Marian DeJesus v. New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Student Protection and Board of Education of the City of Vineland, Cumberland County, 12/2/2020, (#273-20)

273-20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Marian DeJesus,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education, Office of
Student Protection, and Board of Education of
the City of Vineland, Cumberland County,
Respondents.
Synopsis
Petitioner – a school bus driver for the Vineland Board of Education (Vineland) – challenged the
suspension of her school bus endorsement by the New Jersey Department of Education, Office of
Student Protection (OSP), and the termination of her employment by Vineland. 	These actions
followed an incident that occurred in September 2019, wherein a three-year-old preschool student
remained on the bus after petitioner had disembarked at the end of her route. The respondents filed
separate motions to dismiss the petition, which petitioner opposed.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28, school bus drivers are required to
conduct a visual inspection at the end of their transportation route to confirm that no pupils are left
on the bus; there is no dispute that a preschool student was left on the bus after petitioner finished
her route on September 13, 2019; petitioner admittedly left the bus at the garage and proceeded to
use the restroom and pick up her updated schedule before she was informed by a maintenance worker
that a preschooler was still on petitioner’s bus; N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29 mandates a six-month suspension
of petitioner’s school bus endorsement for such actions; Vineland is a civil service jurisdiction, and
petitioner’s rights and duties are governed by the Civil Service Act and accompanying regulations;
and the Civil Services Commission issued a final agency decision terminating petitioner from her
employment effective September 18, 2019. 	The ALJ concluded that: petitioner’s school bus
endorsement was properly suspended pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29; and the Commissioner lacks
jurisdiction to decide whether petitioner’s termination by Vineland was proper. 	The petition was
dismissed.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the findings of the ALJ and adopted the Initial
Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this matter. The petition was dismissed and OSP was
directed to notify the Motor Vehicle Commission of its obligation to suspend petitioner’s school bus
endorsement for six months pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:39-26 et seq.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the
reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.
December 2, 2020

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 16890-19
Agency Dkt. No. 267-10/19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
Marian DeJesus,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education, Office of
Student Protection, and Board of Education of the
City of Vineland, Cumberland County,
Respondents.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions.
On September 13, 2019, petitioner, a bus driver for respondent Vineland Board of
Education (Vineland), transported pre-school students home from school pursuant to her afternoon
bus route. Near the end of the route, petitioner pulled over to assist a child off the bus, then walked
the length of the bus to confirm that B.A. was not on board before proceeding to drop off the last two
students. Petitioner then returned to the garage and disembarked from the bus for five minutes to use
the restroom and pick up her updated bus route. 	During that time, a maintenance worker saw a
student on the bus, and petitioner subsequently found B.A. standing in the aisle.
Thereafter, respondent New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Student
Protection (OSP) notified petitioner that her “S” endorsement to operate a bus would be suspended
for six months as she failed to conduct a visual inspection at the end of her transportation route to
confirm that no pupils were left on the bus, as required by N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28. 	Additionally,
Vineland notified petitioner that it was seeking to remove her from her position as a bus driver.

2
Following a Board hearing, Vineland issued a final notice of disciplinary action removing petitioner.
As Vineland opts to be governed by the Civil Service Act, N.J.S.A. 11A:1-1 et seq., petitioner
appealed that decision to the Civil Service Commission, where it was dismissed as untimely.
Petitioner filed the instant appeal with the Commissioner challenging both the suspension of her “S”
endorsement and her termination.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner failed to inspect
the bus as required, which resulted in a student being left on the bus at the end of her route. As such,
the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ’s conclusion that N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29 mandates a six-month
suspension of petitioner’s school bus endorsement as this was her first offense. 	Additionally, the
Commissioner is in accord with the ALJ that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction over petitioner’s
termination, which has already been the subject of a final agency decision by the Civil Service
Commission.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this
matter and the petition is hereby dismissed. OSP is directed to notify the Motor Vehicle Commission
of its obligation, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28 et seq., to suspend petitioner’s school bus “S”
endorsement on her driver’s license for six months. 	Additionally, should petitioner be hired by a
new employer, OSP is directed to notify the employer that petitioner is ineligible during the period of
suspension to continue employment as a school bus driver.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	December 2, 2020
Date of Mailing: 	December 2, 2020
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008,
c. 36 (N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1).

State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION ON
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16890-2019
AGENCY DKT. NO. 267-10/19
MARIAN DEJESUS,
Petitioner,
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF STUDENT PROTECTION AND
BOARD 	OF 	EDUCATION 	OF 	THE 	CITY 	OF
VINELAND, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Respondent.
Louis M. Barbone, Esq. for petitioner (Jacobs and Barbone, P.A., attorneys)
Amna T. Toor, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent New Jersey Department
of Education — Office of Student Protection (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney
General of New Jersey, attorney)
Nicole J. Curio, Esq., for respondent Vineland Board of Education (Gruccio,
Pepper, DeSanto and Ruth, P.A., attorneys)
Record Closed: September 25, 2020 	Decided: October 19, 2020
BEFORE CATHERINE A. TUOHY, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, 	Marian 	DeJesus, 	challenges 	the 	suspension 	of 	her 	school 	bus
endorsement by respondent New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Student

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16890-2019
2
Protection (OSP), and the termination of her employment by respondent City of
Vineland
New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
Board of Education (VBE). At issue is whether petitioner's school bus endorsement
should be suspended for six months pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28 and whether
petitioner's termination of employment by the VBE is properly before the Commissioner
of Education.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By letter dated September 17, 2019, respondent OSP advised petitioner that it
intended to suspend her "S" endorsement to operate a school bus, pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:39-28, which provides for a six month suspension in a first instance of a driver's
failure 	to 	conduct 	the 	required 	visual 	inspection 	of 	the 	bus 	at 	the 	end 	of 	a
transportation route to assure that no pupil is left on the bus. Petitioner filed a Petition
of Appeal with the Commissioner of Education on September 26, 2019 and October 3,
2019.
Respondent OSP filed a motion to dismiss petitioner's appeal on November 12, 2020.
Respondent VBE filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer on November 21, 2019,
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10. By letter brief dated December 2, 2019 petitioner
opposed both respondents' motions.
The 	matter 	was 	transmitted 	by 	the 	Department 	of 	Education 	Office 	of
Controversies and Disputes to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as a contested
matter where it was filed on November 27, 2019 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15;
N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13. The undersigned conducted an initial telephone pre-hearing
conference on July 8, 2020 after being reassigned the case. Both respondents requested
that their prior motions to dismiss be converted into motions for summary decision.
Respondents were directed to provide petitioner with discovery. On September 8, 2020,
petitioner filed a brief in opposition to respondents' motions for summary decision. Both
respondents filed reply letter briefs on September 24, 2020.
FACTUAL DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS
Based on the documents submitted by the parties in support of and in opposition
to the motions for summary decision, I FIND the following as FACT:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16890-2019
3
On September 13, 2019, petitioner was performing her duties as a VBE bus driver
assigned an afternoon bus route to transport approximately thirty, three-year old
children home (Verified Petition, paragraph 2, petitioners September 8, 2020 brief,
Exhibit 1).
Towards the end of the bus route and prior to the stop for child B.A., petitioner
pulled over with lights flashing to assist another child off the bus. Prior to returning to
the operation of the bus, petitioner walked through the length of the bus in order to
confirm that B.A. was not on the bus for drop off. Petitioner then completed the
remainder of the bus run, dropping off and assisting the last two students left on the bus
(Verified Petition, paragraph 3, Exhibit 1 of Petitioner's September 8, 2020 brief).
Thereafter, petitioner drove the bus back to the District's bus facility and pulled
her bus into the garage in front of the bay because she had to pickup her updated bus
route and use the restroom. Petitioner got off the bus, got her updated route and used
the bathroom and was off the bus for approximately five minutes when a maintenance
worker advised her there was a student on the bus. Petitioner saw B.A. standing in the
center of the aisle, fastened him in his seat and drove him home, explaining the delay to
his mother (Verified Petition, paragraph 4, Exhibit 1 of petitioner's September 8, 2020
brief).
A "Report of a Student Left Unattended on the School Bus" was filled out and
reported to the Executive County Superintendent on September 13, 2019. The form
indicates that "A student is considered to have been left unattended on the school bus
at the end of the route when the driver has left the vicinity of the bus." Under the
description of the incident, the form indicates: "Bus 182 left a Pre School student on the
bus at the bus garage while she used the restroom at 5:09 p.m. The driver, Marian
DeJesus came back to the bus approximately fifteen minutes later, someone from
maintenance department informed her that there was a student on the bus. She
immediately got back into the bus and took the student home. He arrived home at 5:40
p.m." (Respondent OSP's November 12, 2019 Brief, Exhibit A)
By letter dated September 17, 2018, respondent OSP notified petitioner that it
had determined that she had left a child on the school bus to which she was assigned
and failed to conduct a visual inspection at the end of her transportation route to assure
that no pupil has been left on the bus, as required by N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28. For a first

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16890-2019
4
offense, the statute directed a six-month suspension of petitioner's "S" endorsement to
operate a school bus.
(Respondent OSP's November 12, 2019 Brief, Exhibit B)
The VBE is a district that has opted to be a Civil Service jurisdiction covered by the
Civil Service Act, N.J.S.A. 11A:1-1et seq. The position of school bus driver is a classified
career service position in civil service (Exhibit A, Respondent VBE's November 21, 2019
brief).
On September 18, 2019, petitioner was personally served by her employer VBE
with a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action form (PNDA) seeking her removal on
charges of
N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(1), incompetency, inefficiency or failure to perform duties; N.J.A.C.
4A:2-2.3(a)(6), conduct unbecoming a public employee; N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(7), neglect
of duty; and N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(12), other sufficient cause. The incident giving rise to
the charges set forth in the PNDA were as follows: "On September 13, this driver left a
preschool child on a bus with engine running while using restroom in the diesel garage
area." (Exhibit D, respondent VBE's November 21 , 2019 brie0.
On September 18, 2019 petitioner was afforded an opportunity for a hearing with
the appointing authority and was represented by two union representatives (Exhibit A,
respondent VBE's November 21 , 2019 brief).
On September 24, 2019, a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action form (FNDA) seeking
petitioner's removal effective September 18, 2019 on the same charges set forth in the
PNDA was served on petitioner via certified and regular mail at her address of record
(Exhibits A and F, respondent VBE's November 21, 2019 brie0.
The FNDA specified that petitioner had twenty days from receipt of the FNDA to
file an appeal with the Civil Service Commission and that any appeal postmarked after
the 	twenty-day 	statutory 	time 	limit 	will 	be 	denied 	(Exhibit 	F, 	respondent 	VBE's
November 21, 2019 brief).
Petitioner's letter of appeal was postmarked January 21 , 2020 (Exhibit 2, petitioner's
September 8, 2020 brief).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16890-2019
5
By final administration decision dated January 27, 2020 and issued January 28,
2020, the Civil Service Commission denied as untimely, petitioner's request for a
hearing, appealing her removal from her position of School Bus Driver with respondent
VBE, effective
September 18, 2019 (Exhibit 2, petitioner's September 8, 2020 brief).
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The respondent, OSP and respondent, VBE both seek relief pursuant to N.J.A.C.
1 :1 -12.5.
OSP seeks summary decision affirming its determination that on September 13,
2019 petitioner, while working as a bus driver for VBE, failed to conduct a visual
inspection of her bus at the end of her route, exited the bus at the Vineland bus facility
and left a child on the bus, thereby triggering the mandatory six month suspension of
her "S" endorsement to operate a school bus pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28. Petitioner
opposes OSP's motion arguing that petitioner had not yet ended her bus tour and had
not yet conducted her final visual inspection of the bus.
VBE seeks summary decision dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction, since
petitioner's rights regarding her employment by VBE are governed by the Civil Service
Commission and not the Commissioner of Education. The Civil Service Commission, by
final administration determination issued January 28, 2020 denied petitioner's request
for a hearing to appeal her removal from her position as a school bus driver for VBE,
effective September 18, 2019, for failing to file a timely appeal. Petitioner argues that
the determination of the Civil Service Commission was in error and should be vacated
and that the Commissioner of Education has the predominant interest to decide
whether petitioner's "S" endorsement should be suspended for six months.
N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5 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 entitled to prevail as a matter of law." Our regulation mirrors R. 4:46-2(c) which
provides that "the judgment or order sought shall be rendered 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."

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16890-2019
6
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 allegedly 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 and 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, 106 S. Ct.
2505, 2511, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 213 (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 251-2, 106 S. Ct. at 2512, 91 L. Ed. 2d at
214.
Following the Brill standard, after considering all the papers and evidence filed in
support and in opposition to respondents' motions for summary decision, I CONCLUDE
that there are no genuine issues of material fact that require a plenary hearing and that
both respondent OSP and VBE are entitled to summary decision as a matter of law.
OSP's Motion for Summary Decision
N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28 requires that the school bus driver "shall visually inspect the
school bus to which he is assigned at the end of the transportation route to determine
that no pupil has been left on the bus." N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28.
There is no dispute that B.A. was left on the bus after petitioner finished her
route. Petitioner admittedly finished her route and went to the garage where she
parked her bus and left the bus to use the restroom and pick up her bus route. Although
she stated that she inspected the bus to look for B.A. prior to her last stop, she had not
yet conducted her final inspection at the end of the route and therefore cannot be
found liable under the statute. This argument lacks merit as it would make no sense,
from a safety perspective, to permit her to return to the bus garage, leave the vicinity of
the bus with a child unattended on the bus, use the restroom and pickup paperwork,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16890-2019
7
and then to come back to the bus and do a final inspection to make sure there was no
child left on the bus.
The Commissioner has made it clear that the law requires that an inspection be
conducted when the last child is dropped off during the route, and not after the vehicle
has finished its drop-offs and has returned to its garage or depot. Vickery v. N.J. Dep't of
Ed. Crim. Hist. Rev. Unit, OAL Dkt. No. EDU 00083-2015, Initial Decision, (June 2, 2015),
adopted, Comm'r, Final Decision, (July 9, 2015); Klein v. New Jersey State Dep't of Educ.
Crim. Hist. Rev. Unit, EDU 00852-11, Initial Decision (January 5, 2012), rev'd, Comm'r
(February 	21, 	2012), 	<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>. 	There, 	the
Commissioner determined that the '"end of route' . terminates at the point where all of
the children in that group leave the bus to enter their school and the bus is empty of
riders, and before the driver moves on to her next route." In language expressly
dismissing 	the 	argument 	made 	by 	petitioner 	here, 	the 	Commissioner 	held 	that
"[a]ccepting petitioner's argument that the inspection did not have to take place until
the bus returned to the depot at the end of day defies reason and eviscerates the
fundamental purpose of the statute — to protect our children and ensure their safety."
See also Firman v. N.J. Dep't of Educ., Crim. Hist. Rev. Unit, EDU 04415-10, Initial
Decision 	(February 	7, 	2011), 	adopted, 	Comm'r 	(March 	24, 	2011),
<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>.
Having determined that petitioner indeed failed to inspect her bus in the manner
required by the statute and that accordingly, a student was left on the bus after the end
of her route, N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29 mandates a six-month suspension of petitioner's license.
It provides as follows:
In the event that, after notice and opportunity to be heard, a school
bus driver is found to have left a pupil on the school bus at the end of his
route, his school bus endorsement shall be:
a. suspended for six months, for a first offense
b. permanently revoked, for a second offense
[N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29.]
Petitioner offers various mitigating factors, including her length of service, the
tinted windows and black flooring on the bus, the lack of assistance provided to her, the
dark clothing the child B.A. was wearing and the fact that B.A. was not supposed to be
on the bus that day. However, the statute does not permit me to consider mitigating

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16890-2019
8
circumstances. The statute speaks in the imperative and the law does not permit me to
alter the penalty expressly required by law.
For the reasons stated above, I CONCLUDE that petitioner failed to inspect her
bus in the manner required by the statute and that accordingly, a student was left on
the bus after the end of her route which mandates a six-month suspension of
petitioner's license pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29.
VBE's Motion for Summary Decision
VBE is a civil service jurisdiction. Petitioner's rights and duties are governed by
laws including the Civil Service Act and accompanying regulations. A civil service
employee who commits a wrongful act related to her employment may be subject to
discipline, and that discipline, depending upon the incident complained of, may include
a suspension or removal. N.J.S.A. 11A:1-2, 1 1A•.2-6, 11A:2-20; N.J.A.C. 4A2-2.
A review of the relevant Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules (UAPR), and
past civil service case law involving appeals of disciplinary actions indicate that the
appointing authority must provide due process prior to depriving the employee of her
continued employment. In relevant part, "an employee must be served with a PNDA
setting forth the charges and statement of facts supporting the charges (specifications)
and afforded the opportunity for a hearing prior to imposition of major discipline
N.J.A.C. 4A:22.5(a). Next, "the employee may request a departmental hearing within five
days of receipt of the PNDA." N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.5(c). If the departmental hearing is
requested, it "shall be held within thirty days of the PNDA unless waived by the
employee or a later date as agreed to by the parties." N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.5(d). Further, it
"shall be held before the appointing authority or its designated representative" and "the
employee may be represented by an attorney or authorized union representative."
N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.6 (a) to (b). "Within twenty days of the hearing, or such additional time
as agreed to by the parties, the appointing authority shall make a decision on the
charges and furnish the employee either by personal service or certified mail with a
FNDA." N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.6 (d). The employee may appeal this FNDA to the Civil Service
Commission "within twenty days of receipt of the Notice." N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.8 (a).
In this case, petitioner was served with a PNDA specifying the charges against
her. She requested and had a hearing with her union representatives present. Following
the hearing, she was served with a FNDA upholding the charges set forth in the PNDA

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16890-2019
9
and terminating her employment as a school bus driver with respondent, effective
September 18, 2019. Petitioner had twenty days after receipt of the FNDA to file an
appeal with the Civil Service Commission. She did not file a timely appeal and was
denied a de novo hearing. Therefore, the Civil Service Commission did not transfer this
matter to the OAL to be heard as a contested case. Since the Civil Service Commission
did not transfer this matter to the OAL, there is no jurisdiction to hear this case.
Therefore, there can be no predominant interest analysis, as petitioner would argue,
since the Commissioner of Education lacks jurisdiction to hear civil service disciplinary
appeals and petitioner did not timely appeal her civil service termination.
Untimely appeals of FNDAs are "fatal" procedural failures because an "employee
is statutorily barred from filing an untimely administrative appeal." Shaquaya Lane v.
Trenton 	Psychiatric 	Hospital, 	CSV 	8595-11, 	Initial 	Decision 	(July 	27, 	2012),
<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal>, citing N.J.S.A. 11A:2-15; Monice Lawrence v.
Montclair State University, OAL Dkt. No. CSV 15428-18, Initial Decision (October 10,
2019).
The twenty-day statutory time limitation for filing an administrative disciplinary
appeal is jurisdictional and mandatory. See Borough of Park Ridge v. Salimone, 21 N.J. 28
(1956). In such cases, "it may be extended only by the legislature, not by an agency or
the courts." Mesqhali v. Bayside State Prison, 334 N.J. Super. 617, 622 (App. Div. 2000),
citing Schaible Oil Co. v. New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Protection, 246 N.J. Super.
29, 31, 586 A.2d 853 (App Div.).
The 	Civil 	Service 	Commission's 	January 	27, 	2020 	decision 	was 	a 	final
administrative decision in the matter and any further review had to be pursued in a
judicial 	forum. 	Petitioner 	had 	forty-five 	days 	to 	file 	an 	appeal 	from 	the 	final
administrative decision with the Appellate Division. Since she did not, petitioner remains
terminated from her position as a school bus driver for the VBE, effective September 18,
2019.
Therefore, based on the above, I CONCLUDE that the Commissioner of Education
lacks jurisdiction to decide whether petitioner's termination from the VBE was proper,
as the Civil Service Commission has previously issued a final agency determination
denying petitioner's request for a hearing and there was no subsequent appeal to the
Appellate
Division.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16890-2019
10
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the motions for summary decision filed by respondents OSP
and VBE are GRANTED and the petition of appeal is DISMISSED.
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.
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, IOO Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
086250500, marked "Attention: Exceptions." A copy of any exceptions must be
sent to the
judge 	and 	to 	the 	other
parties.
October 	19
2020
DATE
Date Received at Agency:
Mailed to Parties:
/mel
CATHERINE A. TUOHY,
ALJ
October 	19, 	2020
(emailed)
October 	19, 	2020
(emailed)

APPENDIX
List of Exhibits
For Petitioner:
December 2, 2019 letter brief in opposition to respondents' motion
September 8, 2020 Brief in Opposition to Motions for Summary Decision
by
OSP and VBE, with attached Exhibits 1 and 2
For Respondents:
November 12, 2019 Letter Brief in support of respondent OSP's Motion to
Dismiss, with attached Exhibits A and B
November 21 , 2019 Brief in support of respondent VBE's Motion to
Dismiss, with attached Exhibits A through G
September 24, 2020 Reply Letter Brief of OSP
September 24, 2020 Reply Letter Brief of VBE