DALILA ROSENSTRAUCH V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF PLAINFIELD, UNION COUNTY, 8/30/13, (#303-13)

#303-13 (OAL Decision: Not yet available online)
DALILA ROSENSTRAUCH, 	:
PETITIONER, 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
V. 	: 	DECISION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY :
OF PLAINFIELD, UNION COUNTY,
:
RESPONDENT.
____________________________________:
SYNOPSIS
Petitioner challenged the respondent Board’s termination of her employment at the end of the
2011-12 school year. Petitioner had been employed in respondent’s school district as a bilingual
science teacher from September 2006 until the end of the 2008-09 school year, when her contract
was nonrenewed for reasons of economy; 	in September 2011, petitioner was appointed as a
science teacher at respondent’s high school, and she served in that role until she was notified on
May 11, 2012 that her contract would not be renewed for the 2012-13 school year because of
performance issues. 	Petitioner claimed that she had acquired tenure in the district, and that the
stated reasons for terminating her employment were lies. Her appeal was filed on November 20,
2012. 	The Board filed a motion for summary decision, contending that petitioner was not
tenured, and that the appeal was untimely pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i).
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts in dispute, and the matter is ripe for
summary decision; 	petitioner did not meet the time requirement outlined in N.J.S.A. 18A:28-
5(b) or (c) in order to attain tenure, and the Board took no action to grant her special tenure
rights; petitioner has failed to show that the Board’s failure to renew her contract was arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable; and petitioner clearly learned or should reasonably have known on
May 11, 2012 – the date of her nonrenewal notice – that her contract would not be renewed for
the 2012-13 school year; accordingly, the May 11 date of her nonrenewal triggered the ninety
day period for the filing of appeals. 	The ALJ concluded that petitioner’s appeal was filed well
beyond the 90-day time frame, and granted summary decision in favor of the respondent Board.
The petition was dismissed.
Upon careful and independent review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ that the
petition must be dismissed as untimely; it was therefore unnecessary to address petitioner’s
remaining claims. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
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.
August 30, 2013

1
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 0027-13
AGENCY DKT. NO. 333-11/12
DALILA ROSENSTRAUCH, 	:
PETITIONER, 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
V. 	: 	DECISION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY :
OF PLAINFIELD, UNION COUNTY,
:
RESPONDENT.
____________________________________:
Before the Commissioner is 	a challenge by the petitioner 	to respondent’s
termination of her employment. Respondent moved in the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
for summary dismissal of the petition, and an Initial Decision was issued on June 17, 2013
granting said motion. 	On July 1, 2013 petitioner requested an extension of time to file
exceptions, and on that date she was given until July 22, 2013 to submit same. 	However, as
petitioner has failed to file exceptions within the time allowed, the Commissioner is constrained
to now issue the within decision on the record as it stands.
Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition alleged that petitioner did not file her
appeal within the 90 days allowed by N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). 	More specifically, petitioner was
notified on May 11, 2012 that she would not be offered a contract for the 2012-z13 school year.
She did not file her petition until November 14, 2012, over six months later. 	Petitioner argues
that the 90-day period should be counted from August 23, 2012 – the day that she was notified
that the respondent Board declined to reverse the non-renewal issued on May 11, 2012.
However, as the ALJ explained, precedent is to the contrary. It is clearly the date of the notice of
non-renewal, not the date of a Donaldson hearing, which starts the clock for an appeal to the

2
Commissioner. 	See, e.g., Lygate v. Board of Education of Carteret, Commissioner’s Decision
No. 120-08, decided March 17, 2008.
The 	untimeliness 	of 	petitioner’s 	appeal 	makes 	it 	unnecessary 	to 	address
petitioner’s remaining claims. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed infra, summary disposition
is granted in favor of respondent and the petition is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: August 30, 2013
Date of Mailing: 	August 30, 2013
1 	This decision may be appealed to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36
(N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1).