
social media posts on Twitter. These proactive communications
afford her the opportunity to tell the story of her classroom
herself, and to invite families and others in to celebrate students’
efforts and success. 	This serves as a point of pride in this
practice 	Standard. 	Ms. 	Chester 	is 	commended 	for 	this
contribution.
[Respondent’s Brief at ¶ 18.]
Respondent states that by stripping her of her certification “with the fact that legislative
statute instigates a lack of professionalism, that is an attack on my personal character
and is a blemish that will never go away, and I will be stigmatized regardless of all my
efforts to do everything for my students.” Id. at ¶ 21.
Respondent 	stated that 	she was happy on May 12, when her contract was
renewed, however she was never given a formal copy of the renewed contract. Id. at ¶ 2.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10542-22
5
Respondent further stated that she was not aware of the sixty-day window of resignation.
Id. at ¶ 23. 	Since she was not given a physical contract, she did not recall saying “I will
be teaching here next school year”. Ibid. 	All she recalled saying is “thank you for the
opportunity”. Ibid. She argues that this was not a contractual agreement, because, if it
was, she would have “asked for additional documentation cementing the fact of my
renewal for the 2022-2023 school year.” Ibid.
Respondent admits that she did give her resignation twenty-nine days prior to the
contract effective date of September 1, 2023. Id. at ¶ 24. She states that if she had given
sixty days from August 4, 2022, it would involve twenty-three days into the school year,
and this would be far “too much time for a teacher to be involved and not affect the
students if the teacher did in fact leave after that point. Id. 	In the best interest of the
students she felt a teacher should be in the classroom for the entire school year. Id.
Respondent requested a copy of her contract on August 23, 2022. (Petitioner’s
Exhibit H.) 	Maloy-White replied “ As I stated in my original conversation with you. You
were re-appointed to a 2 nd year contract at the May 12, 2022, board meeting. 	Salaries
for the 2022-2023 school year are being approved at the August 25, 2022 board meeting.
Contracts will be distributed after the board meeting. 	Your resignation is also being
approved on August 25, 2022. You will not receive a contract since you are not returning
to work on September 1, 2022”. Ibid.
According to the respondent she was informed by Maloy-White that she did not
have tenure but she “was in a tenure tract position.” See Respondent’s Exhibit H.
Respondent argues that N.J.S.A. 18A:28-8 does not apply to her because she is not
“under tenure of service.”. 	Id. at ¶ 27. 	Furthermore, to reach tenure status a teacher
must teach in the same school district for four full years. Ibid. The respondent says she
has only taught in the South Brunswick School District for one full year. Ibid.
“[F]rom my proof regarding professionalism in the classroom and outside the
classroom,” respondent concludes, “being told by way of written communication my
resignation is being approved by the board at the August 25, 2022 board meeting, as well
as the effective and terminating dates of both the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 approval

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10542-22
6
meeting documents not being within the date I sent my resignation in, I hereby object to
the action that my teaching certificate be revoked for one year pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:26”.” Id. at ¶ 31.
BOARD’S POSITION
The Board stated that the respondent was hired by the South Brunswick School
District (District) on or about September 1, 2021. On April 23, 2022, she was notified that
she was being recommended for a contract for the 2022-2023 school year. (Petitioner’s
Brief, dated June 8, 2023.) 	On May 12, 2022, Ms. Chester’s contract was renewed for
the 2022-2023 school year. 	Ibid. On August 4, 2023, Ms. Chester informed the District
that she decided to pursue her career as a teacher elsewhere effective September 1,
2022. 	Ibid. 	Ms. Maloy-White informed the respondent on April 10, 2022, that she was
required to give the District sixty-day notice and that her teacher’s certificate would be
jeopardized. Id. at 2. The Board argues that N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10 requires the suspension
of Ms. Chester’s certificate. The Board further argues that:
it is well recognized that [t]he obvious purpose of this statute and
N.J.S.A. 18A:28-8, a companion statute referring to tenured staff
members, is to provide notice to the school so that a replacement
can 	be 	hired 	without 	adversely 	impacting 	students.” 	IMO
Suspension of Teaching Certificate of Maximillan Capshaw,
OAL Docket No. EDU 12318-06, Commissioner Decision June
12, 2007.
[Petitioner’s Brief, dated June 8, 2023]
The Board argues that this matter is similar to IMO Capshaw. There, the petitioner
submitted his resignation in August prior to the start of a new school year”. Ibid.
I FIND as FACT that there are no genuine issues of material fact requiring a
hearing. This matter is therefore ripe for summary decision.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10542-22
7
LEGAL DISCUSSION
Under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6, “[a]
party may move for summary decision upon all or any of the substantive issues in a
contested case.” N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a). Such motion “shall be served with briefs and with
or without supporting affidavits” and “[t]he decision sought may be rendered if the papers
and discovery which have been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled
to prevail as a matter of law.” 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). 	When the motion “is made and
supported, an adverse party in order to prevail must by responding affidavit set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue which can only be determined in an
evidentiary proceeding.” Ibid.
This standard is substantially the same as that which governs motions for summary
judgment in civil litigation. 	Contini v. Bd of Educ. of Newark, 286 N.J. Super. 106, 121
(App. Div. 1995). 	In other words, a court must ascertain “whether the competent
evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party in consideration of the applicable evidentiary standard, are sufficient to permit a
rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party.”
L.A. v. Bd. of Educ. of Trenton, 221 N.J. 192, 204 (2015) (internal quotes and citations
omitted).
N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10, applicable to non-tenured certificated staff, provides that:
Any teaching staff member employed by a board of education
. . . , who shall, without the consent of the board . . . cease to
perform his duties before the expiration of the term of his
employment, 	shall 	be 	deemed 	guilty 	of 	unprofessional
conduct, and the commissioner may, upon receiving notice
thereof, suspend his certificate for a period not exceeding one
year.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10.]
“The obvious purpose of N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10 is to provide notice to the school so that a
suitable replacement can be hired without adversely impacting students.” Penns Grove-

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10542-22
8
Carneys Point Bd. of Educ. v. Leinen, 94 N.J.A.R. 2d (EDU) 405, 407 (citing reference
omitted).
The sufficiency of notice is dictated by the terms of the parties’ employment
contract. 	In re Suspension of the Teaching Certificate of Schvamberg, EDU 09828-13,
Initial 	Decision 	(January 	21, 	2014), 	adopted, 	Comm’r 	(March 	5, 	2014)
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/html/initial/edu09828-13_1.html. 	In most cases,
the Commissioner has imposed the maximum one-year suspension of a teaching
certificate for leaving without adequate notice. See, e.g., Green v. School Dist. of Mount
Holly, EDU 0733-02, Initial Decision (Sept. 5, 2002), adopted, Comm'r (Oct. 25, 2002)
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/html/initial/edu00733-02_1.html; 	In 	re
Suspension of the Teaching Certificate of Montalbano, EDU 3588-00, Initial Decision
(April 	24, 	2001), 	adopted, 	Comm'r 	(June 	11, 	2001)
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/html/initial/edu3588-00_1.html; 	Penns 	Grove-
Carneys Point v. Leinen, 94 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 405. “In rare circumstances in which the
Commissioner has seen fit to lessen the suspension period, it was for compelling
reasons.” Bd. of Educ. of Borough of Alpine v. Yuz, EDU 1116-06, Initial Decision (July
17, 	2008), 	adopted, 	Comm’r 	(September 	23, 	2008)
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/html/initial/edu01116-06_1.html 	(citing 	In 	re
Rogers, 1989 S.L.D. 1962 (May 16, 1989), adopted, Comm'r (June 21, 1989)).
“Compelling reasons” have been found, for example, where matters of significant
public interest were involved and where constitutional issues were implicated. See Bey
v. Bd. of Educ. of Newark, 93 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 288. The Commission also declined to
suspend a teacher who went above and beyond to ensure a smooth transition by
developing a program through the end of the year and meeting with her successor to put
the program in place. Bd. of Educ. of Black Horse Pike Regional School Dist. v. Mooney,
1984 S.L.D. 810, adopted, 1984 S.L.D. 821. 	A suspension of less than a year was
imposed on a teacher of handicapped children who switched jobs for “noble” reasons—
to work with more severely handicapped children at a state facility. 	In re Rogers, 1989
S.L.D. 1962 (May 16, 1989), adopted, Comm'r (June 21, 1989).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10542-22
9
N.J.S.A. 	18A:26-10 provides that 	(“[A]ny teaching staff member employed by a
board of education . . . who shall, without the consent of the board . . . cease to perform
his duties before the expiration of the term of his employment, shall be deemed guilty of
unprofessional conduct . . “ In order to sustain the charge of unprofessional conduct
pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 18A:26-10, the petitioner must demonstrate that respondent: 1)
was a teaching staff member employed by a board of education who; 2) ceased to perform
her duties before the expiration of the term of her employment; 3) without consent of the
board. The underlying purpose of N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10 is “to protect pupils from the
disruption 	caused 	by 	‘[s]taff 	members 	who 	leave 	before 	the 	expiration 	of 	their
contracts.’” Ibid.
In the present matter, the record reflects that none of the required criteria are in
dispute. Here, it is not disputed that respondent left the District before the expiration of
her sixty-day notice period. Respondent was notified on April 23, 2022, through her
summative evaluation that she was being recommended for a contract for the 2022-2023
school year. Certification of Maloy-White at ¶ 6. On May 12, 2022, respondent’s contract
was renewed for the 2022-2023 school year. Certification of Maloy-White at ¶ 7, Exhibit
D. On August 4, 2023, respondent notified the District that she would not return to teach
in the 2022-2023 school year which was scheduled to begin on September 1, 2023.
Respondent argues that she did not enter into a contract with the District and since she
did not receive a contract, nor did she sign a contract for the 2022-2023 program year
and as such.(Respondent’s Brief, dated June 15, 2023, Response to Order to Show
Cause, dated November 14, 2022) 	I find no merit in this argument in that there is no
dispute that there was a contract or at the very least there was an implied contract here.
As stated in 	Snyder v. Freeman, 300 N.C. 204
:
A ‘contract implied in fact,’. . . arises where the intention of the parties is
not 	expressed, 	but 	an 	agreement in 	fact, 	creating 	an 	obligation
is implied or presumed from their acts, or, as it has been otherwise stated,
where there are circumstances which, according to the ordinary course of
dealing and the common understanding of men, show a mutual intent to
contract. 17 C.J.S., Contracts § 4(b) (1963). An implied contract is valid
and enforceable as if it were express or written. [Id. at 217]

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10542-22
10
Moreover, the respondent admitted that there was a contract. 	She stated that, “[I]was
delighted to hear that my contract was renewed.” Respondent’s Brief at 	¶ 22. 	By
submitting her resignation on August 4, 2022, the Board was given only twenty-eight
days’ notice which does not comply with the sixty-days’ notice requirement and as such
“shall be deemed guilty of unprofessional conduct” pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10.
Far from offering compelling reasons or extenuating circumstances to explain her
premature departure, respondent pleads that without knowledge of salary, benefits and
classroom designation, she was well within her right to explore options for her benefit. In
addition she argues that the salary at South Brunswick was not enough “to stabilize her
life between student loans, numerous undisclosed medical emergencies, general cost of
living expenses, without any guarantee. . . . ” Respondent’s Brief at ¶ 2. 	Her departure
disrupted the school environment in precisely the manner the law was designed to
prevent.
Respondent’s implicit argument that had she given notice at sixty days it would
involve twenty-three days into the school year, and this would be far “too much time for a
teacher to be involved and not affect the students if the teacher did in fact leave after that
point” ( Respondent’s Brief at ¶ 24.), implies that she knew that sixty days was required,
but decided to forego the requirement anyway. Furthermore, respondent was informed
by Maloy-White on August 10, 2022, of the sixty days’ notice requirement. Accordingly,
I CONCLUDE that the Board has met its burden by demonstrating by a preponderance
of credible evidence that respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct, and that the
charge of such must be SUSTAINED.
PENALTY
Having sustained the charge of unprofessional conduct pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:26-10, the appropriate penalty to be imposed must be determined. N.J.S.A. 18A:26-
10 and 	N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.8(b) both provide that once they receive notice of a teacher
leaving their position prior to the term of employment as contemplated by N.J.S.A.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10542-22
11
18A:26-10, the commissioner may suspend the certificates held by that teacher for a
period not to exceed one year.
The 	decision 	to 	suspend 	a 	teaching 	certificate 	pursuant
to N.J.S.A. 18A:28-8 is discretionary and the Commissioner has
historically evaluated all attendant circumstances on a case-by-
case basis. As a general rule, however, given the underlying
purpose of the statute, teachers who have been found guilty of
unprofessional conduct for failing to provide the requisite [sixty]-
day notice receive a one-year certificate suspension. The one
year suspension is routinely issued where the facts demonstrate
that individuals have violated the [sixty]-day notice requirement
for strictly personal reasons, putting their own self-interest above
the interests of students and their professional obligation to
provide adequate notice to the board.
[In re Certificates of Chae Hyuk Im, 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub.
LEXIS 1748 at 8-9.]
Although the Board did find a suitable replacement for the respondent, it was still at a cost
to the Board. As the Board stated, “it was robbing Peter to Pay Paul.” (Petitioner’s Brief
dated June 8, at 3.) In IM, the court found “[u]nlike these cases— which have justified an
exception to the customary one-year suspension—the facts in this matter are neither
exceptional nor do they warrant the exercise of the Commissioner's discretion. Rather, in
the instant matter, [Im's] desire for the early release from his professional obligations was
based solely on personal motives and his own convenience. Id. at 9.
Similarly, here, the respondent’s 	reason for resignation was to explore other
teaching opportunities; 	solely for “personal motives.” 	Viewing all evidence in the light
most favorable to respondent, no rational factfinder could find in her favor. Therefore, the
Board’s motion for summary decision should be granted.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above, the Board’s motion for summary decision is GRANTED. The
respondent’s motion for summary decision is DENIED. The charge of unprofessional

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10542-22
12
conduct 	against 	respondent 	is 	hereby SUSTAINED. 	Further, 	it 	is ORDERED that
respondent's teaching certificate be SUSPENDED for a period of one year.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This 	recommended 	decision 	may 	be 	adopted, 	modified 	or 	rejected 	by 	the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10542-22
13
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.
August 2, 2023
DATE 	JOAN M. BURKE, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	August 2, 2023
Date Mailed to Parties: 	August 2, 2023
JMB/jm/mph

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10542-22
14
APPENDIX
Exhibits
For petitioner
Order to Show Cause with attachments
Letter Brief, dated June 8, 2023
Letter Brief, dated June 26, 2023
For respondent
Response to Order to Show Cause with attachments
Letter Brief, dated June 15, 2023
Letter Brief, dated June 26, 2023