Joyce Cason v. New Jersey Department of Education, Criminal History Review Unit, 1/4/2021, (#2-21)

2-21
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 03248-19
Agency Dkt. No. 6-1/19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
Joyce Cason,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education, Criminal
History Review Unit,
Respondent.
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.
Upon review, the Commissioner agrees with the Administrative Law Judge that petitioner
has abandoned her appeal by failing to appear at telephone conferences on July 22 and November 5,
2020, and failing to respond to discovery requests. 	Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the
final decision in this matter, and the petition is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	January 4, 2021
Date of Mailing: 	January 4, 2021
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).

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
DISMISSAL
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03248-19
AGENCY DKT. NO. 6-1/19
JOYCE CASON,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, CRIMINAL HISTORY
REVIEW UNIT,
Respondent.
__________________________
Joyce Cason, petitioner, pro se
Jaclyn M. Frey, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (Gurbir S. Grewal,
Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
Record Closed: November 17, 2020 	Decided: November 17, 2020
BEFORE MARGARET M. MONACO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Joyce Cason, challenges the determination by the Department of
Education, 	Criminal 	History 	Review 	Unit 	(the 	CHRU), 	that 	she 	is 	permanently

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03248-19
2
disqualified from employment with an educational institution under the supervision of the
Department of Education based upon her criminal record.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or about January 11, 2019, petitioner filed a Petition of Appeal with the
Commissioner of Education challenging her employment disqualification. 	On or about
February 21, 2019, respondent filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of an Answer. 	The
Department of Education transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law,
where it was filed for determination as a contested case. 	A telephone conference was
held on April 10, 2019, after which respondent withdrew its motion to dismiss and filed
an answer on or about April 18, 2019. 	A prehearing conference was held on June 14,
2019, 	during 	which 	the 	hearing 	was 	scheduled 	for 	December 	20, 	2019, 	and 	a
Prehearing Order was issued on June 17, 2019. 	The hearing was adjourned at the
parties’ joint request and rescheduled for June 17, 2020 and later adjourned to August
11, 2020. 	During a telephone conference on December 18, 2019, petitioner was
directed to respond to respondent’s discovery requests by January 31, 2020. 	The
undersigned later extended the time for petitioner to respond to the discovery requests
to March 16, 2020. 	By letter dated July 1, 2020, Ms. Frey advised that petitioner had
not 	provided 	discovery 	by 	the 	extended 	deadline 	and 	requested 	a 	telephone
conference. 	By e-mail dated July 20, 2020, petitioner was informed that a telephone
conference would be held on July 22, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. 	Although Ms. Frey attended
that telephone conference, there was no appearance by petitioner. 	Subsequently, the
August 11, 2020 hearing was adjourned, and respondent filed a motion to compel
discovery on or about August 19, 2020. 	Petitioner did not file a response or opposition
to that motion, which I granted by Order dated September 2, 2020. 	Pursuant to that
Order, petitioner was ordered to provide discovery responses within twenty days of the
date of the Order or by September 22, 2020. By letter dated October 1, 2020, Ms. Frey
advised that petitioner had not provided any discovery responses as ordered and
requested a telephone conference. 	By letter dated October 20, 2020, the undersigned
informed petitioner that “a MANDATORY telephone conference in this matter will be
held on November 5, 2020 at 3:00 p.m.” 	The letter further informed petitioner that “a
failure by her to participate in this conference will result in the dismissal of her Petition.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03248-19
3
Although Ms. Frey attended that telephone conference, there was no appearance by
petitioner.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I FIND the following uncontested FACTS:
1. 	Petitioner was afforded proper notice of the telephone conferences on July
22 and November 5, 2020.
2. 	Neither petitioner nor a representative on petitioner’s behalf appeared for
the July 22 and November 5, 2020 telephone conferences.
3. 	Petitioner did not contact the undersigned to request an adjournment of
the scheduled telephone conferences or to advise that she could not
appear for the telephone conferences on July 22 and November 5, 2020.
4. 	To date, petitioner has not contacted the undersigned in writing or by
telephone concerning her failure to appear for the scheduled proceedings
on July 22 and November 5, 2020 or to explain the reason for her failure
to appear.
5. 	Petitioner has failed to respond to respondent’s discovery requests.
6. 	Petitioner has failed to comply with the Order dated September 2, 2020.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Petitioner 	failed 	to 	appear 	at 	the 	scheduled 	proceedings 	on 	July 	22 	and
November 5, 2020, and she failed to provide an explanation for nonappearance. 	See
N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4(a) (providing that if, after appropriate notice, a party does not appear
at a scheduled proceeding, the judge shall direct the Clerk to return the matter to the
transmitting agency if the judge does not receive an explanation for the nonappearance

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03248-19
4
within one day). 	Petitioner has also failed to comply with established discovery
deadlines, including the September 2, 2020 Order requiring her to provide discovery
responses within twenty days of the date of the Order. 	Based upon the foregoing, I
CONCLUDE that petitioner has failed to prosecute, and has abandoned, her appeal.
Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that petitioner’s Petition of Appeal should be dismissed.
ORDER
I ORDER that petitioner’s Petition of Appeal be and hereby is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03248-19
5
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATTN: 	BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES
AND DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500, marked “Attention: Exceptions.” A copy of any exceptions must be sent to
the judge and to the other parties.
November 17, 2020
DATE 	MARGARET M. MONACO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
jb