In the Matter of the Suspension of the Teaching Certificates of Helene Nguessan, Team Academy Charter School, Essex County, 5/23/2024, (#201-24)

201-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of the Suspension of the
Teaching Certificate of Helene Nguessan,
TEAM Academy Charter School, Essex County.
Synopsis
In this matter on remand, petitioner TEAM Academy Charter School (TEAM) sought to suspend
respondent’s teaching certificate pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10, alleging that she resigned from her
teaching position without providing sixty days’ notice as was required under her employment contract.
Following a hearing in the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), the ALJ issued an Initial Decision in
August 2023 concluding that the respondent’s certificate should not be suspended based on findings of
fact that indicated TEAM had terminated respondent’s employment via email dated September 2, 2022,
prior to the end of the sixty-day notice period. Following review by the Commissioner of Education, the
matter was remanded to the OAL to resolve an evidentiary issue regarding the September 2, 2022,
email and to resolve the related factual dispute concerning whether petitioner did in fact terminate
respondent’s employment on September 2, 2022.
On remand, the ALJ, inter alia, incorporated findings from her August 2023 Initial Decision: respondent
was in her third year as a kindergarten teacher with TEAM when she was told she would serve in the
position of Kindergarten Grade Level Chair for the following school year; the annual contract she received
and signed for the 2022-2023 school year was for the position of kindergarten teacher but did not mention
the Grade Level Chair title; 	the employment contract included a 60 day notice clause; 	respondent
submitted a letter of resignation on August 3, 2022, but – following a conversation with Human Resources
– agreed to work through the end of the 60 day notice period in the position of enrichment teacher;
however, respondent became frustrated with how she was treated after this change and began having
stress-related health issues; on September 2, 2022, respondent went to a doctor who wrote a letter
stating that she was experiencing work-related stress and would need additional time off; on the same
day, respondent claims she received an email terminating her employment with TEAM; she later received
an order to show cause why her teaching certificate should not be suspended for unbecoming conduct
for not continuing to teach until the end of the 60 day notice period. On remand, the ALJ clarified that
her determination that TEAM had terminated respondent was based on testimony from TEAM’s employee
relations manager, who confirmed that respondent had been terminated by TEAM on September 2, 2022.
Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that respondent did not cease to perform her duties before the expiration
of the sixty-day notice period and denied TEAM’s request to suspend her teaching certificate.
Upon review, the Commissioner, inter alia, concurred with the ALJ that, given the unique circumstances
in this case, respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10 by failing to report to work through
October 3, 2022, as TEAM had terminated her employment on September 2, 2022. Accordingly, the Initial
Decision of the OAL was adopted as the final decision in this matter, with modification to disallow the
email evidence that was never entered into the record.
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.

New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of the Suspension of the
Teaching Certificate of Helene Nguessan,
TEAM Academy Charter School, Essex County
The record of this matter, the June 1, 2023, hearing transcript, the Initial Decisions of
the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), the exceptions filed by petitioner, TEAM Academy
Charter School, Inc., pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the reply filed by respondent,
Helene Nguessan, have been reviewed and considered.
By way of background, petitioner initiated this matter to suspend respondent’s teaching
certificate pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10, alleging that she resigned from her teaching position
without providing sixty days’ notice as was required under her employment contract.
N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10 provides that “[a]ny teaching staff member employed by a board of
education . . . who shall, without the consent of the board . . . cease to perform his duties
before the expiration of the term of his employment, shall be deemed guilty of unprofessional
conduct, and the commissioner may, upon receiving notice thereof, suspend his certificate for a
period not exceeding one year.”
Following a contested hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an
Initial Decision on August 25, 2023, wherein she rendered factual findings and concluded that
201-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 4392-24 (EDU 10384-22 on remand)
Agency Dkt. No. 286-10/22

2
cease to perform her duties prior to the expiration of the sixty-day notice period on
October 3, 2022, in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10 because: (1) on September 2, 2022,
respondent’s doctor determined that she could not return to work due to a stress-related issue;
and (2) on that same day, after receiving a note from respondent’s doctor, petitioner
terminated her employment.
In November 2023, the Commissioner remanded the matter to the OAL to resolve an
evidentiary issue regarding a September 2, 2022, email referenced in the ALJ’s Initial Decision,
and to resolve a related factual dispute concerning whether petitioner terminated respondent’s
employment on September 2, 2022. The Commissioner directed the ALJ to clarify whether
emails dated September 2, 2022, and/or September 20, 2022, were moved into evidence, and
whether there was an alternative evidentiary basis for the finding that petitioner terminated
respondent on September 2, 2022 (e.g., witness testimony), independent of any emails from
petitioner to respondent. At that time, the Commissioner had not yet been provided with a
copy of the June 1, 2023, hearing transcript.1
In an Initial Decision filed April 10, 2024, in response to the remand, the ALJ clarified
that she relied upon hearing testimony from Dana Kerrihard, Employee Relations Manager, to
support her conclusion that petitioner terminated respondent’s employment on
September 2, 2022. However, the ALJ did not provide any clarification regarding the emails.
Because those emails were not part of the hearing record, the Commissioner rejects any
findings made by the ALJ in her August 25, 2023, Initial Decision with respect to same.
1 Petitioner provided the Commissioner with a copy of the June 1, 2023, hearing transcript in April 2024.
respondent’s certificate should not be suspended. The ALJ reasoned that respondent did not

3
In their exceptions, petitioner argues that the Commissioner should reject the ALJ’s
Initial Decisions and takes exception to the following findings of fact made by the ALJ: (1) TEAM
Academy “owns KIPP Upper Roseville School (KIRA)”; (2) respondent “did not receive
communications” from TEAM administration during her notice period; (3) respondent’s
“schedule was not set”; (4) respondent had “physical problems” during her notice period; and
(5) respondent “received an email from [TEAM] dated September 2, 2022.” Petitioner’s
Exceptions, at 6-16.
Petitioner also takes exception to the ALJ’s legal conclusions and asserts they are
incorrect because respondent abandoned her teaching position on September 2, 2022, prior to
the conclusion of the sixty-day notice period, thereby violating her employment contract and
N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10. Petitioner denies that it terminated respondent and claims that the ALJ
mischaracterized Kerrihard’s testimony in that regard. Petitioner emphasizes that as of
August 30, 2022, respondent had already notified Kerrihard via email that she only intended to
work through the end of that week—i.e., until September 2, 2022.
In reply, respondent contends that the ALJ’s decisions should be adopted. Citing
Kerrihard’s testimony, respondent maintains that her employment was terminated by
petitioner on September 2, 2022, before the sixty-day notice period expired. Respondent
asserts that the doctor’s note stating that she could not return to work was admitted into
evidence at the OAL hearing without objection from petitioner. Additionally, respondent
contends that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to act against her credentials because
“[t]here is no evidence that TEAM is a legally authorized board of education under the statute

4
nor an approved private school for the disabled,” and that her May 17, 2022, employment
contract is not legally enforceable. Respondent’s Reply to Exceptions, pp. 8-10.
As previously stated, the Commissioner agrees with petitioner that any factual findings
made by the ALJ in her August 25, 2023, Initial Decision regarding an email dated
September 2, 2022, are rejected, as that email is not part of the record. As for the other factual
findings disputed by petitioner, the Commissioner finds that they are adequately supported by
the record. Kerrihard’s hearing testimony reflects that TEAM Academy Charter School is a
charter school network which operates schools at multiple locations, one of which is the KIPP
Upper Roseville School location where respondent worked (see hearing transcript, pp. 11-12).
Respondent testified that due to a change in technology platform, she did not receive certain
communications from petitioner (see hearing transcript, pp. 62-63). Respondent further
testified that once she took over the enrichment teacher position, “the schedule was not set”
(see hearing transcript, p. 63). Respondent also testified that she began having “physical
problems” at work and, consequently, visited her primary care doctor (see hearing transcript, p.
69) and respondent’s Intake Assessment at Care Plus NJ, marked R-8 in evidence, states: “Client
notes symptoms to include back pain, chest pain, racing thoughts, and butterflies in her
stomach.”
Moreover, upon careful review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that respondent
did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10 by failing to report to work until October 3, 2022, because
petitioner terminated her employment on September 2, 2022. Page 43 of the hearing
transcript—specifically, Kerrihard’s testimony—fully supports the ALJ’s finding in this regard,
and the ALJ in no way mischaracterized that testimony which reads:

5
Q. Okay. Now didn’t you, in fact, terminate Ms. Nguessan
from her position before the sixty days expired?
A. Correct, we did terminate her employment.
Q. And was effective September 2, 2022; isn’t that right?
A. Correct.
Consequently, respondent’s employment term ended on September 2, 2022.
Therefore, it was not possible for respondent to report to work until October 3, 2022, when the
sixty-day notice period at issue would have expired.
Additionally, the Commissioner disagrees with petitioner that “[t]he Remand Decision, if
left standing, will send a clear message . . . that the statutory mandate for certified personnel to
work through their contractual notice period is unenforceable, since the resigning employee
can simply produce a doctor’s note from a non-counseling medical professional excusing them
from work, even if, as the evidence here demonstrates, the employee exhibited ‘minimal’
symptoms of anxiety, merely from the stress from violating her contractual notice period.”
Petitioner’s Exceptions, at 2. In this case, petitioner terminated respondent’s employment,
thereby ending the contractual relationship between the parties prior to the conclusion of the
sixty-day notice period. Once the termination occurred, the existence of the doctor’s note and
its contents became irrelevant. Since petitioner opted to terminate respondent’s employment
on September 2, 2022, any arguments it now attempts to make regarding the evidentiary
competency of the doctor’s note and respondent’s failure to continue working until the sixty-
day notice period ended on October 3, 2022, are moot.
Given the unique facts and circumstances established in this case, the Commissioner
cannot find that respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10 by ceasing to perform her duties in

6
accordance with her employment contract prior to the expiration of her employment term.
Accordingly, the Initial Decisions of the OAL are adopted, with modification as explained herein,
and the Order to Show Cause to suspend Helene Nguessan’s teaching certificate is hereby
dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: May 23, 204
Date of Mailing: May 28, 2024
2 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
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04392-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 286-10/22
(on remand EDU 10384-23)
IN THE MATTER OF THE SUSPENSION OF
THE TEACHING CERTIFICATE OF HELENE
NGUESSAN 	TEAM 	ACADEMY 	CHARTER
SCHOOL, ESSEX COUNTY,
______________________________________
Thomas O. Johnston, Esq. for Petitioner (The Johnson Law Group, LLC)
Steven V. Schusler, Esq., for Respondent
Record Closed: March 28, 2024 	Decided: April 10, 2024
BEFORE KIMBERLY A. MOSS, ALJ:
Respondent 	Helene 	Nguessan 	opposes 	the 	suspension 	of 	her 	teaching
certificates for allegedly resigning from the Team Academy Charter School, (TACS or
petitioner) without giving sixty days’ notice.
This 	matter 	was 	forwarded 	to 	the 	Office 	of 	Administrative 	Law 	from 	The
Department of Education on November 17, 2022, as a contested matter. 	The hearing

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04392-24
2
was held on June 1, 2023. 	Closing briefs were received on July 7, 2023. A reply brief
from respondent was received on August 17, 2023, at which time I closed the record. I
issued a decision on August 25, 2023. 	By Order dated November 6, 2023, the matter
was remanded to OAL. This matter was received at OAL on March 28, 2024. The New
Jersey Commission of Education requested clarification on whether an email dated
September 2, 2022 was moved into evidence; was that email intended to describe the
September 20, 2022 email; was the September 20, 2022 email moved into evidence
and was there an alternative evidentiary basis for my finding that petitioner was
terminated on September 2, 2022.
I am incorporating by reference my decision of August 25, 2023, in this matter.
Dana Kerrihard was asked:
Q. Okay, Ms Kerrihard did you have an understanding about why Ms.
Nguessan did not complete her sixty days of teaching at your institution?
A. Yes, she submitted this doctor’s note. 	(Tr. Pg. 42 lines 14-17). 	Ms
Kerrihard understood the doctor’s note to state Ms. Nguessan was under
stress and not cleared to report to work. (Tr. Pg. 42) Ms. Kerrihard did not
dispute the doctor’s note. Ms. Kerrihard testified that Nguessan was
terminated from her position effective September 2, 2022. (Tr. Pg. 43)
Nguessan testified that she gave the September 2, 2022, doctor’s letter to HR
and Ms. Geffard. (Tr. Pg. 71) She testified that she did not receive any communication
from the school until she received an email sent in late September, which stated that
she was terminated as of September 2, 2022. (Tr. Pg. 72)
Based 	on 	this 	testimony 	I 	concluded 	that 	Nguessan 	was 	terminated 	from
employment of September 2, 2022, when she had provided a doctor’s note stating that
she was not cleared to work.
I 	CONCLUDE 	Nguessan 	did 	not 	cease 	to 	perform 	her 	duties 	before 	the
expiration of the sixty-day notice period because her doctor provided a letter stating that

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04392-24
3
on September 2, 2002, that she could not return to work, and Nguessan was terminated
on September 2, 2022.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that TACS request that Nguessan’s
teaching certificates be suspended is DENIED.
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 04392-24
4
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.
April 10, 2024
DATE 	KIMBERLY A. MOSS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	April 10, 2024
Date Mailed to Parties: 	April 10, 2024
ljb

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04392-24
5
WITNESSES
For Petitioner
Dana Kerrihard
For Respondent
EXHIBITS
For Petitioner
P-1 	Nguessan Employment Agreement for 2022-2023
R-2 	Email dated August 21, 2022 from Nguessan
R-3 	Email Response to Nguessan dated August 23, 2022
For Respondent
R-1 Resignation letter related documents.
R-2 	Not in Evidence
R-3 Emails
R-4 	Doctor’s Note Dated September 2, 2022
R-5 Resignation Letter of Nguessan
R—6 Paterson ASCs Teacher Contract
R-7 Nguessan Resume
R-8 	Nguessan Medical Records
R-9 	Nguessan Contract for 2022-2023 with TACS
R-10 Not in Evidence
R-11 Not in evidence