Jonathan Wadley v. Department of Education, Office of Student Protection, 4/11/2023, (#110-23)

110-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Jonathan Wadley,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education, Office of
Student Protection,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner appealed the decision of the respondent New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Student
Protection (OSP), permanently disqualifying him from employment with any educational institution under
the supervision of the Department of Education pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1. Petitioner had twice pled
guilty, in February 2000 and April 2001, to the second-degree offense of possession of a controlled
dangerous substance with intent to distribute on or near a public facility. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1(a). Twenty
years after his convictions, petitioner applied to be a substitute teacher and submitted to a background
check which revealed his criminal record. The OSP filed a motion to dismiss.
The ALJ found that: N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 is clear in its requirement that a school cannot employ a staff
member if that individual has a disqualifying criminal history record; petitioner’s criminal history record
check revealed two convictions for drug offenses which are permanently disqualifying for employment in
New Jersey schools, even as a substitute teacher; 	petitioner’s arguments that the New Jersey Cannabis
Regulatory 	Enforcement 	Assistance 	and 	Marketplace 	Modernization 	Act 	decriminalizes 	marijuana
possession and therefore his convictions should not bar his ability to work in a public school are without
merit, as only certain charges under the Act will be dismissed, vacated, or expunged, and possession of a
controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute on or near a public facility is not one of those
enumerated charges. Accordingly, the ALJ granted OSP’s motion to dismiss, as petitioner did not make a
claim for which relief can be granted.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ findings and conclusion, and adopted the
Initial Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this matter. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
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.

1
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 09223-22
Agency Dkt. No. 211-8/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Jonathan Wadley,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education, Office of
Student Protection,
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.
In this matter, petitioner challenges his permanent disqualification from employment with an
educational institution under the supervision of the Department of Education (Department). On
February 3, 2000, and again on April 6, 2001, petitioner pled guilty to the second-degree offense of
possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute on or near a public facility.
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1(a). Approximately 20 years after his convictions, petitioner applied to be a substitute
teacher and submitted to a background check which revealed his criminal record. On August 15, 2022,
the Office of Student Protection (OSP) notified petitioner that, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1, he is
permanently disqualified from employment or service in public education. Thereafter, petitioner filed
the instant petition.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that N.J.A.C. 18A:7.1(b) dictates petitioner’s
disqualification to work in a public school, including as a substitute teacher. The ALJ disagreed with
petitioner’s arguments that the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Enforcement Assistance and
110-23

2
Marketplace Modernization Act (Act) decriminalizes marijuana possession and therefore his convictions
should not bar his ability to work in a public school. The ALJ noted that only certain charges under the
Act will be dismissed, vacated, or expunged, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance with
intent to distribute on or near a public facility is not one of those enumerated charges. As such, the ALJ
granted OSP’s motion to dismiss as petitioner did not make a claim for which relief can be granted.
The Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that petitioner is disqualified from working in a public
institution under the supervision of the Department. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1, an individual is
permanently disqualified if he or she has been convicted of any crime of the first or second degree.
Additionally, a person is permanently disqualified for any offense involving the “manufacture,
transportation, sale, possession, distribution or habitual use of a ‘controlled dangerous substance’ . . . ”
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1(b). Petitioner was convicted twice of a second-degree offense, and those convictions
involve the possession, sale, or distribution of a controlled dangerous substance. As such, he must be
disqualified from employment in public education, in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and
the petition is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
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.
April 11, 2023
April 12, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
MOTION TO DISMISS
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09223-22
AGENCY DKT. NO. 211-8/22
JONATHAN WADLEY,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF STUDENT PROTECTION,
Respondent.
Jonathan Wadley, petitioner, pro se
Sydney Finkelstein, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin,
Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
Record Closed: February 13, 2023 Decided: March 10, 2023
BEFORE TRICIA M. CALIGUIRE, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner Jonathan Wadley challenges the decision of respondent New Jersey
Department of Education, Office of Student Protection (Department), that he is
disqualified from employment in a public school, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1(b).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09223-22
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 15, 2022, petitioner filed a petition of appeal with the New Jersey
Department of Education, Office of Controversies and Disputes. On October 11, 2022,
respondent filed an answer and motion for dismissal. The Commissioner of Education
did not rule on the motion but transmitted it with the petition to the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) on October 13, 2022, for hearing as a contested case, pursuant to N.J.S.A.
52:14B-1 to -15, and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
The matter was scheduled for a telephone prehearing conference on December 8,
2022, but petitioner failed to appear or to contact the OAL to explain his absence. The
telephone prehearing conference was rescheduled for January 11, 2023, but petitioner
failed to appear. In response to an email from the OAL, petitioner stated that he was
unable to get away from work for the prehearing conference and asked that it be
rescheduled. The parties appeared for a telephone prehearing conference on January
26, 2023, during which a briefing schedule for respondent’s motion to dismiss was issued.
On January 31, 2023, petitioner filed a response in opposition to respondent’s motion to
dismiss. Respondent replied on February 13, 2023, and the motion is now ripe for review.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The following FACTS1 are not in dispute and accordingly, I FIND:
1. Petitioner is an adult male. On or before August 1, 2022, petitioner applied
to serve as a substitute teacher in a New Jersey high school. This
application was denied, as described below.
2. On February 3, 2000, at the approximate age of nineteen years old,
petitioner was charged with, and pled guilty to, the second-degree offense
1 Most of the documents transmitted by the Department are illegible and therefore, to establish background
and non-disputed facts, I relied mainly on statements made by the parties in their moving and responsive
papers which were not challenged by the other party.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09223-22
3
of possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute
on or near a public facility, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1(a).2
3. On April 6, 2001, petitioner was charged with, and pled guilty to, the second-
degree offense of possession of a controlled dangerous substance with
intent to distribute on or near a public facility, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-
7.1(a).
4. On December 9, 2001, petitioner completed a six-month drug program
conducted by the Mercer County, New Jersey Drug Court Program.
5. On June 7, 2006, petitioner completed five years of probation. There was
no evidence presented of additional criminal charges.
6. By statute, any person applying for employment with, or to volunteer at, a
public school in New Jersey must submit to a background check. N.J.S.A.
18A:6-7.1(b). The background check conducted following petitioner’s
application for employment as a substitute teacher revealed his above-
described criminal record.3
7. Petitioner stated that he has completed college, has been accepted into the
Screen Actors Guild (actors’ union), and has found steady employment in
the television industry. He is a father of four and grandfather of two and
believes he is well qualified to work with children.
8. On August 26, 2022, after enactment of the New Jersey Cannabis
Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance and Marketplace Modernization Act,
P.L. 2021, c. 19 (the Act), petitioner applied to have his above-described
criminal record expunged. His expungement application is pending.
2 Petitioner now claims that he was improperly charged; the action of the Trenton Police Department in
charging petitioner more than twenty years ago is not at issue in this proceeding.
3 Again, the documentary record provided by the parties was incomplete or illegible, but this can be
presumed based on the requirements of the statute and the content of the notice respondent gave petitioner
of his disqualification for employment in a New Jersey public school.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09223-22
4
9. On August 15, 2022, respondent notified petitioner in writing that he is
“permanently disqualified from serving in any position, paid or unpaid, with
any educational institution under the supervision of the Department of
Education, or with a contracted service provider under contract with said
school or educational facility.”
10. This appeal was timely filed by petitioner.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
The rules of procedure governing petitions of appeal filed with the Commissioner
permit a respondent to submit a motion to dismiss in lieu of (or with) an answer “on the
grounds that the petitioner has advanced no cause of action even if the petitioner’s factual
allegations are accepted as true or for lack of jurisdiction, failure to prosecute or other
good reason.” N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.5(g); N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10. However, these education rules
do not offer any guidance on the standards by which such motions should be assessed.
The Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules (UAPR), N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.3,
also do not address the standards for such motions. However, the UAPR, which “shall
be construed to achieve just results, simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and
the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay,” state that, “[i]n the absence of a rule,
a judge may proceed in accordance with the New Jersey Court Rules, provided the rules
are compatible with these purposes.” N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.3(a).
Here, the court rule that fills the void is R. 4:6-2 which, like N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.5(g)
and N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10, allows for motions for judgment on the pleadings. And since R.
4:6-2 serves the interests of time and expense and may help achieve just results, it is
compatible with the UAPR’s purposes, and thus it is appropriate to assess respondent’s
motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer under the standards used by the courts in applying
R. 4:6-2.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09223-22
5
Under these standards, if the basis for a motion to dismiss is that the petition has
advanced no cause of action, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
“the test for determining the adequacy of [the] pleading [is] whether a cause of action is
‘suggested’ by the facts,” such that the “inquiry is limited to examining the legal sufficiency
of the facts alleged on the face of the complaint.” Printing-Mart Morristown, 116 N.J. at
746 (citing R. 4:6-2(e)); Velantzas, 109 N.J. at 192; Rieder v. Dep’t of Transp., 221 N.J.
Super. 547, 552 (App.Div. 1987)).
Importantly, for purposes of the motion, it does not matter whether a petitioner can
ultimately “prove the allegation contained in the complaint” because “all facts alleged in
the complaint and the legitimate inferences drawn therefrom are deemed admitted.” Ibid.
(citing Somers Constr. Co. v. Bd. of Educ., 198 F.Supp. 732, 734 (D.N.J.1961)); Smith v.
City of Newark, 136 N.J. Super. 107, 112 (App. Div.1975) (citing Heavner v. Uniroyal,
Inc., 63 N.J. 130, 133 (1973); J.H. Becker, Inc. v. Marlboro Twp., 82 N.J. Super. 519, 524
(App. Div. 1964)). While “[a] complaint should not be dismissed . . . where a cause of
action is suggested by the facts . . . a dismissal is mandated where the factual allegations
are palpably insufficient to support a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Rieder,
221 N.J. Super. at 552.
Petitioner is working on his own, without the assistance of counsel. For that
reason, his pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than that by which pleadings
drafted by an attorney are judged. Anchorage Poynte Condo. Ass’n. v. Di Christo, 2017
N.J. Super. Lexis 1112 (August 17, 2017), at *5(citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519
(1972)). Even so, petitioner presents no facts sufficient to negate the application of the
following statute:
An individual . . . shall be permanently disqualified from
employment or service under this act if the individual’s
criminal history record check reveals a record of conviction for
any crime of the first or second degree; or [an] offense
involving the manufacture, transportation, sale, possession,
distribution or habitual use of a “controlled dangerous

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09223-22
6
substance” as defined in the “Comprehensive Drug Reform
Act of 1987,” N.J.S.2C:35-1 et al. or “drug paraphernalia” as
defined pursuant to N.J.S.2C:36-1 et seq.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1(b).]
In response to the motion to dismiss, Wadley notes that the Act “legaliz[es] and
regulat[es] cannabis use and possession for adults 21 years and older and
decriminaliz[es] marijuana and hashish possession.” Ltr. Br. of Petitioner Opposing
Motion to Dismiss (January 31, 2023), at 2. As respondent argues, however, the Act
does not expunge the specific crimes as to which petitioner pled guilty, nor does the Act
supersede the mandates of N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1. Specifically, under the Act, only certain
charges are qualified to be dismissed, vacated, and expunged and these enumerated
charges do not include possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to
distribute within 500 feet of a public facility. See Reply Br. of Respondent (February 13,
2023), at 3, citing N.J.S.A. 2C:35-23.1(a).
In his petition and letter brief, petitioner makes policy arguments to support his
allegations of unfair and discriminatory treatment by respondent. While it may be that the
mistakes petitioner admits making as a young adult would no longer result in criminal
charges,4 and those charges may yet be expunged from his record, until such time as the
education laws reflect the recent decriminalization of marijuana possession and use, the
above statute dictates petitioner’s disqualification to work (or volunteer) in a public school
in any capacity, including as a substitute teacher.
For the above reasons, I CONCLUDE that petitioner has not made a claim for
which relief can be granted.
4 As stated above, petitioner claims he was mischarged with intent to distribute a controlled substance
rather than simple possession. Since he was just nineteen years of age at the time of his first arrest, even
under the recent change in the law, he still could have been charged as possession of a controlled
substance by a person less than twenty-one years of age is illegal. See N.J.S.A. 24:6I-32(b).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09223-22
7
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, I ORDER that the motion of respondent
Department of Education to dismiss the petition of Jonathan Wadley for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted is hereby GRANTED and the petition of Wadley
is hereby 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, 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.
March 10, 2023
DATE TRICIA M. CALIGUIRE, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
TMC/nn