R.Z. and L.D., on behalf of minor child, L.Z. v. Board of Education of the Northern Valley Regional High School District, Bergen County, 4/28/25 (#248-25)

248-25
OAL Dkt. No. 10029-23
Agency Dkt. No. 237-9/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
R.Z. and L.D., on behalf of minor child, L.Z.,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Northern Valley Regional
High School District, Bergen County,
Respondent.
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, and for the reasons thoroughly detailed in the Initial Decision, the Commissioner
agrees with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that petitioners did not establish that the Board acted in
an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner in determining that Coach Gabriele’s actions were not
motivated by L.Z.’s learning disability. The Commissioner further agrees with the ALJ that the purported
procedural violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6) did not substantively impact the case and therefore do
not warrant a reversal of the Board’s decision.
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.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	April 28, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	April 28, 2025
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.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
AGENCY DKT NO. 237-9/23
R.Z. 	AND 	L.D. 	ON 	BEHALF 	OF 	MINOR
CHILD, L.Z.,
Petitioners,
v.
NORTHERN 	VALLEY 	REGIONAL 	HIGH
SCHOOL 	DISTRICT 	BOARD 	OF
EDUCATION, BERGEN COUNTY,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
Avram E. Frisch, Esq., for petitioners (The Law Office of Avram E. Frisch, LLC,
attorneys)
Isabel Machado, Esq., for respondent (Machado Law Group, attorneys)
Record Closed: February 5, 2025 	Decided: February 12, 2025
BEFORE MATTHEW G. MILLER, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioners, R.Z. and L.D., the parents of minor child L.Z., have challenged the
determination made by the respondent, Northern Valley Regional High School District

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
2
Board of Education, Bergen County, et al. (respondent or District), that a harassment,
intimidation, and bullying (HIB) complaint made against the non-party head coach of the
Northern Valley Regional High School at Demarest (NVD) varsity boys basketball team
that was brought per N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.2 et seq. (the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act)
was unfounded.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
During the 2021–22 school year, Patrick Gabriele, the varsity boys’ basketball
coach at NVD, was accused of commencing a pattern and practice of abusive and
retaliatory behavior against L.Z. (and other players in the basketball program). 	It is
alleged that L.Z. was specifically targeted based upon his status as a special education
student.1 	This behavior is alleged to have continued during the 2022–23 basketball
season.
During a Zoom meeting on January 13, 2023, R.Z. and L.D. reported Coach
Gabriele’s behavior to school officials, teachers and staff and an HIB investigation was
instituted by the District. 	It is alleged that during the investigation, the District’s Athletic
Director, Michael Oppido, allegedly a personal friend of Coach Gabriele, attempted to
improperly influence its outcome.
It is alleged that despite the ongoing investigation, Coach Gabriele continued to
be abusive to L.Z. and that the administration enabled that abuse and mistreated L.Z.’s
parents as well.
On February 13, 2023, the District advised petitioners that an HIB violation had
not been found, although a number of the allegations were found to be credible and that
the evidence “did reasonably substantiate that there was evidence of a substantial
disruption, hostile/harmful environment or an interference to the rights of the alleged
victim.” 	As a result of those findings, Coach Gabriele was subjected to undisclosed
disciplinary action. However, it was concluded that “the investigation did not reasonably
1 L.Z. has been diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
3
substantiate a distinguishing characteristic served as the motivating factor in this case.”
On April 13, 2023, petitioners filed a petition of appeal with the District, and a hearing
before the Board of Education (BOE) was scheduled for May 8, 2023.
However, on May 5, 2023, the District superintendent, James Santana, decided
to re-open the investigation. A revised report was issued on June 2, 2023, with nominal
changes and the petitioners were offered a hearing before the Board to take place on
June 26, 2023. 	Petitioners declined that opportunity and on June 6, 2023, they filed a
petition of appeal. 	On June 6, 2023, petitioners were offered and accepted a hearing
that was held before the BOE on June 12, 2023. 	The Board subsequently upheld the
report’s findings.
In the interim, the Hon. Kimberly A. Moss, ALJ granted respondent’s Motion for
Summary Decision on the original appeal, declaring that it had been filed prematurely.
(R-B.) 	This appeal of the June 12, 2023 BOE determination was then filed with the
Department of Education’s Office of Controversies and Disputes on or about September
5, 2023. 	Respondent filed an Answer to the Appeal on September 25, 2023, and the
Department transmitted this matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on
September 27, 2023, for a hearing as a contested case. 	N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15 and
N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23.
An initial conference was held on October 17, 2023, and was followed by
conferences on November 21, 2023, January 2, 2024, and February 27, 2024. 	On or
about March 27, 2024, petitioners filed a Motion to Compel discovery, which was
followed by respondent filing a Motion for Summary Decision on April 1, 2024, and
opposition to the discovery motion on April 5, 2024. 	The Motions and discovery issues
were discussed during an April 8, 2024 conference and the parties were advised that
the Motion for Summary Decision was not going to be entertained given the ongoing
discovery issues. 	The parties were given time to attempt to resolve the discovery
dispute but were unsuccessful and petitioners filed a reply brief on May 3, 2024.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
4
Following compliance with a May 28, 2024 discovery Order, the respondent’s
Motion for Summary Decision was renewed. 	After extensive briefing, oral argument on
the Motion was held on February 5, 2025 and the record closed that day.
THE LINEUP
There are a lot of players on the roster, and for the sake of clarity, it is much
easier to list the key personnel involved.
L.Z. – petitioner
R.Z. – L.Z.’s mother
L.D. – L.Z.’s father
A.Z. – L.Z.’s older brother
Patrick Gabriele – Varsity basketball (and baseball coach), NVD
Dwight Wilbur – Assistant varsity basketball coach, NVD
Robert Petrella – Assistant varsity basketball coach and one of L.Z.’s teachers,
NVD
Michael Oppido – Athletic Director (A.D.), NVD
Michael O’Malley – ABS2/Lead Counselor
James Santana – Superintendent, Northern Valley Regional High School District
(NVRHSD)
Joseph Argenziano – President, NVRHSD Board of Education
Dr. Tim Gouraige – Principal, NVD
Keith Johnson – Assistant Principal, NVD
2 Anti-bullying specialist.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
5
TIMELINE
In order to fully understand the dynamics of this case, a limited timeline is helpful.
Fall, 2021 – Michael Oppido hired as NVD Athletic Director, taking over from
Greg Butler3
Fall, 2021 – Patrick Gabriele hired as NVD varsity basketball coach, taking over
from Kevin Grimes4
Fall, 2021 – L.Z. enters his freshman year at NVD
Fall, 2021 – A.Z. enters his senior year at NVD
Fall, 2022 – L.Z. enters his sophomore year at NVD
Fall, 2022 – Winter, 2023 – Patrick Gabriele hired as NVD varsity baseball coach
November 15, 2022 – L.Z. provided with playbook by Coach Gabriele
January 13, 2023 – Zoom meeting between L.Z.’s parents and NVD staff
concerning Coach Gabriele’s behavior and HIB report initiated
January 26, 2023 – NVD v. Lyndhurst Bergen County Jamboree game
January 30, 2023 – Initial HIB report completed
February 7, 2023 – NVD – Pascack Valley post-game incident
February 15, 2023 – Mr. Santana signs off on HIB report
March 14, 2023 – Respondent affirms HIB investigation findings
April 17, 2023 – Petitioners request hearing before the Board
May 5, 2023 – Scheduled May 8, 2023 appeal canceled and investigation
reopened at the behest of Mr. Santana
May 13, 2023 – Coach Gabriele interviewed
May 22, 2023 – Reopened HIB investigation completed
May 23, 2023 – Petitioners request a hearing before the Board
3 http://northjerseysports.com/sports/features/2021/082921ADShuffle.htm (last accessed Dec. 31, 2024)
4https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/passaic/wayne/2021/07/15/kevin-grimes-wayne-hills-boys-basketball-rob-
carcich-westwood/7975415002/ (last accessed Jan. 1, 2025)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
6
June 2, 2023 – Mr. Santana signs off on reopened HIB report and petitioners
offered a hearing before the Board on June 26
June 3, 2023 – Initial OAL matter filed
June 8, 2023 – Awards ceremony incident
June 8, 2023 - Special Board meeting scheduled for June 12
June 12, 2023 – HIB appeal heard by Board of Education
June 13, 2023 – Petitioners advised of appeal denial
August 22, 2023 – Initial OAL matter dismissed
September 5, 2023 – Current OAL matter filed
THE REPORTS
The initial HIB report was completed on January 30, 2023. 	(R-A.) 	It was
prepared by Michael O’Malley, the ABS/Lead Counselor and the investigation was
assisted by Assistant Principal Keith Johnson. It listed the basic information about both
the four alleged victims and the alleged perpetrator, as well as the specific allegations
made against Coach Gabriele. Multiple people were interviewed in conjunction with the
investigation. 	Those include L.Z., Coach Gabriele, two assistant coaches and although
their names are redacted, multiple students.
As the report continues, it is noted that in concluding that no HIB violation had
occurred, Mr. O’Malley reviewed “[w]ritten statements and emails from all interviewed
during the investigation.” 	Also reviewed were “Emails, in-person, virtual and phone
conversations with parents of the alleged victims and witnesses.” 	While some of the
allegations were substantiated,
The ABS found that the allegations regarding the alleged
victim 	#1 	did 	not 	meet 	the 	requisite 	key 	component
standards to qualify as an HIB violation. 	The evidence from
this 	investigation 	did 	not 	reasonably 	substantiate 	a
distinguishing 	characteristic 	that 	served 	as 	a 	motivating
factor in this case. 	However, there was evidence to support

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
7
a substantial disruption, hostile/harmful environment or an
interference to the rights of the alleged victim.
Although it is unclear what information was shared with petitioners originally, in
its Motion for Summary Decision, the following items were supplied:
a. 	Written summary of a May 13, 2023 interview with Coach Gabriele;
b. 	Written Statements from:
1. 	Assistant Coach Dwight Wilbur
2. 	Assistant Coach Robert Petrella
3. 	L.Z. (2)
4. 	Fifteen players5
From all appearances, the revised June 2, 2023 report (which was signed by the
superintendent) was issued in order to include the May 13, 2023 interview with Coach
Gabriele. Its conclusions were unchanged.
THE MOTION
Respondent has filed a Motion for Summary Decision, first pointing out that “[t]he
only issue to be resolved in this matter is whether the District’s (lack of a) finding of a
Harassment, 	Intimidation 	or 	Bullying 	(“HIB”) 	violation 	was 	arbitrary, 	capricious 	or
unreasonable.”
It is then argued that the District is entitled to summary decision “as Petitioners
cannot meet the burden of proving that the District’s findings were arbitrary, capricious
or 	unreasonable.” 	It 	points 	out 	that 	a 	District 	“is 	entitled 	to 	a 	presumption 	of
correctness” and that without “an affirmative showing that such decision was arbitrary,
capricious and unreasonable,” it must prevail. 	Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89
N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965).
5 Fifteen non-coach written statements were supplied. They were dated from January 17, 2023 through January 26,
2023. While most of these are clearly authored by different students, it is unclear whether the January 26 statements
(which address a unique incident) were written by students who had previously supplied statements or not.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
8
In addition to clear evidence that a thorough investigation was performed, it was
noted that some of the allegations made by petitioner were unfounded and that there is
no credible evidence that any of Coach Gabriele’s actions could have been reasonably
perceived to have been motivated by L.Z.’s learning disability. Without any evidence of
an improper motivation, it is argued that Summary Decision must be granted.
The petitioner claims that there are material facts in dispute and that there is
clear evidence that “the District conducted an ‘investigation’ that was entirely pre-
determined to obtain the desired outcome, which was the clearance of Coach Gabrielle
[sic].” 	During 	oral 	argument, 	it 	was 	re-emphasized 	that 	the 	investigation 	was
“compromised”.
Reviewing petitioner’s opposition brief, it appears that he is often arguing against
himself. 	First, there is an argument that 	Coach Gabriele 	fostered an unhealthy
(“intolerable”) environment on the basketball team by acting in ways that were clearly
inappropriate and that these actions “demonstrate the environment in which L.Z. and
the rest of the basketball team was expected to tolerate.” It further noted that “[t]he fact
that you had a generally abusive coach was notable for the environment it created.”
It was then emphasized that the coach was aware of L.Z.’s learning disabilities
and that by treating him as poorly as he did the rest of the team and allegedly retaliating
against players who filed HIB complaints, he was guilty of HIB in the first place.
Petitioner then pointed to other HIB complaints that had been made against the
coach and inferred that procedural violations had occurred that were solely made to
benefit him. This includes the “suspect reopening of the matter on the eve of the Board
hearing” (which was rather obviously done so as to include the summary of the
interview with Coach Gabriele).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
9
CERTIFICATIONS
Both L.Z. and his mother, R.Z., supplied certifications in opposition to the motion
in which they detail their respective experiences with Coach Gabriele.
L.Z.
L.Z. explained that as a freshman in the Fall of 2021, his brother was a senior.
He described a “threatening environment” that would continue throughout his tenure at
NVD. He noted:
In the beginning, I didn’t think the threats were directed at
me specifically, but as time went on, I realized that he used
those kinds of threats to keep everyone in line because he
didn’t know how to coach a team to earn their respect.
[P-1 at ¶5.]
He explained that his mother had explained to the coach that he had a learning
disability and asked for help. The coach sent him a 121-page playbook “mostly of plays
we didn’t use,” and since he was so intimidated, L.Z. “just tried my best in practices to
learn each play on my own without asking for help.”
L.Z. then complained that despite recommendations from both the freshman and
J.V. coaches, on game days, he was rostered on all three boy’s teams and “was at the
school from 8:30 AM to 9:30 PM either doing my homework when I got home, or in the
morning before school.” 	He then certified that “after the freshman season ended, in
January of 2022,” he started getting some varsity minutes. 	His brother was a starter,
“and Coach began bullying him too,” as well as another senior.
Progressing to his sophomore year, L.Z. certified that the first few weeks of pre-
season were uneventful, but then, when he started making mistakes on the court,
Coach Gabriele would start “making fun” of him and calling him a “jackass” and “would
regularly try to embarrass me in front of the rest of the team when I confused a play

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
10
instead of helping me to understand it.” L.Z. also criticized an assistant coach, who was
one of his special education teachers, for not helping him.
Moving on to his junior year, L.Z. was criticized by a teammate for allegedly
being unable to run a play. 	Coach Gabriele is alleged to have agreed with the player
and changed the play, rather than encouraging him to learn how to run it. 	He certified
that “Coach Gabriele never treated me like I had ability,” and while “[l]ots of kids didn’t
remember the plays and made mistakes . . . he knew I had a learning difference so he
made fun of me for not remembering them and encouraged everyone to think I was
stupid and couldn’t learn.”
The 	certification continued 	to 	criticize Coach 	Gabriele for encouraging and
rewarding what he felt to be “violent” play, noting that he was “a finesse player,” despite
being “big for my team.” 	L.Z. certified that “[h]e didn’t like that about me and used my
learning differences whenever he could to beat me down and try to get me to play
violently.” (P-1 at ¶13.)
L.Z. then addressed an issue where Coach Gabriele made a comment during
practice asking a teammate (who had lost his father to suicide) to make sure that L.Z.
did not commit suicide “after a stressful practice where he was making fun of me.”
Given a history of suicides in Demarest, he felt that this was “especially disgusting” and
complained that “[t]he administration knew about all four suicides but never even made
sure I was okay, and they never made the coach apologize to me for the comment
either.” (P-1 at ¶14.)
Eventually, L.Z. became a starter, but filed the HIB complaint the next day. 	He
then claimed that Mr. Oppido tweeted praise for Coach Gabriele over the next few days.
Finally, L.Z. certified that there were times as the season progressed when
Coach Gabriele referenced (by inference) that he was disliked by L.Z. and that he did
not want to tolerate two more years of this. 	L.Z. also certified that Coach Gabriele had
removed him from a group text following a Bergen County Jamboree win where L.Z.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
11
had led a second-half comeback. 	He then related the incident involving the post-game
confrontation between Coach Gabriele and his mother.
I would note that the timing of some aspects of the certification seem a little off.
There is no question that L.Z. began his freshman year at NVD in September, 2021.
While he claims that the playbook was emailed to him during his freshman year, the
emails between his mother and Coach Gabriele reflect that it was sent in November,
2022, which would be L.Z.’s sophomore year. There is also some confusion concerning
incidents that clearly occurred during L.Z.’s sophomore year that are interspersed with
events that are alleged to have occurred during his junior year (which began in
September 2023, well after the HIB decision was finalized in June 2023).6
In 	the 	grand 	scheme 	of 	things, 	these 	discrepancies 	are 	effectively
inconsequential and do not impact L.Z.’s credibility but reviewing them does help
explain the above timeline.
R.Z.
R.Z. certified as to the incident involving the post-Zoom email from the Athletic
Director and alleged that Mr. Oppido is a close friend of Coach Gabriele who tried to
downplay the conflict by alleging that the problem was a difference of opinion over
coaching styles. 	She also alleged that “there were plenty of parents both on the
baseball team and the basketball team who abhorred Gabriele’s behavior, and it was no
secret.” 	She claimed, “[w]hat I later learned through my son’s experiences was that
some kids were being abused while others were being praised as a way of manipulating
and grooming them to participate in the culture of abuse.” (P-2 at ¶8.)
After Mr. Oppido’s tweeting incident as well as the congratulatory text incident,
R.Z. alleges that the only supportive member of the NVD administration, Dr. Gouraige,
was transferred to Northern Valley Regional High School at Old Tappan (NVOT) and
6 It is unclear when L.Z. left NVD, but there is no question that he was enrolled in out-of-state private school for the
2024-25 school year.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
12
“replaced 	by 	a 	veteran 	Northern 	Valley 	administrator, 	Dr. 	Bruce 	Sabatini.” 	R.Z.
interpreted that as “a clear message” that L.Z. “was never going to be safe” at NVD.
R.Z. also recounted the appellate Board meeting, alleging that her older son
heard the BOE president “emphatically yelling at [the other Board members] trying to
convince them we were just parents who were upset about playing time.”
R.Z.’s 	certification 	continued 	on 	to 	recount 	the 	“cheering 	incident” 	and 	its
aftermath at the Pascack Valley game as well as the renewal of the contracts of both
Mr. Oppido and Coach Gabriele.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Summary decision may be granted “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). 	The OAL summary decision rule is essentially the same as
the summary judgment rule under the New Jersey Court Rules, which states:
The judgment or order sought shall be rendered forthwith if
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and
admissions on file, 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 	a
judgment or order as a matter of law. 	An issue of fact is
genuine only if, considering the burden of persuasion at trial,
the 	evidence 	submitted 	by 	the 	parties 	on 	the 	motion,
together with all legitimate inferences therefrom favoring the
non-moving party, would require submission of the issue to
the trier of fact.
[R. 4:46-2(c).]
The New Jersey Supreme Court has modified and clarified the analysis required
when considering a motion for summary decision/judgment. 	In Brill v. Guardian Life
Insurance Co. of America, 142 N.J. 520 (1995), the Court adopted the summary
judgment standard utilized by federal courts:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
13
Under this new standard, a determination whether there
exists 	a 	“genuine 	issue” 	of 	material 	fact 	that 	precludes
summary judgment requires the motion judge to consider
whether the competent evidential materials presented, when
viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the
alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party. The
“judge's function is not himself [or herself] to weigh the
evidence 	and 	determine 	the 	truth 	of 	the 	matter 	but 	to
determine 	whether 	there 	is 	a 	genuine 	issue 	for 	trial.”
[Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S. Ct.
2505, 2511, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 212 (1986).] . . . If there exists
a single, unavoidable resolution of the alleged disputed issue
of 	fact, 	that 	issue 	should 	be 	considered 	insufficient 	to
constitute a “genuine” issue of material fact for purposes of
R. 4:46-2. Liberty Lobby, supra, 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S. Ct.
at 2511, 91 L. Ed. 2d at 213. 	The import of our holding is
that when the evidence “is so one-sided that one party must
prevail as a matter of law,” Liberty Lobby, supra, 477 U.S. at
252, 106 S. Ct. at 2512, 91 L. Ed. 2d at 214, the trial court
should not hesitate to grant summary judgment.
[Id. at 540.]
The burden is on the moving party to exclude all reasonable doubt as to the
existence of any genuine issue of material fact, and all inferences of doubt are drawn
against the moving party and in favor of the non-moving party. Saldana v. DiMedio, 275
N.J. Super. 488, 494 (App. Div. 1994). 	The critical question therefore is “whether the
evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require [a hearing] or whether it is so
one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Brill, 142 N.J. at 533 (citation
omitted). 	If the non-moving party’s evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly
probative, summary judgment should not be denied. 	See Bowles v. City of Camden,
993 F. Supp. 255, 261 (D.N.J. 1998).
An 	action 	by 	a 	local 	board 	of 	education 	“is 	entitled 	to 	a 	presumption 	of
correctness and will not be upset unless there is an affirmative showing that such
decision was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.” 	Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of
Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965). 	Our courts have held that “[w]here
there is room for two opinions, action is not arbitrary or capricious when exercised

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
14
honestly and upon due consideration, even though it may be believed that an erroneous
conclusion has been reached.” Bayshore Sewerage Co. v. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 122 N.J.
Super. 184, 199–200 (Ch. Div. 1973), aff’d, 131 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1974). Thus,
in order to prevail, those challenging a decision made by a board of education “must
demonstrate that the Board acted in bad faith, or in utter disregard of the circumstances
before it.” 	G.H. & E.H. ex rel. K.H. v. Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Lakes, 2014 N.J. AGEN
LEXIS 19 (Feb. 24, 2014) (citation omitted), adopted, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1137
(Apr. 10, 2014). Also, a board’s decision may be overturned if its determination violates
the legislative policies expressed or implied in the governing act. 	J.A.H. ex rel. C.H. v.
Twp. of Pittsgrove Bd. of Educ., 2013 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 58 (Mar. 11, 2013) (citing
Campbell v. Dep’t of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963)), adopted, 2013 N.J. AGEN
LEXIS 436 (Apr. 25, 2013).
The Anti-Bullying Act 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). 	Under the Act, “[h]arassment, intimidation or bullying” is
defined as:
any 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, 	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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
15
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.]
Each school district must adopt a policy that prohibits HIB and provides “a
procedure for prompt investigation of reports of violations and complaints.” 	N.J.S.A.
18A:37-15(b)(6). 	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)(a). 	The investigation shall be conducted by a school anti-bullying
specialist, but “[t]he principal may appoint additional personnel who are not school anti-
bullying specialists to assist in the investigation.” 	Ibid. 	The investigation shall be
completed within ten days of the initial HIB complaint. Ibid.
The 	results 	of 	the 	investigation 	shall 	then 	be 	quickly 	reported 	to 	the
superintendent of schools, who may take certain remedial action. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-
15(b)(6)(b). 	In particular, “the superintendent may decide to provide intervention
services, establish training programs to reduce [HIB] and enhance school climate,
impose discipline, order counseling as a result of the findings of the investigation, or
take or recommend other appropriate action.” Ibid.
At this point, it is important to note that the interplay of sections (a), (b), and (c) of
the HIB statute was addressed by the Commissioner in Wehbeh v. Board of Education,
Township of Verona, 2020 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 50 (Feb. 4, 2020).
[A] 	finding 	of 	[HIB] 	requires 	three 	elements. 	First, 	the
conduct must be reasonably perceived as motivated by any
actual 	or 	perceived 	enumerated 	characteristic 	or 	other
distinguishing characteristic and, second, the conduct must

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
16
substantially 	disrupt 	or 	interfere 	with 	the 	rights 	of 	other
students or the orderly operation of the school. 	The third
condition is that one of the three criteria enumerated in the
Act 	regarding 	the 	effect 	of 	the 	conduct 	must 	also 	be
satisfied.
[Id. at *7–8 (footnotes omitted).]
The Commissioner explained that “as a matter of standard statutory construction,
the term "or" between subsections (b) and (c) also applies to subsection (a), such that a
demonstration of any of these three criteria can support a finding of HIB.” Ibid. at n.2.
Put another way, for there to be a valid finding of an HIB violation, these things
had to have happened:
1. 	A reasonable person would perceive that the conduct
was based upon a distinguishing characteristic.
AND
2. 	The conduct took place on school property.
AND
3. 	The conduct must substantially disrupt or interfere with
the orderly operation of the school or the rights of other
students.
AND
3a. A 	reasonable 	person 	should 	know 	that 	the
conduct 	would 	have 	the 	effect 	of…emotionally
harming a student.
OR
3b. The 	conduct 	has 	the 	effect 	of 	insulting 	or
demeaning the student.
OR
3c. The 	conduct 	created 	a 	hostile 	educational
environment for the student by interfering with the
student’s education or by severely or pervasively
causing emotional harm to the student.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
17
[See generally, Shim v. Ridgefield Pub. Schools, Bd. of
Educ., 2023 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 526 (July 26, 2023).]
In other words, in order for there to be a cognizable finding of an HIB violation,
petitioner must demonstrate that it met prongs 1, 2 and 3 and then any of 3a, 3b or 3c.
Any break in the chain causes the charge to fail.
Here, respondent’s reasoning in support of its findings that Coach Gabriele’s
actions did not constitute an HIB violation was:
The ABS found that the allegations regarding the alleged
victim 	#1 	did 	not 	meet 	the 	requisite 	key 	component
standards to qualify as an HIB violation. 	The evidence from
this 	investigation 	did 	not 	reasonably 	substantiate 	a
distinguishing 	characteristic 	that 	served 	as 	a 	motivating
factor in this case. 	However, there was evidence to support
a substantial disruption, hostile/harmful environment or an
interference to the rights of the alleged victim.
Here, the complaint failed at prong 1 and while it was found that the other
aspects of the HIB statute had been met, unless ALL of the elements had been met,
respondent was compelled to find that Coach Gabriele’s actions did not meet the strict
statutory definition of bullying.
COACHING CASES
There is somewhat more than a smattering of “coaching cases” in the HIB genre.
In the case most emphasized by petitioners and arguably tangentially connected to this
one, the boys’ varsity soccer coach at NVD’s sister school, NVOT, while ultimately
losing his job, was found not to have committed acts of HIB against the complainant.
J.B. o/b/o J.B. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Northern Valley Reg’l High Sch. Dist., 2021 N.J.
AGEN LEXIS 571 (Mar. 8, 2021), adopted, Comm’r, 2021 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 75 (Apr.
13, 2021).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
18
The primary difference in the J.B. case was the allegation that J.B.’s alleged
distinguishing characteristic was being a “student” and “committed to academics.” 	He
had accused the coach of “systematic . . . verbal harassment, intimidation, and
bullying.” 	In addition to praising the HIB specialist’s investigation (the same specialist
involved in this case), the ALJ found:
O’Malley’s 	report 	did 	not 	conclude 	that 	J.B. 	was 	not
“committed 	to 	academics” 	or 	that 	he 	did 	not 	have 	a
distinguishing characteristic worthy of protection. 	Instead,
there was insufficient evidence that J.B. was the victim of an
alleged HIB because he was committed to academics or
intellectual. 	Under 	ABRA, 	the 	misconduct 	must 	be
“reasonably perceived as being motivated either by any
actual 	or 	perceived 	characteristic” 	to 	qualify 	as 	a 	HIB
violation. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14. (emphasis added).
[Id. at *26–27.]
The court found that there was no evidence that J.B. was targeted for any
specific characteristic, but the coach’s “questionable treatment of the players was
largely universal.” 	Id. at *27. 	The ALJ also referred to J.E. and R.E. v. Board of
Education of the Hunterdon Central Regional School District, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS
759 (Sept. 28, 2017), adopted, Comm’r, 366-17 (Dec. 21, 2017). 	There, the head and
assistant varsity baseball coaches at Hunterdon Central High School were accused of
committing 	HIB 	violations 	against 	a 	specific 	player, 	although 	that 	complaint 	was
investigated in conjunction with four other similar complaints. 	The respondent moved
for summary decision, arguing that there was no evidence that any of the coaches’
alleged 	actions 	were 	motivated 	by 	any 	“distinguishing 	characteristics” 	of 	the
complainant.
The 	subsequent 	investigation 	determined 	that 	the 	coaches 	had 	committed
misconduct, which would be treated as a personnel matter; it had also been determined
that the HIB statute had not been violated. 	A major question in the J.E. case was what
“distinguishing characteristic” was in play, which is not an issue here. 	The court noted,
however, that even if one could agree on a distinguishing characteristic, such as being
“meek or weak,” it was not alleged in the complaint that the coaches “ever made

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
19
comments about R.E.’s demeanor or physical stature.” 	Rather, the parent noted that
the coach “exhibited bullying conduct to everyone from assistant coaches to members
of the grounds crew” and was more accurately described as “aggressive conduct
without identifiable motivation.” Id. at *26 (citing K.L. v. Evesham, 423 N.J. Super. 337,
351 (App. Div. 2011)). While that conduct may be “inappropriate and undesirable, [it] is
not covered by the HIB statute.” 	Ibid. 	The district’s Motion for Summary Decision was
therefore granted. Id. at *31.
The other two prominent “coaching cases”, M.R. on behalf of minor child M.R. v.
Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School District, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1350 (Dec.
21, 2016) and Cerchio v. Scotch Plains-Fanwood Regional School District Board of
Education, 2023 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 954 (Dec. 29, 2023), were generally decided as
“coaches behaving badly” cases, where it was found that neither had committed an act
of HIB.
Having reviewed the “coaching cases,” it seems appropriate to “bottom line” this
case, since everyone involved, to some degree, seems to be dancing around the
realities of the situation. The more I read of the exhibits in this case, the more I came to
a full understanding of what really happened and that the respondent is entitled to
summary decision. 	Ultimately, I CONCLUDE that the following has been proven to be
true by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. 	L.Z. is a physically gifted athlete.
2. 	Patrick Gabriele is, for better or worse, an “old-school” coach.
3. 	Stylistically, L.Z. was not a good fit for Coach Gabriele’s coaching
philosophy.
4. 	There was already at least some personal animosity between the
family and Coach Gabriele, based on the negative experiences of
L.Z.’s older brother.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
20
5. 	Not helping matters was the family’s advocacy for John Blackgrove7
to be hired as the head coach, who, not coincidentally, was L.Z.’s
AAU coach.
6. 	That animosity never truly abated.
7. 	There were mixed feelings amongst the team members concerning
Coach Gabriele’s coaching style and behavior.
8. 	L.Z.’s playing time was absolutely a concern of the petitioners and
there was clearly a “second-guessing” aspect to some of the family’s
complaints.
9. 	Coach Gabriele’s behavior, attitude and philosophy as a whole was
also a concern of the petitioners.
10. 	Coach Gabriele’s treatment of L.Z. 	was also 	obviously a major
concern.
11. 	A parent’s “advocacy” for their child is often perceived by the coach,
rightly or wrongly, as “complaining” (or worse).
12. 	Many 	of 	petitioners’ 	complaints 	about 	Coach 	Gabriele 	are 	not
exclusively directed towards L.Z., but rather towards the entire team
(or, at least to players not deemed to be his “favorites”).
13. 	Coach Gabriele generally did not trust L.Z. on the floor and gave him
a very short leash.
14. 	As will be detailed below, some of the specific incidents complained
of by petitioners are irrelevant to the HIB investigation (such as the
Pascack Valley post-game incident).
15. 	Some of those specific incidents were (absolutely correctly) found to
be HIGHLY inappropriate and Coach Gabriele was disciplined for
them.
7 John Blackgrove played at Pascack Valley High School and was the 2000–01 New Jersey Gatorade Player-of-the-
Year. 	He was a prolific scorer in high school and went on to play basketball at Fordham and FDU-Teaneck.
https://bvmsports.com/2021/04/01/two-way-player-the-story-of-john-blackgrove/ (last accessed Dec. 29, 2024.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
21
16. 	No 	matter 	the 	outcome 	of 	this 	specific 	HIB 	complaint, 	Coach
Gabriele did not handle this situation well.
17. 	What this dispute became was yet another example of an absolutely
toxic situation in high school sports where no one emerged as a
winner and where no one was without at least some fault.
18. 	Ultimately, however, you had a very talented fifteen-year-old stuck in
the middle of an escalating series of events over which he had very
little control and where the adults in the room, who had the ability to
de-escalate the situation, failed to do so.
With all that being said, obviously the overriding question that must be answered
is whether the District’s conclusion that Coach Gabriele’s behavior towards L.Z. did not
constitute HIB was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.
In order to answer that question, however, we have to answer some other
questions first. 	First, would a reasonable person conclude that Coach Gabriele’s
behavior towards L.Z. was motivated, at least in part, by his learning disability? In other
words, could a reasonable person conclude that any of Coach Gabriele’s treatment of
L.Z. was motivated by the mere fact that he suffered from ADHD (i.e., “I’m benching you
because you have ADHD”) or for some other reason (“I’m not benching you because
you have ADHD, I’m benching you because you missed your defensive assignment,
can’t run the offense, misbehaved, etc.”)? 	Or “I don’t care why (in Coach Gabriele’s
mind) you’re making the mistakes/misbehaving, just that you are.”
I am, for the purposes of this HIB case, not considering the “non-L.Z.” aspects of
the case. This, significantly, involves the following:
1. 	The very ugly Pascack Valley post-game incident.8
2. 	The family’s clear efforts to have Coach Gabriele fired.
8 R.Z.’s assertion that she was “just cheering for her son” lacks any credibility. She was clearly baiting
Coach Gabriele, and he bit.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
22
3. 	The 	family’s 	alleged 	contacting 	of 	other 	parents 	and 	undisputed
contacting of BOE members.
As 	noted 	above, 	this 	is 	not 	a 	case 	about 	coaching 	atmosphere, 	team
direction/philosophy, etc. and is not a referendum on Coach Gabriele’s behavior as the
NVD varsity basketball and baseball coach. 	This case is solely about whether, as a
matter of law, respondent’s determination that Coach Gabriele’s actions towards L.Z.
were not motivated by L.Z.’s learning disability.
One of the first cases to discuss this issue was Melnyk v. Teaneck Board of
Education, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161524 (D.N.J. Nov. 22, 2016);
On its face, the HIB Policy requires that several factors must
be 	met 	before 	an 	expression 	can 	be 	found 	to 	be
harassment. 	First, the communication must be "reasonably
perceived 	as 	motivated" 	by 	an 	actual 	or 	perceived
characteristic. 	That 	is 	to 	say, 	the 	comment 	must 	be
objectively perceived to a reasonable person as motivated
by a characteristic.
[Id. at *17–18.]
Melnyk was cited with approval in R.H. ex rel. A.H. v. Borough of Sayreville
Board of Education, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83587 (D.N.J. May 12, 2023);
First, the communication must be "reasonably perceived as
being 	motivated 	either 	by 	any 	actual 	or 	perceived
characteristic, 	such 	as 	race 	. 	. 	." 	among 	other 	things.
N.J.S.A. § 18A:37-14. "The 'reasonably perceived' test is an
objective one that has withstood constitutional scrutiny," and
does 	not 	present 	a 	vagueness 	issue. 	See 	Melnyk 	v.
Teaneck Bd. of Educ., No. 16-0188, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
161524, 2016 WL 6892077, at *8 (D.N.J. Nov. 22, 2016)
(collecting cases).
[Id. at *13.]
Petitioner’s analysis of J.B. notes that the coach involved in that case was
“cleared.” While that coach was cleared (correctly) of HIB, counsel fails to mention that

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
23
the coach had already left his position by the time the hearing was held, with his
contract not being renewed largely for the behavior described in the HIB complaint.
This result is also alluded to in S.A. v. Board of Education of Moorestown, 2019
N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2114 (App. Div., Oct. 15, 2019). There, in a case involving a
teacher who requested a student’s (poor) test papers as part of his job duties, the court
concluded that an HIB violation had not occurred, since it did “not discern sufficient facts
to support a conclusion that any actions by R.L. were motivated by G.A.’s ADHD or
other personal characteristics.” Id. at *6.
It further noted:
Even if we presume R.L. was insensitive or even unkind,
there is no evidence R.L. was prompted by any actual or
perceived 	characteristic, 	such 	as 	race, 	color, 	religion,
ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender
identity and expression, or a mental, physical or sensory
disability, or by any other distinguishing characteristic.
[Id. at *7]
Ultimately, in order to find that the first prong of the statute has been satisfied, an
investigating body must view the evidence in its entirety and determine whether a
reasonable person could perceive that the conduct could be “motivated by an actual or
perceived characteristic.” That determination should take into account the totality of the
circumstances, 	including 	the 	traits/characteristics 	of 	the 	alleged 	victim, 	the 	age,
knowledge and experience of the actor, as well as the time, place, and location of the
act, etc.
Then, if the investigator makes a determination that a reasonable person would
conclude that the act was motivated by an actual or perceived characteristic, the
investigation will proceed to the next element of the HIB offense. 	In essence, the
consideration of this prong does not focus purely on either the perception of the alleged
victim or the expressed intent of the alleged actor, but instead provides an objective
standard based on the totality of the circumstances.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
24
I understand that L.Z. and his parents had an extremely poor relationship with
Coach Gabriele. I also understand the perception (reality) that the coach did not like or
appreciate L.Z. and objectively, his behavior clearly crossed the line of propriety (which
respondent has never denied). 	However, as emphasized from the onset of this case,
this is an HIB case and nothing more.
The question from the beginning was not whether the coach’s behavior was
appropriate. 	Nor was it whether his behavior towards L.Z. was due to his personal
dislike of him or his family. 	Rather, the only question to be answered in this forum is
whether a reasonable person could determine that Coach Gabriele’s behavior towards
L.Z. was due to his learning disability. And breaking that down even more, the question
is 	whether, 	as 	a 	matter 	of 	law, 	a 	reasonable 	fact 	finder 	could 	determine 	that
respondent’s 	conclusion 	that 	this 	was 	not 	HIB 	was 	arbitrary, 	capricious, 	and
unreasonable.
I CONCLUDE that it was not. 	Rather, I FIND that Mr. O’Malley reasonably
determined that the evidence demonstrated that Coach Gabriele’s behavior towards
L.Z. was motivated by multiple other factors, both personal to L.Z. (but not due to his
learning disability) and his family, as well as his coaching style. 	Then, the Board
reasonably affirmed that determination.
Petitioner’s brief is long on assumption, supposition and conclusion and short on
actual evidence. 	One example of this is the statement that “[t]he assertion that Mr.
O’Malley was independent and had no interest in the outcome of [the] investigation is
not supported by any evidence.” 	One can easily flip that line on its head; i.e., “the
assertion that Mr. O’Malley was biased and had an interest in the outcome of the
investigation is not supported by any evidence.”
It is safe to say that by the time of the HIB investigation, the entirety of the school
administration was well aware of the conflict between the family and Coach Gabriele.
Mr. Oppido had literally reported the family to the police and R.Z. was apparently not
shy about asserting her feelings, both privately and publicly. What the petitioner has not

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
25
demonstrated is what about Mr. O’Malley’s investigation or conclusions was arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable. 	While I appreciate the content of the January 14 th email
from Mr. Oppido, it was disclosed to the family, for whatever reason, within thirty
minutes. 	Further, it appears to be a factual recitation of events: (a) R.Z. was calling
other parents in an attempt to get Coach Gabriele fired; (b) she used other students’
names during their meeting9; (c) Coach Gabriele was providing a statement.
There is simply no evidence, only an allegation, that Mr. O’Malley was somehow
“compromised” or influenced to determine that Coach Gabriele only violated three of the
four prongs of the HIB statute and that the Board was influenced into ratifying a decision
that disciplined the coach. 	Similarly, as to the accusation that Board members and the
Athletic Director “acted to ensure that no actual investigation could occur,” petitioners
have again produced literally no evidence. 	In fact, there is copious evidence to the
contrary.
The evidence shows that what appears to be the entire varsity basketball team
was 	interviewed, 	as 	were 	the 	assistant 	coaches. 	Any 	objective 	analysis 	of 	the
investigation supports Mr. O’Malley’s determination that there were times when Coach
Gabriele acted inappropriately. 	It also demonstrates that L.Z. was sometimes singled
out for criticism. 	However, there is literally nothing in the investigation to demonstrate
that L.Z. was singled out due to his learning disability. Rather, per the investigation and
Coach Gabriele’s own statements, L.Z. was criticized and benched for multiple other
reasons. 	I 	am 	not 	persuaded 	by 	petitioner’s 	interpretation 	of 	Coach 	Gabriele’s
statement as being some sort of admission. It clearly is not.
As for the retaliatory conduct alleged by petitioner, even assuming for the sake of
this motion that L.Z. was retaliated against due to the filing of the HIB complaint, that
fact alone is not a violation of the HIB statute. Rather, the District’s HIB policy notes:
School 	Employees 	– 	Consequences 	and 	appropriate
remedial 	action 	for 	a 	school 	employee 	found 	to 	have
9 I disagree with Mr. Oppido that it was somehow inappropriate for R.Z. to refer to other students during
the meeting.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
26
engaged 	in 	retaliation, 	reprisal 	and/or 	falsely 	accused
another as a means of harassment, intimidation or bullying
shall 	be 	determined 	in 	accordance 	with 	district 	policies,
procedures and agreements, up to and including suspension
or dismissal from service;
[P-A at 11.]
This is in line with N.J.S.A. 18A:37-16(a), which bars “engag[ing] in reprisal,
retaliation or false accusation against a victim, witness or one with reliable information
about an act of harassment, intimidation or bullying.” 	However, there is nothing in the
statute that even suggests that any purported act of retaliation is anything but a routine
disciplinary offense and not HIB in and of itself.
That is not to say that this finding is an “exoneration” of Coach Gabriele. 	It most
definitely is not. 	In fact, the HIB report does not place the coach in good light. 	The
report was clear that his actions were inappropriate and that L.Z. was victimized by him.
I have tremendous empathy for L.Z. 	This is a clearly athletically gifted young
man (you do not even think of playing varsity basketball as a freshman at a Group 3
school unless you are very good), who found himself in a situation where his coach
clearly did not like (or, at the very least appreciate) him or his family and who ultimately
found no alternative but to leave the school or quit playing. 	That is clearly an awful
situation, one which the parents of any serious public school athlete dread because you
have extremely limited options available to you, none of which are ideal.
L.Z. and his family may well have other remedies in other forums for any
damages they may have sustained as a result of Coach Gabriele’s actions. 	However,
that does not mean that the coach’s actions amounted to a violation of the HIB statute.
Ultimately, I CONCLUDE that petitioner has failed to demonstrate as a matter of law
that respondent’s determination that Coach Gabriele’s actions were not motivated by
L.Z.’s learning disability was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable and that his actions
were violative of N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.2 et seq.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
27
As to the purported procedural violations, which primarily concern the re-opening
of the investigation in May, I FIND that there was nothing about those actions that
substantively impacted the case. 	One can clearly infer that the investigation was
reopened 	to 	include 	Coach 	Gabriele’s 	interview 	and 	that 	no 	one’s 	rights 	were
compromised by that delay, particularly given that the basketball season was long over.
Further, as was alluded to in petitioner’s brief, there is an established history that
there is no private remedy in the HIB statute in cases of administrative errors during the
investigative process. 	This was most recently discussed in H.P. on behalf of Minor
Child R.S. v. Borough of Tenafly Board of Education, 2024 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 73 (Jan.
24, 2024), adopted, Comm’r (Mar. 26, 2024), where the court pointed to multiple prior
cases involving procedural errors where “the Commissioner has simply ordered school
districts . . . to comply with the statutory requirements.” Id. at *14–15 (citing T.R. & T.R.
ex rel. E.R. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Bridgewater-Raritan Reg’l Sch. Dist., 2014 N.J. AGEN
LEXIS 634 (Sept. 25, 2014), adopted, Comm’r (Nov. 10, 2014)).
Therefore, I CONCLUDE, even with the unconventional manner in which this
investigation was handled, that there was no substantive harm and that there is no
reason to reverse the Board’s decision.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that respondent’s Motion for
Summary Decision be and is hereby GRANTED and;
It is further ORDERED that petitioner’s appeal be and is hereby DISMISSED
and;
It is further ORDERED that respondent shall follow the rules and regulations
promulgated in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15 et seq. concerning its handling of HIB complaints in
the future.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
28
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.
February 12, 2025
DATE 	MATTHEW G. MILLER, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	February 12, 2025
_________________________________
Date Mailed to Parties: 	February 12, 2025
_________________________________
sej

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
29
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
For Petitioner:
P-1 	L.Z. certification (September 26, 2024)
P-2 	R.Z. certification (September 26, 2024)
P-A 	Northern Valley HIB Policy (Policy No. 5131.1)
P-B 	Written statements from HIB Investigation Report
P-C 	Summary of interview of Patrick Gabriele (May 15, 2023)
P-D 	L.Z. IEP (April 21, 2022)
P-E 	Email exchange between R.Z. and Coach Gabriele (November 15, 2022) and
email forwarding that exchange from Coach Gabriele to Michael Oppido, Keith
Johnson, and Michael O’Malley (May 16, 2023)
P-F 	Email and letter attachment from R.Z. to multiple Northern Valley employees
(January 13, 2023)
P-G 	Email from R.Z., re: February 7, 2023 basketball game, etc. (February 9, 2023);
Email exchange between R.Z., counselor and superintendent at Northern Valley
(January 29, 2023 through February 1, 2023)
P-H 	Email exchange between R.Z. and Northern Valley superintendent (June 2, 2023
and June 6, 2023)
P-I 	Email from R.Z. to various Northern Valley employees, re: Athletic Director
“mistake” email. (January 16, 2023)
P-J 	Email from R.Z. to Northern Valley superintendent (February 10, 2023)
P-K 	Superintendent Report Form (Not HIB) (February 15, 2023)
P-L 	Emails re: February incident
P-M 	Pro Se Petition of Appeal (May 24, 2023)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10029-23
30
For Respondent:
R-A 	HIB Report (January 30, 2023)
R-B 	R.Z. and L.D. on behalf of minor child L.Z. v. Board of Education of the Northern
Valley Regional High School District, 2023 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 555 (Aug. 22,
2023)
R-C 	HIB determination letter (June 13, 2023)
R-D 	Playbook emails
R-E 	Case law