In the Matter of the Suspension of the Teaching Certificate of Jolisa Johnson, Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway, Middlesex County, 10/19/22, (#271-22)

OAL Dkt. No. 03411-22
Agency Dkt. No. 71-4/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of the Suspension of the
Teaching Certificate of Jolisa Johnson,
Board of Education of the Township of
Piscataway, Middlesex County.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
have been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that
respondent’s resignation from employment with only five days’ notice justifies suspension of
respondent’s teaching certificates pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10 and N.J.S.A. 18A:28-8.
Accordingly, the Board’s motion for summary decision is granted, and respondent’s
teaching certificates are suspended for a period of one year from the filing date of this decision, a
copy of which shall be forwarded to the State Board of Examiners for implementation of the
suspension.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1.
Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date
of mailing of this decision.
271-22
October 19, 2022
October 19, 2022

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION GRANTING
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03411-22
AGENCY DKT. NO. 71-4/22
IN RE SUSPENSION OF THE TEACHING
CERTIFICATE OF JOLISA JOHNSON.
David B. Rubin, Esq., for petitioner
Brian M. Cige, Esq., for respondent
Record Closed: June 30, 2022 Decided: September 12, 2022
BEFORE DEAN J. BUONO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Piscataway Township Board of Education (“Board” or “petitioner”) seeks an
order suspending the teaching certificate of respondent Jolisa Johnson (“respondent”) for
failing to provide adequate notice of resignation, in violation of her employment contract
and N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10.
The issue to be decided is whether, in this education matter in which the Acting
Commissioner of Education, on application of the Piscataway Township Board of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03411-22
2
Education, issued an order to show cause why respondent’s teaching certificate should
not be suspended for unprofessional conduct under N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
The following facts are not in dispute and as such I FIND as FACT that the Board
appointed respondent to serve as a preschool teacher for the period September 30, 2021,
through June 30, 2022. Certification of Sousa at ¶ 2. Respondent was assigned to the
Children’s Corner Preschool in the Piscataway Township School District (the “District”).
Ibid. The employment contract respondent signed required her to provide 60 days’ notice
of her intent to terminate the contract. See Sousa’s Ex. A.
Respondent submitted a letter of resignation dated February 28, 2022, indicating
her intent to leave Children’s Corner Preschool effective April 28, 2022, so that she could
“focus on [her] upcoming commitment to graduate school.” Petitioner’s Ex. A;
Respondent’s Ex. A. This initial letter of resignation complied with respondent’s obligation
to provide 60 days’ notice. Certification of Sousa at ¶ 3. On March 13, 2022, respondent
notified her school’s principal, via email, that she had found another opportunity that better
aligned with her career goals and that her last day at the school would be that Friday,
March 18, 2022. Ibid. Respondent was advised during a meeting the following day that
she was required to continue working for the remainder of the 60-day notice period or she
would risk suspension of her teaching certificate. Id. at ¶ 4. Nevertheless, respondent
stopped going to work after March 18. Ibid. The Board accepted respondent’s updated
resignation date at its meeting on April 14, 2022. The District’s Director of Human
Resources, Catherine Sousa, communicated that acceptance to respondent by letter
dated April 19, 2022. Petitioner’s Ex. B; Respondent’s Ex. B.
On April 1, 2022, the Acting Commissioner of Education, on application of the
Board, issued an order requiring respondent to show cause why her teaching certificate
should not be suspended. Respondent filed a certification opposing the suspension. The
matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as a contested case on
April 29, 2022.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03411-22
3
On June 30, 2022, petitioner filed its motion for summary decision. That same
day, respondent submitted a brief letter in lieu of a more formal cross-motion, comprising
respondent’s letter of resignation, the letter from the District, and the certification that
responded previously submitted.
Petitioner argues that a one-year suspension of respondent’s teaching certificate
is appropriate because respondent’s “abrupt[,] early departure caused the district a
hardship.” Petitioner’s Brief at 2. With only five days’ notice, “the district had to disrupt
the schedule of a Master Teacher and an English-as-a-Second-Language teacher who
had to provide classroom coverage while the district scrambled to find a full-time
replacement.” Ibid. According to petitioner, “[t]he Commissioner of Education has
established a one-year suspension as the presumptive consequence for failing to fulfill
the . . . notice-of-resignation requirement.” Petitioner’s Brief at 5. A lesser penalty is
imposed only if there are “compelling reasons.” Ibid.
Respondent’s counsel characterizes the suspension sought as being one of
“indefinite term.” See Respondent’s Letter Brief. Respondent does not dispute that she
left the school’s employ before her contract expired or that she provided inadequate
notice of her resignation. She also does not dispute that she was warned of the
consequences for leaving her teaching position prematurely. Instead, she emphasizes
that she was “transparent and forthright with the moving party regarding [her] immediate
goal of seeking continuing education opportunities.” Certification of Johnson at ¶ 2. She
says the Board was “not unaware” of her need to leave before the expiration of her
employment contract or “the changes in circumstances requiring [her] to leave even
earlier.” Id. at ¶ 3. She points to the letter from the District accepting her earlier end date
and offering best wishes, seemingly suggesting that the Board condoned her premature
departure. Id. at ¶ 4.
Respondent insists that she did not intend “to take any action which would have a
negative impact on [her] teaching certificate.” Id. at ¶ 5. “[U]nder the circumstances,” she
concludes, “either the Order to Show Cause . . . should be denied or, if the Commissioner
determines that some period of suspension is necessary,” the suspension should be for
“a minimum term.” Id. at ¶ 7. Respondent does not attempt to explain why her

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03411-22
4
circumstances should mitigate any penalty that is assessed or why she was unable to
honor her initial notice of resignation.
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).
I. Petitioner’s motion for summary decision should be granted because
respondent has not set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue to be litigated.
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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03411-22
5
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-
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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03411-22
6
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).
Here, it is undisputed that respondent left the District before the expiration of her
60-day notice period. Far from offering compelling reasons or extenuating circumstances
to explain her premature departure, respondent pleads that she got a better job
opportunity. Her sudden exit disrupted the school environment in precisely the manner
the law was designed to prevent. Moreover, her implicit argument that the Board
consented to her resignation, such that her nonperformance was excused, is belied by
the fact that the Board did not act to accept her resignation until nearly a month after she
stopped working, when rejecting her resignation would have been unavailing. Viewing all
evidence in the light most favorable to respondent, no rational factfinder could find in her
favor. Therefore, petitioner’s motion for summary decision should be granted.
CONCLUSION
Since all material facts are undisputed, the Board is entitled to summary decision
in its favor. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion is appropriate under these facts and should
be GRANTED.
Therefore, I FIND as FACT that there are no genuine issues of material fact
requiring a hearing. I CONCLUDE that petitioner’s motion for summary decision is
appropriate and should be GRANTED.
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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03411-22
7
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.
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.
September 12, 2022
DATE DEAN J. BUONO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
DJB/cb
September 12, 2022
September 12, 2022