Judy Capra and Wall Township Education Association v. Board of Education of the Township of Wall, Monmouth County, 9/19/25 (#449-25)

449-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 04116-21
Agency Dkt. No. 49-4/21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Judy 	Capra, 	individually, 	and 	Wall 	Township
Education Association, on behalf of itself, Judy
Capra, and bargaining unit members,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Wall,
Monmouth County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), the
exceptions filed by petitioners and respondent pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and petitioners’ reply
to respondent’s exceptions, have been reviewed and considered.
The Wall Township Education Association (Association) is the majority representative of
certain employees of the Board of Education of the Township of Wall (Board). Judy Capra (Capra), a
member of the Association, is employed by the Board as a part-time paraprofessional. 	In their
petition of appeal, the Association and Capra (petitioners) allege that the Board violated N.J.S.A.
18A:16-13.2 (P.L. 2020, c. 44, § 5), part of legislation known as Chapter 44, by refusing to offer
Association members who work less than 20 hours per week enrollment in a health insurance plan
equivalent to the New Jersey Educators Health Plan (NJEHP) and Garden State Health Plan (GSHP) at
the statutory contribution-sharing amounts.

2
Upon consideration of petitioners’ motion for summary decision and respondent’s opposition
thereto, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Board is obligated to provide plans
equivalent to the NJEHP and GSHP to part-time paraprofessionals based upon the plain language of
N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2. The ALJ rejected the Board’s contention that the matter was moot because the
parties had negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement since the passage of Chapter 44.
Instead, the ALJ determined that the Board must first offer employees the equivalent plans. If there
is a resultant net cost increase, the parties must then negotiate to mitigate the financial impact. The
ALJ further found that part-time paraprofessionals fit within the broad definition of “employee”
codified at N.J.S.A. 18A:1-1 and are therefore eligible for health benefits under Chapter 44.
In its exceptions, the Board contends that the ALJ should have denied petitioners’ motion for
summary decision as a matter of law because part-time paraprofessionals are not entitled to health
benefits under Section 5 of Chapter 44. The Board asserts that the Legislature intended to define
eligible employees for purposes of N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2 as those working no less than 25 hours per
week pursuant to the definition of “employee” codified at N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.26(c)(2), and not the
definition of “employee” codified at N.J.S.A. 18A:1-1 relied upon by the ALJ.
In response, petitioners assert that Chapter 44 equivalent plans must be offered to all
employees, regardless of the number of hours worked, and that the definition of “employee” codified
at N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.26(c)(2) is not applicable here. Instead, petitioners agree with the ALJ that the
Board is governed by the definition of “employee” set forth at N.J.S.A. 18A:1-1. Additionally, in their
exceptions, petitioners assert that while they agree with the merits of the ALJ’s decision, the
recommended remedy must be modified to require reimbursement from the Board.

3
Upon review, the Commissioner adopts the ALJ’s findings of fact but rejects the ALJ’s legal
conclusion regarding the applicability of the definition of “employee” codified at N.J.S.A. 18A:1-1 to
Chapter 44. N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2(a)(1) provides:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or
regulation to the contrary, beginning January 1, 2021 and for each
plan year thereafter, a board of education as an employer providing
health care benefits coverage for its employees, and their dependents
if any, in accordance with P.L. 1979, c.391 (C. 18A:16-12 et seq.) shall
offer to its employees, and their dependents if any, the equivalent of
the New Jersey Educators Health Plan in the School Employees’ Health
Benefits Program as that plan design is described in subsection f. of
section 1 of P.L. 2020, c.44 (C.52:14-17.46.13).
Beginning January 1, 2022 and for each plan year thereafter, a
board of education as an employer providing health care benefits
coverage for its employees, and their dependents if any, in accordance
with P.L. 1979, c.391 (C. 18A:16-12 et seq.) shall also offer a plan for
its employees, and their dependents if any, that is the equivalent of
the Garden State Health Plan in the School Employees’ Health Benefits
Program. 	The board shall provide an enrollment period prior to
January 1, 2022.
(emphasis added.)
“Statutory construction principles dictate that we determine the Legislature’s intent by first
considering the statute’s plain language.” Estate of Spill v. Markovitz, 260 N.J. 146, 155 (2025). The
Commissioner does not agree with the ALJ that the plain language of N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2 supports
petitioners’ position. 	This is because the plain language of N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2(a)(1) does not
reference N.J.S.A. 18A:1-1 or the definition of “employee” codified therein. 	However, it does
reference N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.46.13, which is also part of Chapter 44. See P.L. 2020, c. 44, § 1.
Notably, Section 1 of Chapter 44 references the definitional section codified at N.J.S.A. 52:14-
17.46.2, which defines “employee” in relevant part for purposes of the School Employees’ Health
Benefits Program after May 21, 2010, as “a person employed in any full-time capacity by an employer
who appears on a regular payroll and receives a salary or wages for an average of the number of

4
hours per week as prescribed by the governing body of the participating employer which number of
hours worked shall be considered full-time, determined by resolution, and not less than 25 . . . .”
N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.46.2(d)(2)(a). 	No other definition of “employee” appears within, or is cross-
referenced within, Chapter 44.
Thus, the Commissioner finds that the definition of “employee” codified at N.J.S.A. 52:14-
17.46.2 is applicable to Chapter 44. See generally Boonton Educ. Ass’n v. Bd. of Educ. of Boonton,
Docket No. A-1670-21, 2022 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1940 *13 (Oct. 19, 2022) (explaining that “the
Commissioner must look to Title 52 to address issues” involving N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2’s equivalency
provision). Consequently, part-time paraprofessionals working less than 25 hours per week are not
entitled to health benefits under Section 5 of Chapter 44. 	The Commissioner’s February 2023
decisions in Queen City Educational Association v. Board of Trustees of the Queen City Academy
Charter School, Commissioner Decision No. 53-23, and Franklin Township Education Association v.
Board of Education of Franklin Township, Somerset County, Commissioner Decision No. 54-23, are not
inconsistent with the conclusion in this matter because neither Queen City nor Franklin Township
addressed whether part-time paraprofessionals were eligible for coverage.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted in part and rejected in part, and the petition of
appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	September 19, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	September 22, 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
AMENDED INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04116-21
AGENCY DKT. NO. 49-4/21
JUDY CAPRA AND WALL TOWNSHIP
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF
WALL, MONMOUTH COUNTY,
Respondents.
________________________________________
Richard A. Friedman, Esq. and Sheila Murugan, Esq., for petitioner (Zazzali,
P.C., attorneys)
Jeffrey R. Merlino, Esq., for respondent (Methfessel & Werbel, P.C., attorneys)
Record Closed: April 1, 2025 Decided: May 13, 2025
BEFORE JOAN M. BURKE, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioners Judy Capra and Wall Township Education Association argue that
Chapter 44 requires the respondent Wall Township Board of Education (Board) to offer

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04116-21
2
part-time paraprofessionals employed by the District the ability to enroll in the District’s
equivalent New Jersey Educator’s Health Plan (“NJEHP”) and Garden State Health Plan
(“GSHP”) at the statutory contribution-sharing amounts as required by P.L. 2020, c.44
(“c.44”). The Board contends that the matter is moot because it has already fulfilled its
obligation under Chapter 44.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A petition of appeal was filed by petitioners with the Commissioner of Education
(“the Commissioner”) on April 8, 2021. An answer was filed by the Board, and the matter
was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) as a contested case on May
7, 2021. The matter was originally assigned to the Hon. David Fritch, ALJ. Judge Fritch
moved to the Superior Court of NJ, and the matter was transferred to the Hon. Susan
Scarolla, ALJ. Judge Scarolla conducted a settlement conference with the parties, and
no resolution was reached. The matter was transferred to the undersigned on July 3,
2024. Status conferences were held on August 9, 2024, and September 26, 2024. I
requested the parties to prepare a joint stipulation of facts. On October 17, 2024,
petitioners requested a briefing schedule for a motion for summary decision. Petitioners’
Motion for Summary Decision was received on December 2, 2024. Opposition to the
Motion was filed by the Board. Petitioners replied to the Opposition. The record closed
on April 1, 2025.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following facts were stipulated to by the parties, and therefore, I FIND them as
FACT:
1. The Wall Township Board of Education and the Wall Township Education
Association are parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA")
(Joint Ex. A) governing certain terms and conditions of employment for
recognized full- and part-time positions. (Parties’ Joint Stipulated Facts
and Exhibits)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04116-21
3
2. The Board is not a participant in the School Employees Health Benefits
Program ("SEHBP"). Instead, it provides health insurance through a
private health insurance carrier. (Ibid.)
3. Petitioner Judy Capra has been employed as a part-time lunch
paraprofessional and is a member of the Wall Township Education
Association. Mrs. Capra works approximately twelve (12) hours per
week and earns an annual salary of approximately $8,806. Other part-
time lunch paraprofessionals similarly work about ten (10) to twelve (12)
hours per week. (See Joint Ex. B; Ibid.)
The CBA provides in ARTICLE 67, MEDICAL INSURANCE:
A. Paraprofessionals may purchase EPO Health
Insurance at their own expense through the Board.
Effective the 2005−2006 school year, the Board will
pay 30% of the yearly premium. Paraprofessionals
may purchase family coverage at the Board rates. If a
paraprofessional opts to purchase family coverage, the
30% Board contribution towards the premium only
applies to single coverage. The following plans may
be purchased: Single EPO plan without prescription −
Single EPO plan with prescription − Family EPO plan
without prescription − Family EPO plan with
prescription.
B. Paraprofessionals may purchase other plans offered
by the District and pay the additional cost. The Board
will contribute 30% of the cost of premium for the EPO
single coverage.
C. Paraprofessionals may purchase dental coverage at
100% of the cost.
D. Should a “cadillac tax” be imposed during the life of or
duration of this contract, the parties agree to open the
contract and renegotiate health benefit plans and
employee contribution toward the cost of premiums.
(Ibid.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04116-21
4
4. Governor Christie signed P.L. 2011, Ch. 78 ("Chapter 78") into law, effective
June 28, 2011. This law provided for changes to the health insurance plans
and the manner in which eligible full-time employees, including
paraprofessionals, contribute a percentage of premiums towards health
benefits. (Ibid.)
5. Since Chapter 78's implementation, the District does not charge full-time
paraprofessionals 70% of the cost of coverage under Article 67 of the CBA.
Instead, the District applies Chapter 78's premium contribution formula, or
more recently, the salary contribution under P.L. 2020, Ch. 44. Part-time
paraprofessionals, including the lunch paraprofessionals, continued to be
required to purchase health insurance coverage pursuant to the above CBA
language in Article 67. No part-time paraprofessional has elected to do so.
(Ibid.)
On or about July 1, 2020, Governor Murphy signed into law, P.L. 2020, Ch.
44 ("Chapter 44"), requiring school districts to offer two (2) new health
insurance plans to employees in addition to the plans under Chapter 78.
Chapter 44 requires the Board to offer employees and their dependents a
health care plan equivalent to the New Jersey Educators' Health Plan
("NJEHP"). Effective July 1, 2022, Chapter 44 requires the Board to offer
employees and their dependents a health care plan equivalent to the
Garden State Health Plan ("GSHP"). (Ibid.)
6. Unlike the premium sharing set forth in Chapter 78, the Chapter 44 NJEHP
and GSHP plans require that employees only pay a percentage of their
salary toward medical and prescription drug coverage, with the districts
paying the remainder. For employees with an annual base salary of
$40,000 or less, the employee's share of coverage is: 1.7% of salary for
single coverage; 2.2% for parent and child(ren) coverage; 2.8% for
employee and spouse coverage; and 3.3% for family coverage. (Ibid.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04116-21
5
7. During the 2020−21 school year, Mrs. Capra requested to enroll in the
NJEHP plan for herself and her dependents using the cost sharing under
Chapter 44 instead of the negotiated CBA language in Article 67. The
Board contends that because Mrs. Capra was not eligible for health
benefits under Chapter 78, she is also not eligible under Chapter 44.
The Board asserted that part-time employees, like Mrs. Capra, are subject
solely to the negotiated alternate arrangement under the CBA in Article 67.
(Ibid.)
8. Petitioners contend that regardless of the work hours assigned to each
employee, part-time lunch paraprofessionals are eligible to enroll in the
NJEHP or GSHP at the statutory contribution-sharing amounts as a
matter of law under Chapter 44. (Ibid.)
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners Capra and the Wall Township Education Association argue that
Chapter 44 requires that “the Board must permit all employees the election, or if hired
after the effective date they are required, to be enrolled in the NJEHP or GSHP at the
statutory contribution-sharing amounts.” (Pet’rs’ Dec. 2, 2024, Br. at 3.) Specifically,
petitioners assert that Chapter 44 “preempts and supersedes the contract language,
which of significance was negotiated prior to the passage of c.44, because this legislation
expressly sets terms and conditions of employment that may not be contravened by
negotiations.” (Ibid.) Petitioners argue, “the provision of c.44, which the Board seemingly
relies upon is inapplicable.” (Ibid.) They posit:
This section of c.44 provides that employees whose hire dates
are on or after July 1, 2020, and were not eligible to enroll prior
to that for health care coverage provided by the employer, are
not required to be mandatorily enrolled in the NJEHP or
GSHP. However, part-time paraprofessionals were entitled
to enroll in health care coverage under the District’s plans
at 70% of the cost of coverage. Therefore, under c.44
part-time paraprofessionals are entitled health benefits

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04116-21
6
coverage, regardless of whether or not they were eligible for
health benefits under P.L. 2011, c.78 (“c.78”).
[Ibid.]
The Board responds that this matter is moot. Specifically, the Board argues it has
already fulfilled its obligations under Chapter 44, since the parties negotiated the
2022−2027 agreement after Chapter 44 had been implemented. The Board alleges the
time for petitioners to modify the benefits arrangement was at the bargaining table, since
the Board had provided the Association with annual insurance rates to allow for “educated
negotiations.” The Board cites a 2023 report from AON, the State’s actuary of health
benefit plans, for the proposition that “Chapter 44 does not create a new contribution
requirement for individuals who are not otherwise required to pay participant contributions
prior to the adoption of Chapter 44.” (Resp’t’s Jan. 22, 2025, Br. at 7.)
According to the Board:
Chapter 44 requires the parties to negotiate to substantially
mitigate the financial impact of the difference between the
2019−22 Collective Bargaining Agreement and the formula
under Chapter 44. The parties satisfied the obligation when it
negotiated the 2022−2027 Collective Bargaining Agreement
after the implementation of Chapter 44.
[Resp’t’s Br. at 9.]
The respondent further argues that:
[t]he Association is attempting to inappropriately stick the
additional health benefit costs upon the Board while the
Association avoids the outcome of the 2022 negotiations as
how the parties agreed to substantially mitigate the financial
impact. . . . Not only would the Board save money, the
Petitioners would realize a windfall negatively impacting the
educational programming of the District.
[Resp’t’s Br. at 12.]
In the petitioners’ reply brief, it was noted that the Board’s position that it “cannot
enroll paraprofessional until negotiations to mitigate future costs are complete” is contrary

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04116-21
7
to the law. (Pet’rs’ Feb. 14, 2025, Reply Br. at 2.) The petitioners further argued that the
Board’s position that the AON Report “bars paraprofessionals from being eligible to enroll
in coverage” fails for two reasons. First, because it was “not promulgated by any state
office or agency” and therefore has no binding effect. (See Pet’rs’ Feb.14, 2025, Reply
Br. at 5.) Second, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2(b), which states:
Prior to January 1, 2021, each employer shall provide an
enrollment period during which all employees who commenced
employment prior to the effective date [July 1, 2020] of this act
shall be required to select affirmatively a plan provided by the
employer. If an employee fails to select affirmatively a plan
during this enrollment period, the employer shall enroll the
employee, and the employee’s dependents if any, in the
equivalent New Jersey Educators Health Plan offered
pursuant to subsection a. of this section for the year January 1,
2021 until December 31, 2021.
During the enrollment period, each person who is enrolled in
a plan offered by the employer and who is paying the full
cost of coverage shall also be required to select affirmatively a
plan provided by the employer. If a person fails to select
affirmatively a plan during this enrollment period, the employer
shall enroll the person, and the person’s dependents if any, in
the equivalent New Jersey Educators Health Plan offered
pursuant to subsection a. of this section for the year January 1,
2021 until December 31, 2021. Any such person shall
continue to pay the full cost of coverage and shall not be
subject to the contribution schedule or any mandatory
enrollment period as set forth in this section.
No paraprofessionals were enrolled in any plan offered by the Board. Therefore,
“no paraprofessional at issue was subject to this provision of c.44 and is now required
under this statute to pay the full cost of coverage.” (Pet’rs’ Reply Br. at 6.)
LEGAL ANALYSIS
N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b) provides that summary decision should 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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04116-21
8
entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Our regulation mirrors R. 4:46-2(c), which provides
that “[t]he 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.”
A determination whether a genuine issue of material fact exists that precludes
summary decision requires the 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 fact finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of
the non-moving party. Our courts have long held that “if the opposing party . . . offers . .
. only facts which are immaterial or of an insubstantial nature, a mere scintilla, ‘Fanciful,
frivolous, gauzy or merely suspicious,’ he will not be heard to complain if the court grants
summary judgment.” Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 529 (1995)
(citing Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 17 N.J. 67, 75 (1954)).
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.” Brill, 142 N.J. at 540 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)).
When the evidence “is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law,” the
trial court should not hesitate to grant summary judgment. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at
252. I CONCLUDE that this matter is ripe for summary decision. The petition of appeal
raises a purely legal question, one which asks that I determine if the plain language of
Chapter 44 requires the respondent to offer the NJEHP-equivalent plan to all employees
and whether Article 67 of the 2019−2022 collective negotiations precludes
paraprofessional from enrollment in the NJEHP and GSHP plans at statutory cost-sharing
amounts. I CONCLUDE that the law supports the petitioners’ position and that they are
entitled to the relief they seek.
Article 67 of both the 2019−2022 and 2022−2027 Collective Bargaining
Agreements requires district paraprofessionals to pay 70% of single coverage premiums
and 100% of family coverage premiums, with the Board contributing 30% of the cost of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04116-21
9
the premium toward single coverage. Neither agreement offers paraprofessionals an
equivalent plan to the New Jersey Educators Health Plan (“NJEHP”) or Garden State
Health Plan (“GSHP”) at the statutory contribution-sharing amounts set forth in N.J.S.A.
52:14-17.46.14 and N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.46.16.
The Board argues that the petitioners’ claim is moot because the parties have
negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement since the passage of Chapter 44. I
disagree. Chapter 44 requires that an employer must first offer and implement an
NJHEP-equivalent plan before negotiating the effects of any negative financial impacts.
The proper scope of public employment negotiations is governed by a
“time-honored” three-pronged standard set forth in Local 195, IFPTE v. State, 88 N.J. 393
(1982). Robbinsville Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. Washington Twp. Educ. Ass'n, 227 N.J. 192,
199 (2016). A term or condition of employment is properly negotiable if: “(1) the item
intimately and directly affects the work and welfare of public employees; (2) the subject
has not been fully or partially preempted by statute or regulation; and (3) a negotiated
agreement would not significantly interfere with the determination of governmental
policy." In re Local 195, 88 N.J. at 404.
As to the second prong, a topic of employment negotiations is not automatically
precluded just because of “the mere existence of legislation relating to a given term or
condition of employment.” Bethlehem Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. Bethlehem Twp. Educ. Ass'n,
91 N.J. 38, 44 (1982). Instead, a subject is preempted when the legislative provision
relating to the subject “speak[s] in the imperative and leave[s] nothing to the discretion of
the public employer.” In re Ridgefield Park Bd. of Educ., 244 N.J. 1, 18 (2020) (internal
citations omitted). Thus, a legislative provision “which expressly set[s] terms and
conditions of employment . . . for public employees may not be contravened by negotiated
agreement.” Ibid. (internal citations omitted).
Here, Chapter 44 speaks in the imperative and leaves no discretion to the
employer as to the decision to offer an NJEHP- or GSHP-equivalent plan at the statutory
contribution amounts. As petitioners argue, Chapter 44 mandates that the equivalent
plans “shall” be offered, dictates which employees are required to be enrolled in such

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04116-21
10
plans, and sets forth the specific contribution-sharing amounts. See N.J.S.A.
18A:16-13.2. Chapter 44 contains no precatory or discretionary language granting the
authority to refuse to offer employees these plans. Chapter 44 provides no exception for
a district to refuse to provide the plans at the statutory contribution amounts.
The Board argues that Chapter 44 does not preempt the 2022−2027 agreement,
which was negotiated with knowledge of Chapter 44. The Board points to the
amendments to Chapter 44, which require parties to negotiate “to substantially mitigate
the financial difference” between a previous collective bargaining agreement and the
Chapter 44 requirements. Section 8 of Chapter 44, as amended by Section 3 of Chapter
163, does require parties to undergo negotiations “to substantially mitigate the financial
impact” to the employer where an increase in costs occurs “as a result of” changes
required by Chapter 44.
The petitioners posit that “the plain language of c.44 requires respondent to offer
an NJEHP and GSHP-equivalent plan to all employees. Certain employees are required
to be enrolled in the NJEHP or GSHP based upon their hire date, while other employees
may elect to be enrolled in the plan of their choice.” (Pet’rs’ Dec. 2, 2024, Br. at 8.)
Petitioners state that the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) addressed
this issue in Franklin Twp. Educ. Ass’n v. Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Twp., 2023 NJ PERC
LEXIS 5, Final Decision (Jan. 26, 2023). In that case, PERC reasoned that any net-cost
increase to an employer “as a result of” offering the NJEHP-equivalent plan is necessarily
“speculative in nature until after the Board has actually offered and implemented that
plan.” Id. at 2. Accordingly, the Commission agreed with the ALJ that Chapter 44 clearly
and unambiguously requires employers to first offer an NJEHP-equivalent plan, rejecting
the board’s argument that a board does not have to offer the plan until after the mitigating
negotiations take place. Additionally, the Commission held that the matter was not moot
just because the board had agreed to hold an open enrollment to determine how many
employees would select the NJEHP plan for consideration during negotiations. PERC
reasoned this did not “cure” the board’s ongoing refusal to offer such a plan.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04116-21
11
I therefore CONCLUDE that the meaning of this provision has been clearly
established: employers must first offer employees the equivalent plan; then, if there is a
net cost increase, the parties must negotiate to mitigate the financial impact.
The Commissioner of Education has since reached a similar conclusion in Queen
City Acad. Educ. Ass’n v. Queen City Acad. Bd. of Trs., EDU 01028-21, Initial Decision
(Jan. 20, 2023), adopted, Comm’r (Feb. 28, 2023) https://njlaw.
rutgers.edu/collections/oal/html/initial/edu01028-21_1.html. The commissioner agreed
with the ALJ that the language of Chapter 44 “requires negotiations only after the Board
offers an NJEHP-equivalent plan, if there is a net cost increase.” Thus, under the
amendments to Chapter 44, the Board must first provide the equivalent plan and then
proceed to negotiations over any increase in net costs.
Accordingly, the Board in this matter was required to offer employees like petitioner
the option to enroll in an equivalent plan before negotiating the 2022−2027 collective
bargaining agreement with the Association. There is no dispute that the Board has not
done so. The Board cites an AON report for its failure to do so, but, as petitioners point
out, this report is not law and is therefore not binding. Thus, the Board’s refusal was in
violation of Chapter 44, which preempts both the 2019−2022 and 2022−2027 collective
bargaining agreements.
Furthermore, Chapter 44 provides that notwithstanding the provisions of any other
law, rule, or regulation to the contrary, beginning January 1, 2021, a board of education
as an employer providing health care benefits coverage for its employees “shall offer to
its employees, and their dependents if any, the equivalent of the [NJEHP] in the [SEHBP]
as that plan design is described in [N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.46.13].” N.J.S.A.
18A:16-13.2(a)(1). The plans under this section shall be offered by the employer
regardless of any collective negotiations agreement between the employer and its
employees in effect on the effective date (July 1, 2020) that provides for enrollment in
other plans offered by the employer. N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2(a)(2).
Chapter 44 requires affected employees and retirees to contribute annually toward
the cost of their health care benefits coverage an amount equal to a percentage of each

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04116-21
12
employee's annual base salary or retiree's annual retirement allowance, according to a
range of specified contribution rates and a corresponding range of specified
salaries/retirement-allowances, as set forth in N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.46.14 and as calculated
according to N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.46.16. By setting the required contribution solely as a
percentage of base salary/retirement allowance, Chapter 44 eliminates the requirement
under Chapter 78 that tied the contribution amount to a percentage of the premium. For
the plan year commencing on January 1, 2028, and for each plan year thereafter, Chapter
44 permits the contribution amounts to again be modified through collective negotiations.
N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.46.14(h).
The statutory definition of “employee” provides no minimum hourly or weekly
requirement to qualify for entitlement to coverage under Chapter 44 for employers like the
Board who do not participate in SEHBP. Instead, N.J.S.A. 18A:1-1 defines “employee”
as “the holder of any position or employment.” As a part-time lunch paraprofessional,
petitioner fits within this broad definition. I therefore CONCLUDE that petitioner Capra
and other part-time paraprofessionals are thus covered by Chapter 44’s entitlement to
healthcare coverage, and the Board was required to provide the option to enroll in an
equivalent plan at the amounts set forth by N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.46.14 and N.J.S.A.
52:14-17.46.16 before negotiating the 2022-2027 collective bargaining agreement.
When interpreting a statute or regulation, our courts assume that the framers
intended to ascribe to words their ordinary meaning. Jablonowska v. Suther, 195 N.J. 91,
105 (2008). The intent of a statute or regulation should be gleaned from a view of the
whole and of every part of the statute, with the real intention prevailing over the literal
sense of its terms. Schierstead v. City of Brigantine, 29 N.J. 220, 230 (1959). I
CONCLUDE that the plain language of N.J.S.A. 18A:16-13.2 supports petitioners’ view
that P.L. 2020, Chapter 44 requires public employers to provide an equivalent plan to the
NJEHP or GSHP to its employees at specific statutory contribution rates based on the
employee’s annual base salary or retirement allowance. This language is mandatory,
leaving no discretion to the employer to decide whether such a plan should be offered or
to decide at what rates employees must contribute to such plans.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04116-21
13
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Summary Decision is GRANTED in
favor of petitioners, Judy Capra and the Wall Township Education Association. It is further
ORDERED as follows:
1. All part-time paraprofessionals are allowed to be enrolled in the NJEHP or
GSHP plans at the statutory cost-sharing amount.
2. Respondent is to cease from charging paraprofessionals 70% of the cost of
coverage if enrolled in a c.44 plan;
3. Respondent is to reimburse any members wrongfully charged, retroactive
to January 1, 2021.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified or rejected by the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04116-21
14
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, P.O. 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.
May 13, 2025
DATE JOAN M. BURKE, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
JMB/kd/jm

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04116-21
15
APPENDIX
Exhibits
Joint Exhibits:
The Parties' Joint Stipulated Facts and Exhibits
For petitioner:
Petitioners’ December 2, 2024, Brief
Petitioners’ February 14, 2025, Reply Brief
For respondent:
Respondent’s January 22, 2025, Brief