R.F., on behalf of minor child, O.F. v. Board of Education of the Township of Montclair, Essex County, 1/10/25 (#7-25)

7-25
OAL Dkt. No. 01405-24 & 01408-24 (Consolidated)
Agency Dkt. No. 271-10/23 & 272-10/23
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),
and the exceptions filed by the petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4 have been reviewed and
considered. The respondent, Montclair Board of Education (Board), did not file exceptions or a
reply to the petitioner’s exceptions.
This matter involves two harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) determinations
concerning petitioner’s minor child, O.F. On February 17, 2023, petitioner filed an HIB complaint
(HIB058) alleging that O.F. was bullied when two fellow classmates, B.K. and B.M., excluded him
from a game of Jenga during indoor recess. The Board commenced an HIB investigation regarding
the incident and referred the matter to an independent investigator, Joanne Butler, Esq. (Butler).
Butler concluded that B.K. and B.M. refused to play Jenga with O.F.; however, there was
insufficient proof that their refusal was based on a real or perceived characteristic or that they

2
knew or should have known that the refusal would result in harm to O.F. 	As such, Butler
concluded that no HIB violation occurred. The Board affirmed Butler’s determination.
On February 28, 2023, B.K.’s parents initiated an HIB complaint (HIB066) on B.K.’s behalf
against O.F. B.K.’s parents noted that they had instructed B.K. to stay away from O.F. given their
past issues. 	They alleged that O.F. continued to instigate contact with B.K., harass B.K., and
interfere with B.K.’s freedom and rights at school. In addition, they alleged that O.F. threw Jenga
pieces at B.K. and B.M.’s Jenga tower, trying to knock it down, when they refused to let him play.
After conducting an independent investigation of HIB066, Butler found B.K. and B.M. credible.
Butler determined that while O.F. antagonized B.K., made inappropriate comments, and pinched
and scratched him, the HIB allegation against O.F. was unfounded as O.F.’s actions were not
motivated by a distinguishing characteristic. Butler further found that retaliation did not appear
to be the basis for the complaint.
The Board, however, issued a determination that O.F. violated Board Policy 5512, the
district’s HIB policy. Specifically, the Board found that O.F. targeted alleged victims and instigated
conflicts, then reported that he was the victim. The Board found that O.F.’s HIB allegations were
unfounded and that O.F. substantially interfered with B.K.’s rights by making repeated allegations
against him. In addition, the Board found that B.K. was uncomfortable being around O.F. because
he feared false accusations. 	The district’s superintendent at the time, Dr. Jonathan Ponds,
reversed the HIB066 determination, and B.K. appealed. A hearing was held on August 21, 2023,
during which B.K. appeared. The Board reinstated the HIB066 determination against O.F.
Petitioner appealed the Board’s determination regarding both HIB058 and HIB066, and
the cases were consolidated at the OAL. The parties filed cross-motions for summary decision,

3
as well as a Joint Stipulation of Facts and Joint Exhibits. Upon finding that the material facts were
undisputed, the ALJ determined that the matter was ripe for summary decision. As to HIB058,
the ALJ found that the Board’s investigation comported with the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act
(Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 to -32, and that Butler appropriately concluded that B.K. and B.M.’s
refusal to play Jenga was not based on a distinguishing characteristic of O.F. 	The ALJ further
found that the students’ refusal did not substantially disrupt the rights of other students or the
operation of the school. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that the Board’s determination that O.F.
was not the victim of HIB was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
As to HIB066, the ALJ concluded that the Board’s HIB finding against O.F. was not
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 	The ALJ reasoned that even though Butler found that
O.F.’s actions were not motivated by a distinguishing characteristic, the student did violate the
Board’s HIB policy by falsely accusing B.K. In so doing, the ALJ rejected petitioner’s arguments
that the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously in reaching different determinations throughout
the complaint process and for not affording him a right to be heard at the hearing for HIB066.
Pointing to the Joint Stipulation of Facts and Joint Exhibits, the ALJ found that the respondent
spent significant time and resources continually investigating each of R.F.’s allegations. The ALJ
concluded that the Act permits the Board to affirm, modify, or reject Ponds’ decision. Lastly, the
ALJ concluded that a student’s complaint appeal before a Board is confidential to protect the
child and that hearings are always held in executive session for that reason.
In his exceptions, petitioner reiterates arguments that were considered and rejected by
the ALJ, namely that HIB066 does not meet the statutory criteria to warrant a HIB finding, and
that the Board retaliated against petitioner by rejecting Butler’s and Ponds’ recommendations

4
that HIB066 is unfounded. Furthermore, petitioner argues that the ALJ erred in providing the
Board a presumption of correctness where the record does not support that O.F. participated in
HIB conduct or retaliation. Regarding HIB058, Petitioner contends that he met all three elements
of the HIB statute and as such, the matter should be resolved through trial. Lastly, petitioner
takes exception to the ALJ’s finding that O.F. interfered with B.K.’s rights by making multiple
allegations against him, and that B.K. was uncomfortable around O.F. because he feared by
falsely accused.
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:
[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,

5
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.
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). 1
1 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. This requirement does not appear to be at
issue in this case.

6
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ’s conclusion that the Board’s
determination regarding HIB058 was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 	The record
reflects that the Board’s investigation was sufficiently thorough; Butler reviewed O.F.’s written
notes regarding the alleged incident, and interviewed the alleged offenders, two fellow students,
and five of the students’ teachers. Butler found insufficient evidence to show that B.K. and B.M.’s
refusal to play Jenga with O.F. was motivated by a distinguishing characteristic. Furthermore,
the record does not demonstrate that B.K. and B.M.’s actions could reasonably be perceived as
being motivated by a distinguishing characteristic. As such, the statutory criteria for HIB were
not met and it was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable for the Board to find that HIB058
was unfounded.
With 	regard 	to 	HIB066, 	the 	Act 	requires 	each 	district’s 	HIB 	policy 	to 	include
“consequences and appropriate remedial action for a person found to have falsely accused
another as a means of retaliation or as a means of harassment, intimidation or bullying.” N.J.S.A.
18A:37-15(b)(9) (emphasis added). The use of the term “or” indicates that a false accusation as
a means of retaliation is sufficient for a finding that a district’s HIB policy has been violated; it is
not necessary for the false accusation to also meet the definition of HIB outlined elsewhere in
the Act. Here, the Board found that the incident met the criteria for HIB, listing under the heading
for distinguishing characteristic: “parents of OF are retaliating for previous unfounded HIB
allegations . . .”. (Exhibit P-I). The Commissioner disagrees that B.K.’s being the subject of a prior
unfounded HIB complaint by O.F. constitutes a distinguishing characteristic. 	However, a
distinguishing characteristic is not required for a finding that levying false HIB accusations against
a student as a means of retaliation violated the Board’s HIB Policy, as provided for by N.J.S.A.

7
18A: 37-15(b)(9). 	Therefore, the Commissioner concludes that the Board’s determination was
not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the
petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	January 10, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	January 13, 2025
2 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-
9.1. Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days
from the date of mailing of this decision.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 01405-24
and EDU 01408-24
AGENCY DKT. NOS. 271-10-23 and
272-10/23
(CONSOLIDATED)
R.F. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD O.F.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF MONTCLAIR,
ESSEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
R.F., petitioner, pro se
Alexander L. D’Jamoos, Esq., for respondent (Flanagan, Barone & O’Brien, LLC,
attorneys)
Record Closed: September 25, 2024 	Decided: October 18, 2024
BEFORE PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ:

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 01405-24 and EDU 01408-24
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Respondent Board of Education of the Township of Montclair (Board) conducted
multiple 	investigations 	concerning 	harassment, 	intimidation 	and 	bullying 	regarding
petitioner’s son. 	All were thoroughly, and professionally investigated under the Anti-
Bullying Bill of Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13, et seq. (ABBRA). Should the respondent’s
findings be overturned? No. A decision by a board acting within the scope of its authority
is 	“entitled 	to 	a 	presumption 	of 	correctness 	unless 	it’s 	arbitrary, 	capricious, 	or
unreasonable.” Thomas v. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 8, 2023, petitioner R.F. on behalf of minor child O.F. filed two petitions
of appeal with the Commissioner of Education, Office of Controversies and Disputes. On
January 24, 2024, respondent filed its answers. 	On January 25, 2024, the cases were
transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law as contested cases under N.J.S.A. 52:14B-
1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23.
On February 21, 2024, a prehearing conference was held, and on February 22,
2024, I entered an order outlining the deadlines for discovery and motions for summary
decision. Consolidation was not ordered, as the cases involved different witnesses.
On July 19, 2024, petitioner filed a motion for summary decision for both cases.
On August 8, 2024, respondent filed its opposition to petitioner’s motion for summary
decision and a cross-motion for summary decision for both cases. On August 19, 2024,
petitioner filed opposition to respondent’s cross-motion for summary decision. 	On
September 13, 2024, respondent filed its reply.
On September 25, 2024, after receiving all the paperwork, I ordered that the cases
be consolidated for judicial economy.

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 01405-24 and EDU 01408-24
3
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
Montclair Board of Education is the public school district for the City of Montclair,
New Jersey. 	It operates twelve public schools, including pre-kindergarten, elementary,
middle schools, and a high school. 	It enacted District Policy 5512 Harassment,
Intimidation, and Bullying in December 2016 to comply with the New Jersey Anti-Bullying
Bill of Rights. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13, et seq.
From 2020−2022, petitioner’s son, O.F., was home-schooled. 	He was an A
student and placed first nationally in the Math Kangaroo International Competition.
During the 2022−2023 school year he was enrolled in fifth grade at Northeast Elementary
School. His homeroom teacher was Ms. McCann. Students B.K. and B.M. were also in
McCann’s homeroom class.
On October 11, 2022, R.F. sent an email to McCann to report that B.K. and B.M.
were looking at O.F.’s private parts in the bathroom and taunting him. R.F. reported that
O.F. wet his pants when he went to close his zipper and that B.K. and B.M. kicked him.
R.F. reported that it was the second time that this has happened to O.F. 	McCann
forwarded the email to the school principal, Terence Somerville (Somerville), who
contacted R.F.
On October 12, 2022, R.F. emailed the school social worker and anti-bullying
specialist, Danielle Kupperman (Kupperman), to learn the status of his email to McCann.
Kupperman met with O.F., who advised her of a playground incident with B.M. and the
bathroom incident with B.K. O.F. did not report either incident to an adult.
On October 14, 2022, Somerville met with O.F., B.K., and B.M. to attempt to
resolve the issue.
On October 15, 2022, R.F. reported to Kupperman and Somerville that the
incidents where O.F. was beaten and kicked in his private parts occurred more than
twenty times. R.F. also reported that there was sexually explicit language, teasing, and
harassment.

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 01405-24 and EDU 01408-24
4
On October 18 and 19, 2022, Kupperman met with O.F. 	Somerville spoke with
R.F. and confirmed that a HIB investigation was initiated. 	R.F. reported that O.F. was
stressed, asked that O.F. not be pulled out of class, and demanded that the accused
students apologize to O.F.
On October 20, 2022, R.F. filed a formal HIB 338 complaint (HIB012) against three
students alleging that O.F. was tormented and assaulted since the first week of fifth grade
because other children did not like O.F.’s answers in school because he was good at
math, and because he was the national Math Kangaroo champion two years in a row.
HIB012 also included allegations that O.F. was the “wife” and B.K. and B.M. were the
“husbands,” and that B.K. and B.M. used sexually explicit language, teasing, and
harassment.
On October 21, 2022, Kupperman met with B.K. to investigate HIB012. 	R.F.
reported that O.F. was frustrated at school and continues to be emotionally distraught
because of the alleged hostile environment in school.
On October 24, 2022, R.F. reported to Somerville and Kupperman that O.F. was
punched, kicked, and taunted during the first three weeks of school.
On 	October 	25, 	2022, 	Kupperman, 	the 	mental-health 	coordinator, 	and 	the
anti-bullying coordinator, Maggie Dock (Dock), met with B.K. and B.M. to investigate the
allegations.
On October 26, 2022, R.F. again demanded that the accused students apologize
to O.F., and on October 27, 2022, R.F. confirmed that the accused students did apologize
to O.F.
On November 1, 2022, Kupperman completed the HIB012 investigation, which
Somerville signed.
On November 7, 2022, R.F. advised Kupperman and Somerville that O.F. had a
limp and complaints of pain and was referred to a psychiatrist. 	R.F. also reported that

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 01405-24 and EDU 01408-24
5
while O.F. was in the bathroom, a fourth-grade student peeped into his bathroom stall.
Kupperman and Somerville requested an in-person meeting.
On November 15, 2022, Somerville and Kupperman met with petitioners. R.F. was
unhappy with the investigation of HIB012, provided O.F.’s notes to Somerville and
Kupperman, and demanded an appeal.
On November 17, 2022, R.F. spoke with Dock, reiterating R.F.’s request for an
appeal and including additional allegations of race and gender-expression discrimination.
On November 22, 2022, Dock interviewed O.F. and reopened the HIB012
investigation. O.F. was also seen at the nurse’s office for a wrist injury.
On November 28, 2022, Dock completed the reopened the HIB012 investigation,
which Somerville signed on November 30, 2022, and superintendent Jonathan Ponds
(Ponds) signed on December 5, 2022.
On December 21, 2022, Dock and the director of pupil services, David Goldblatt,
reported the results of HIB012 to the Board. 	On January 3, 2023, the Board informed
R.F. that the investigation concluded that insufficient evidence existed to meet the criteria
of a finding of HIB.
On January 10, 2023, petitioner filed his appeal. 	On January 20, 2023, Ponds
scheduled the appeal hearing for January 31, 2023. On February 22, 2023, the hearing
was adjourned.
HIB058─the finding of no HIB
On February 17, 2023, R.F. initiated a HIB complaint against B.K. and B.M. for
retaliation (HIB058). O.F. alleged that B.K. and B.M. did not allow him to participate in a
game of Jenga during recess. (P-CC.)

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 01405-24 and EDU 01408-24
6
O.F.’s handwritten note states that he wanted to play Jenga with B.K. and B.M.,
and they said no. They asked him to go to another table, and O.F. refused. After three
minutes of arguing, O.F. was finally allowed to play. 	O.F. kept asking to play and they
said no, but he kept asking until they let him play. (P-KK.)
On March 6, 2023, Joanne Butler, Esq. (Butler) conducted an independent
investigation of HIB058. 	As a part of her investigation, Butler interviewed B.K., B.M.,
Student J., Student D., and teachers Donna Soprano, Karma Cloud, Kristen McCann,
Monique Von Wiegen, and Alison Campbell. 	R.F. did not allow O.F. to be interviewed.
(R-C.)
Butler concluded that B.K. and B.M. refused to play Jenga with O.F., but that the
refusal was not based on a real or perceived characteristic, nor should they have known
that the refusal would result in harm to O.F. 	Butler’s investigation concluded that there
was no HIB violation by B.K. and B.M against O.F. (R-C.) Petitioner filed an appeal, and
the case is currently pending before the undersigned as EDU 01405-24.
HIB066─the finding of HIB for other retaliation
On February 28, 2023, B.K. initiated a HIB complaint against O.F. for retaliation
(HIB066). B.K. had been instructed to stay away from O.F. because of the ongoing issues
with O.F. B.K. alleges that O.F. continued to instigate contact with B.K. and interfere with
B.K.’s rights and freedom at school. B.K. also feared being around O.F. because he may
be wrongly accused by O.F.
On March 15, 2023, Butler conducted an independent investigation of HIB066. As
a part of her investigation, Butler interviewed B.K., B.M., Student J., Student D., and
teachers Donna Soprano, Karma Cloud, Kristen McCann, Monique Von Wiegen, and
Alison Campbell. R.F. did not allow O.F. to be interviewed. (R-D; R-E.)
Butler concluded that while O.F. has antagonized B.K., made inappropriate
comments, and pinched and scratched him, it was not sufficient for a HIB finding.
Respondent reviewed the Butler report and agreed with the conclusion that O.F.’s actions

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 01405-24 and EDU 01408-24
7
were not motivated by a distinguishing characteristic. Respondent, however, determined
from the investigation and testimony that O.F. was not excluded from activities as alleged
in HIB058. 	Respondent also found that the HIB complaints filed by O.F. have been
unfounded, not corroborated by witnesses, and not corroborated by O.F. himself when
interviewed. 	As a result, respondent found that O.F. did interfere with B.K.’s rights by
making multiple allegations against him, and B.K. was uncomfortable being around O.F.,
as he feared false accusations. (R-A.) Respondent determined that O.F. was a student
who falsely accused other students of harassment, intimidation, or bullying as a means
of retaliation and found a HIB violation by O.F. (P-I.)
However, Ponds reversed the HIB066 finding. B.K. then appealed the reversal by
Ponds and attended a hearing on August 21, 2023. 	Despite Ponds’ reversal of the
HIB066 finding, respondent affirmed the HIB066 finding against O.F. 	Petitioner filed an
appeal, and the case is currently pending before the undersigned as EDU 01408-24.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Summary decision “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). This rule is substantially like the summary judgment rule embodied
in the N.J. Court Rules, R. 4:46-2. See Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield,
17 N.J. 67, 74 (1954). All inferences of doubt are drawn against the party filing the motion
and in favor of the party against whom the motion is directed. 	Id. at 75. 	The judge’s
function is to determine whether there are genuine issues of fact to be adjudicated. Brill
v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520 (1995).
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 certifications and having reviewed the exhibits, no issues of material
fact exist, and the case is ripe for summary decision.

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 01405-24 and EDU 01408-24
8
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.” 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.1(f). 	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 must be conducted by a school anti-bullying
specialist and take no longer than ten school days to be completed. 	The results of the
investigation must be reported to the superintendent of schools, who may take certain
remedial action. 	The results must 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.”
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(c).
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 must 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. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(d), (e).
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. 	Second, the conduct must substantially disrupt or
interfere with the rights of other students or the orderly operation of the school. 	Third,
one of the three criteria enumerated in the Act regarding the effect of the conduct must

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 01405-24 and EDU 01408-24
9
also be satisfied. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14. 	The conduct must also take place on school
property, at a school-sponsored function, on a school bus, or off school grounds as
provided for in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15.3. Finally, HIB means any gesture, any written, verbal
or physical act, or any electronic communication that “a reasonable person should know,
under the circumstances, will have the effect of physically or emotionally harming a
student,” “has the effect of insulting or demeaning any student,” or “creates a hostile
educational environment.” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14, “Harassment, intimidation or bullying.”
When a local board of education acts within its discretionary authority, its decision
is entitled to a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed unless there is an
affirmative showing that the decision was “patently arbitrary, without rational basis or
induced by improper motives.” 	Kopera v. W. Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288,
294 (App. Div. 1960). Furthermore, “where there is room for two opinions, action is not
arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration,” and the
commissioner will not substitute his judgment for that of the board. Bayshore Sewerage
Co. v. Dep’t of Env’t. Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199 (Ch. Div. 1973).
HIB058
Regarding HIB058, the Jenga incident, Butler interviewed four students and five
teachers. After conducting those interviews, she concluded that the students did refuse
to play Jenga with O.F., but it was not based on a distinguishing characteristic as defined
by the statute. Second, the refusal to play Jenga occurred during recess, and it did not
substantially disrupt the rights of other students or the operation of the school. 	Here, it
was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable for the Board to conclude that this element
was not found. 	Butler concluded that she did not believe the students thought their
actions 	were 	emotionally 	harmful 	or 	would 	have 	created 	a 	hostile 	educational
environment.
Respondent complied with the statute. 	It retained an antibullying investigator,
Butler. 	The investigation took place within the required time frame and was reported to
respondent and the parents of all the children involved. The investigation concluded that
there was no HIB. 	Accordingly, there could be no determination that the alleged act or

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 01405-24 and EDU 01408-24
10
acts would have a harmful effect. It was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable for the
Board to reach that conclusion. 	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; the Board did a HIB investigation
and concluded, twice, that an act of HIB was not substantiated.
HIB066
Regarding HIB066, the other-retaliation violation, B.K. had been instructed to stay
away from O.F. because of the ongoing issues with O.F. Butler interviewed five students,
including O.F., and five teachers. Butler concluded that even though O.F. targeted and
antagonized victims and instigated conflict, this behavior was not motivated by a
distinguishing characteristic and there was no HIB violation. 	While respondent agreed
with Butler that the actions were not motivated by a distinguishing characteristic, it did
find that O.F. interfered with B.K.’s rights by making multiple allegations against him, and
he feared being wrongly accused, which is the second prong of the HIB analysis.
Respondent 	further 	found 	that 	a 	reasonable 	person 	would 	know 	that 	this 	could
emotionally harm a student, as O.F. himself admitted that he kept asking to play until the
other students agreed.
Ponds, however, overturned that HIB finding. Respondent argued that Ponds, who
is deceased, reversed the HIB finding as an attempt to mediate the conflict between the
involved students and their parents. 	B.K. and his parents appealed that reversal. 	The
Board reinstated the HIB finding as it is allowed to do under the statute and argues that
its action is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable because B.K.’s rights to be free
from intimidation at school were infringed upon and the school has a duty to protect all its
students.
Petitioner, in his reply brief, raises the many other HIB cases filed by R.F. to raise
the specter of retaliation. However, these show that R.F. tends to file HIB complaints in
retaliation against other students. 	Petitioner asserts that respondent’s actions in the
HIB066 case were arbitrary and capricious because respondent had different outcomes

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 01405-24 and EDU 01408-24
11
throughout the complaint process and that he was not afforded a right to be heard at the
hearing concerning HIB066, B.K.’s HIB complaint against O.F. 	The Joint Stipulation of
Facts and joint exhibits refute these assertions, as noted above, and in fact show that the
respondent expended significant time and resources to continually investigate each HIB
complaint filed by R.F. on behalf of O.F. Further, R.F.’s assertion that he was entitled to
be present at the hearing on B.K.’s appeal is of no moment. A student’s complaint appeal
before respondent is confidential to protect the student and the hearings are always held
in executive session for that purpose.
The statute permits the respondent to affirm, reject, or modify Ponds’ decision,
which it did. Respondent’s decision to reject Ponds’ reversal of HIB066 was based on its
obligation to protect every student in the district. 	The HIB policy prohibits any student
from falsely accusing another student. Butler interviewed five students and five teachers,
all of whom agreed that O.F. targeted and antagonized B.K. 	While Butler could not
conclude that it was retaliation, respondent found that O.F. substantially interfered with
B.K.’s rights at school given the totality of the circumstances, and that O.F.’s conduct
warranted a HIB finding. 	Respondent considered all the other HIB complaints filed by
R.F. against B.K., the statements of the teachers and other students that show that O.F.
was not excluded from activities, and O.F.’s own handwritten statement that he interfered
with B.K.’s rights and made B.K. uncomfortable because B.K. fears retaliation through
another HIB complaint. Therefore, I CONCLUDE that respondent did not act arbitrarily,
capriciously, or unreasonably.
ORDER
I 	ORDER 	that 	petitioner’s 	motion 	for 	summary 	decision 	is 	DENIED 	and
respondent’s cross-motion for summary decision is GRANTED.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 01405-24 and EDU 01408-24
12
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,
New Jersey 08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the
other parties.
October 18, 2024
DATE 	PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	October 18, 2024
Date Mailed to Parties: 	October 18, 2024
lsr

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 01405-24 and EDU 01408-24
13
APPENDIX
Moving Papers for Petitioner:
Brief in Support Motion for Summary Decision with Petitioner’s Exhibits A through Q,
dated 7/19/24
Reply to Respondent’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Disposition and
Counter-Motion for Summary Decision, dated 8/19/24, with Exhibits A through L
Moving Papers for Respondent:
Opposition to Motion for Summary Decision with Brief, Counter-Motion for Summary
Decision, dated 8/8/24
Respondent’s Further Reply with Certifications of Joanne Butler, Esq., and Maggie Dock,
dated 9/13/24
Exhibits
For Petitioner:
P-A 	Affidavit of R.F.
P-B 	Email dated 2/16/23, from R.F. to Ms. Kupperman
P-C 	Email dated 2/17/23, from R.F. to Ms. Dock
P-D 	Email dated 3/6/23, from Ms. Dock to R.F.
P-E 	Email dated 3/10/23, from R.F. to Ms. Dock
P-F 	Email dated 3/25/23, from R.F. to Ms. Dock
P-G 	Email dated 3/31/23, from R.F. to Jonathan Irizarry, Esq.
P-H 	Email from Jonathan Irizarry, Esq., to R.F.
P-I 	Initial HIB determination against O.F., dated 5/22/23, and HIB investigation
form
P-J 	Email dated 7/23/23, from R.F. to Ms. Dock
P-K 	Email dated 6/20/23, from R.F. to Ms. Dock
P-L 	Email dated 7/13/23, from David Goldblatt to R.F.

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 01405-24 and EDU 01408-24
14
P-M 	Email dated 8/3/23, from Christine Martinez, Esq., to R.F.
P-N 	Letter dated 8/23/23, from Cristina Hunt to R.F.
P-O 	Letter dated 9/1/23, from Cristina Hunt to R.F.
P-P 	Email dated 9/1/23, from R.F. to Ms. Hunt
P-Q 	Respondent’s Answer to Petition in the HIB matter pending before ALJ
Hobbs
P-AA 	5th Grade Report card, dated 6/22/23
P-BB 	Recommendation letter from McCann
P-CC Letter from Somerville, dated 3/30/23
P-DD Start Strong test results for O.F.
P-EE 	CogAT test results
P-FF 	HIB Complaint against O.F.
P-GG Butler report, dated 3/6/23
P-HH Butler report, dated 3/15/23
P-II 	Butler report, dated 4/5/23
P-JJ 	Appeal to Board of HIB 058
P-KK 	O.F. handwritten note
P-LL 	R.F. Supplemental Affidavit
For Respondent:
R-A 	R.F. letter dated 4/18/23, appealing HIB 058
R-B 	HIB form for HIB 066
R-C 	Butler report dated 3/6/23, HIB 058
R-D 	Butler report dated 3/15/23, HIB 066
R-E 	Butler report dated 4/5/23, HIB 066
R-F 	Joint Stipulation of Facts
R-G 	Joint Exhibits 1−45
R-H 	Order of Judge Betancourt barring Dr. Mora
R-I 	Certification of B.K.

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 01405-24 and EDU 01408-24
15
Joint:
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 Assistant Superintendent of Montclair Public
Schools re: 	confirming continued homeschooling of O.F. for 2021−2022
school year; Montclair Local article on O.F. (p. 27−32), 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 Terence Somerville and Ms. Danielle Kupperman re: “O.F”
8. 	10/12/22−10/18/22 R.F. email exchange between R.F., Principal Terence
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)”
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

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 01405-24 and EDU 01408-24
16
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 N.E. 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 from 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: “O.F. HIB matter”
33. 	1/19/23 R.F. email to T. Somerville re: “O.F. (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 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

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 01405-24 and EDU 01408-24
17
44. 	The Genesis HIB Data
45. 	Program for 5/4/23, 2022−2023 National PTA Reflections Art Program
National 	Winner 	O.F., 	Northeast 	for 	Intermediate 	Visual 	Arts—“Stop
Bullying”; Leaflet for 5/21/23, 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