Noemia Gomes v. Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth, Union County, 9/19/19, (#243-19)

243-19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
Noemia Gomes,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth, Union
County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner – formerly a tenured secretary in the respondent Board’s school district – appealed her removal
from the Board’s health benefits plan, and sought reimbursement for the insurance premiums she
continued to pay thereafter through COBRA. The action to terminate payment of her insurance premiums
occurred after Ms. Gomes had been absent from work for more than 180 days during the 2016-2017
school year. The Board contended that its actions were lawful, as it acted in compliance with the school
district’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which provides that the Board “…shall continue to pay
the full premium for each employee working an average of 20 hours or more per week”; as petitioner had
not been working the required number of hours, nor was she on an approved leave of absence, the Board
terminated her health benefits on June 14, 2017. In a separate proceeding, the Board filed tenure charges
against petitioner in February 2018, and she was subsequently dismissed from her position by an
Arbitrator in a decision dated March 4, 2019. The parties filed cross motions for summary decision.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	there are no material facts at issue here, and the matter is ripe for
summary decision; health insurance is a benefit subject to the CBA, and health insurance benefits are not
compensation as set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10; however, the CBA is silent on how, or when, health
insurance benefits should be terminated given the facts in this matter; petitioner had a long history of
extremely poor attendance, and stopped working altogether in August 2017; prior to that date, in June
2017, the Board ceased payment of health insurance premiums for petitioner; and, for unknown reasons,
the Board failed to file tenure charges against petition until February 2018. The ALJ concluded that the
Board should have proceeded with the filing of tenure charges instead of waiting until eight months after
the termination of petitioner’s health benefits before filing charges. 	Accordingly, the ALJ ordered the
Board to reimburse petitioner for the cost of health benefits for the period from the date benefits were
terminated in June 2017 to the date the Board certified tenure charges in February 2018, in the amount of
$40,276.46.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred that health insurance benefits for a tenured employee are
controlled by the CBA and are not compensation under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10. However, the Commissioner
found that the ALJ erred in determining that the Board was required to file tenure charges in order to
terminate petitioner’s health benefits. Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL was rejected as the
final decision in this matter. Petitioner is not entitled to reimbursement for the cost of any health benefit
premiums. 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.
September 19, 2019

1
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 17465-17
Agency Dkt. No. 214-9/17
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Noemia Gomes,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth,
Union County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) have been reviewed, as have the exceptions filed by the parties pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and petitioner’s reply thereto.
Petitioner, a tenured secretary, challenges her removal from the Board’s health
benefit plan after she was absent from work more than 180 days during the 2016-17 school year.
Regarding 	health 	benefits, 	the 	school 	district’s 	Collective 	Bargaining 	Agreement 	(CBA)
provides: “The Board shall continue to pay the full premium for each employee working an
average of at least 20 hours or more per week.” As petitioner had not been working an average
of 20 hours per week, nor was she on an approved leave of absence, the Board terminated
petitioner’s health benefits on June 14, 2017. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the within appeal.1
The Board subsequently certified tenure charges against petitioner on February 22, 2018. 	In a
1 Petitioner continued to pay her health insurance premiums through COBRA following her termination
from the Board’s health benefit plan.

2
separate proceeding on the tenure charges, petitioner was dismissed from her position by an
Arbitrator in a decision dated March 4, 2019.
In the instant Initial Decision, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that
health insurance is a benefit subject to the CBA, and is not compensation pursuant to the tenure
law, N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10. 	However, the ALJ found that the CBA did not provide guidance as to
how, or when, health insurance benefits should be terminated. As such, the ALJ concluded that
the Board should have proceeded by filing tenure charges first, instead of waiting until eight
months 	after 	the 	termination 	of 	petitioner’s 	health 	benefits 	before 	filing 	the 	charges.
Accordingly, the ALJ ordered the Board to reimburse petitioner for the cost of health benefits in
the amount of $40,276.46, representing petitioner’s out of pocket costs from the date the benefits
were 	terminated 	on 	June 	14, 	2017, 	to 	the 	date 	the 	Board 	certified 	tenure 	charges 	on
February 22, 2018.
In its exceptions, the Board maintains that the ALJ properly determined that
health 	benefits 	are 	governed 	by 	the 	CBA 	and 	are 	not 	considered 	compensation 	under
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10 and N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5. 	However, the Board takes exception to the ALJ’s
conclusion that petitioner is entitled to reimbursement for health benefits through the date
upon which the Board certified tenure charges against petitioner. The Board argues that the ALJ
erred in finding that the CBA did not delineate how or when termination of health benefits
should occur. The CBA states that an employee must work a minimum of 20 hours per week to
quality for health benefits. As such, there is no need for further detail regarding how or when to
terminate health benefits since a staff member who does not work at least 20 hours does not
qualify for such benefit. Here, the Board emphasizes that petitioner was not working an average

3
of 20 or more hours per week when the benefit was terminated, nor was she on an approved
leave of absence.
The Board also contends that the ALJ erred in finding that the ability to terminate
health insurance benefits hinges on the filing of tenure charges, as there is no support for such a
finding. The ALJ’s determinations contradicted one another: he first found that the CBA is the
controlling document regarding the payment of health insurance premiums, and that health
insurance benefits are not compensation under the tenure laws; he then concluded, however, that
tenure charges should have been filed pursuant to the tenure laws in order to terminate
petitioner’s health benefits. 	The Board maintains that health benefits are not contemplated by
the tenure laws, so the filing of tenure charges should not be a prerequisite to the termination of
premium payments, especially since health benefits under the CBA cover non-tenured employees
in addition to tenured employees.
Alternatively, the Board argues that the ALJ concluded the respondent was
untimely in filing tenure charges, yet the ALJ failed to conduct any fact-finding on the issue
before reaching his conclusion. 	The Board maintains that the tenure laws do not set forth
specific timeframes for the filing of tenure charges in matters, such as this one, wherein
petitioner abandoned her position. Additionally, tenure charges are fact specific and are part of a
lengthy process. The Board contends that the ALJ improperly made the determination that eight
months was an unreasonable period of time to wait before certifying tenure charges, without first
conducting fact-finding as to the history of petitioner’s attendance issues or why the Board
certified charges when it did.
In reply to the Board’s exceptions, petitioner argues that the ALJ properly found
that the CBA does not provide guidance on how or when to terminate health insurance

4
premiums. Petitioner contends that the Board cannot act unilaterally by canceling health benefits
anytime it chooses; rather, such decisions should be part of the collective negotiation process.
Petitioner disputes the Board’s interpretation of the ALJ’s finding that the Board was required to
file tenure charges in order to terminate the payment of health premiums. 	Instead, petitioner
argues that the ALJ found that the Board waited a lengthy time to file tenure charges without
explanation, and that in effect, the board terminated petitioner – a tenured employee – by ceasing
to pay her salary and insurance payments, thereby bypassing the tenure laws. Petitioner further
contends that the issue of the timeliness of the tenure charges was not raised sua sponte by the
ALJ, and was instead raised by petitioner in her cross motion for summary decision. 	As such,
petitioner urges the Commissioner to reject the Board’s exceptions and adopt the Initial Decision
without modification.
Upon review, the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that health insurance
benefits for a tenured employee are controlled by the CBA, and are not considered compensation
for the purposes of N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10. 	The Commissioner has made clear that “the term
‘compensation’ with respect to the tenure right protections provided by education law is by now
well-established, having been explicitly defined as encompassing only salary.” Thomas Manna
v. Board of Education of the Somerset County Vocational Technical School District, Somerset
County, Commissioner’s Decision No. 178-10, June 14, 2010, at 4 (emphasis in original).
Additionally, the Commissioner has found that health insurance benefits – in addition to other
benefits such as accumulated sick leave – are not preserved and protected by the tenure statutes,
and 	instead 	are 	“a 	contractual 	benefit 	subject 	to 	collective 	bargaining 	negotiations.”
Manna, supra, at 5; 	Arlene C. Allen, et al v. Board of Education of the Township of Clark,
Union 	County, 	Commissioner 	Decision 	No. 	189-04, 	April 	30, 	2004, 	aff’d 	State 	Board,

5
September 1, 2004. 	As such, the Commissioner agrees that petitioner’s health benefits are
governed by the CBA.
However, the Commissioner disagrees with the ALJ’s determination that the
Board was required to file tenure charges in order to terminate petitioner’s health benefits. 	As
the payment of health benefit premiums is controlled by the CBA, and is not considered salary
under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10, the termination of health benefits cannot logically be impacted in any
way by the filing of tenure charges. The Commissioner agrees with the Board that, as petitioner
did not work for 20 hours per week and was not on an approved leave, she was not eligible for
health benefits under the CBA. 	As the Commissioner found in Manna, supra, when the
petitioner went from a full-time position to a part-time position following a reduction in force,
“because petitioner did not qualify as ‘eligible’ for health insurance benefits pursuant to the
Contract, he possesses no entitlement to this benefit.” 	Similarly, here, petitioner has no
entitlement to health insurance benefits if she does not meet the minimum requirement of
working 20 hours per week. 	Accordingly, the Board’s action in terminating the payment of
petitioner’s health benefit premiums was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the law.
The Commissioner does not find petitioner’s reply exceptions to be persuasive.
Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the Board is not able to act unilaterally and cancel health
benefits anytime it chooses. The Board must act in accordance with the eligibility requirements
for health benefits, which were part of the collective negotiation process and are set forth in the
CBA. Additionally, the termination of petitioner’s health insurance premiums did not effectively
terminate her employment and bypass the tenure laws. 	As detailed above, health insurance
benefits are not compensation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10.

6
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is rejected as the final decision in
this matter for the reasons expressed herein. 	Petitioner is not entitled to reimbursement for the
cost of any health benefit premiums. The petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	September 19, 2019
Date of Mailing: 	September 20, 2019
2 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).

1
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17465-17
AGENCY REF. NO. 214-9/17
NOEMIA GOMES,
Petitioner
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY
OF ELIZABETH, UNION COUNTY,
Respondent.
_______________________________
Paul W. Tyshchenko, Esq., for Petitioner (Caruso, Smith, Picini, attorneys)
Nishali 	Amin 	Rose, 	Esq., 	for 	Respondent 	(Floria, 	Perrucci, 	Steinhardt 	&
Cappelli, attorneys)
Record Closed: May 24, 2019 	Decided: Jume 21, 2019
BEFORE THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner, Noemia Gomez, appeals her removal from Respondent Board’s health
benefit plan.

2
The matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where it
was filed on November 17, 2017, as a contested case. 	N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15;
N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
A pre-hearing telephone conference was held on December 1, 2017, and a Pre-
Hearing Order was entered on the same date.
Petitioner’s counsel submitted correspondence requesting an adjournment of the
March 21, 2018, hearing date, and that the matter be placed on the inactive list pending
the outcome of a tenure charge hearing. 	Respondent’s counsel joined in the request.
The matter was placed on the inactive list by order dated March 26, 2018. 	The matter
was continued on the inactive list by order dated September 28, 2018.
By letter dated October 17, 2018, Petitioner’s counsel requested the matter be
restored to the active list. The matter was thereafter restored to the active list.
Respondent filed a motion for summary decision, and brief in support of said
motion, dated March 5, 2019. Petitioner filed a cross-motion for summary decision, and
brief in support of said motion and in opposition to Respondent’s motion for summary
decision, dated April 15, 2019. 	Respondent filed its reply brief in opposition to the
Petitioner’s cross-motion on April 26, 2019. 	Petitioner filed her reply brief on May 9,
2019.
The undersigned requested supplemental briefs, which were due on or before
May 24, 2019.
The record closed on May 24, 2019.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
The following FACTS are not in dispute:

3
1. 	Petitioner was hired by Respondent Board in February 2008 as an
administrative secretary.
2. 	Petitioner was hired as a twelve-month employee.
3. 	Petitioner obtained tenure during her third year of continuous full-time
employment.
4. 	Health insurance benefits were provided to Petitioner pursuant to the
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the parties.
5. 	During the 2016-2017 school year commencing on July 1, 2016, and ending
June 30, 2017, Petitioner was absent from work for one (1) illness day, eleven
and one-half (11.5) vacation days, one and eighty-eight hundreds (1.88)
personal days, fifty-three and thirty-eight one hundredths (53.38) sick days,
one hundred seven (107) days on leave of absence, and seven (7)
unexcused absences.
6. 	By letter dated June 13, 2017, the Respondent Board, through its Interim
Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources Francisco Cuesta, informed
Petitioner that her health benefits would be terminated effective June 14,
2017.
7. 	The basis for Respondent’s termination of health benefits was that Petitioner
did not work full time or on an approved leave of absence in order to qualify
for health benefits.
8. 	The CBA provides in pertinent part at Article XVII as follows: “The Board
shall continue to pay full premium for each employee working an average of
at least 20 hours or more per week.”
9. 	Petitioner has not been at work since August 23, 2017, which is an unpaid,
unapproved leave of absence.
10. Petitioner avers that she paid her own health insurance premiums through
COBRA from June 2017 through November 2018, totaling $40,279.46.
11. The Respondent certified tenure charges against Petitioner on February 22,
2018.
12. On March 4, 2019, Petitioner was dismissed from her position with
Respondent following a hearing on the tenure charges.

4
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
A motion for summary decision may be granted if the papers and discovery
presented, as well as any affidavits which may have been filed with the application,
show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
prevail as a matter of law. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). 	If the motion is sufficiently supported,
the non-moving party must demonstrate by affidavit that there is a genuine issue of fact
which can only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding, in order to prevail in such
an application. 	Ibid. 	These provisions mirror the summary judgment language of
R. 4:46-2(c) of the New Jersey Court Rules.
The motion judge must “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.” Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995).
And even if the non-moving party comes forward with some evidence, this forum must
grant summary decision if the evidence is “so one-sided that [the moving party] must
prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 536 (citation omitted).
The parties do not dispute the facts in the instant matter. 	Rather, the parties
dispute 	whether 	or 	not 	Respondent 	Board’s 	termination 	of 	medical 	benefits 	for
Petitioner are permitted pursuant to statutory and case law. 	Accordingly, the matter is
ripe for summary decision.
Initially, Respondent asserts that Petitioner’s submissions on the instant motion
and cross-motion should not be considered as they were not timely filed. 	Respondent
cites N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b) which sets forth the time frames for filing responsive papers,
which is twenty (20) days from the date of service of a motion for summary decision.
Respondent also asserts that Petitioner failed to submit a signed affidavit in support of
her cross-motion for summary decision.3 A signed affidavit was thereafter submitted.
3 Petitioner submitted an unsigned affidavit.

5
Petitioner does not dispute that her response and cross-motion were not timely
filed, and that an unsigned affidavit was submitted, and offers an excuse for same. 	I
need not delve into the merits of the excuse here.
N.J.S.A. 1:1-3(b) states:
Except as stated in (c) below, procedural rules may be
relaxed 	or 	disregarded 	if 	the 	judge 	determines 	that
adherence would result in unfairness or injustice. 	The judge
shall make such determinations and state the reasons for
doing so on the record.
Respondent 	suffers 	no 	prejudice 	from 	the 	late 	filing. 	Striking 	Petitioner’s
response and cross-motion would be a Draconian response, and one not merited
herein. 	It would be more prudent to consider all papers filed regarding the motion and
cross-motion for summary decision and to render an opinion on the merits of same.
Respondent 	asserts 	in 	its 	motion 	for 	summary 	decision 	that 	it 	correctly
terminated health insurance benefits to Petitioner in accordance with the CBA, citing
Article XVII thereof, which states in pertinent part, “The Board shall continue to pay the
full premium for each employee working an average of at least 20 hours or more per
week . . . .” It is not disputed that Petitioner did not work an average of twenty hours or
more per week.
In support of its argument, Respondent cites Allen v. Board of Education of the
Township of Clark, Union County, Commissioner’s Decision No. 189-04 (April 30,
2004), https://www.nj.gov/education/legal/commissioner/2004decisions.shtml, affirmed,
State 	Board 	(September 	1, 	2004), 	affirmed, 	A-754-04T2. 	In 	said 	decision 	the
Commissioner 	found 	that 	payment 	upon 	retirement 	for 	unused 	sick 	leave 	is 	not
compensation. 	Such payment for unused sick leave is a benefit subject to collective
bargaining.
Respondent argues that, likewise, the payment of health benefit premiums is also
a benefit subject to collective bargaining and that the CBA is controlling herein.

6
In further support of its argument Respondent cites Manna v. Board of Education
of 	the 	Somerset 	County 	Vocational 	Technical 	School 	District, 	Somerset 	County,
Commissioner 	Decision 	No. 	178-10 	(June 	14, 	2010),
https://www.nj.gov/education/legal/commissioner/2010decisions.shtml, 	the
Commissioner interpreted Basset v. Board of Education of the Borough of Oakland, 223
N.J. Super. 136 (App. Div. 1988). 	Therein the Commissioner determined that health
insurance benefits are not preserved and protected by this statute4 but, rather – as
recognized by the ALJ – are a contractual benefit subject to collective bargaining
negotiations.
Manna involved a teacher whose hours were reduced below thirty-five hours per
week, thereby rendering him ineligible to receive health insurance benefits. 	Manna
argued that this was a reduction in compensation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5 and
therefore impermissible.
Respondent’s 	position 	is 	that 	the 	CBA 	is 	controlling 	herein 	and 	that 	the
termination of payment for health insurance premiums for Petitioner was justified
thereunder. Respondent further asserts that, as health insurance is a benefit subject to
the CBA, it is not compensation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10. I agree.
Petitioner 	argues 	that 	both 	Allen 	and 	Manna 	are 	not 	controlling 	and 	that
DePasquale v. State of N.J., 211 N.J. 40 (2012) is controlling. I disagree. The issue in
DePasquale was the compensation of New Jersey Judges and Justices. 	It did not
involve public employees. 	Further, DePasquale was decided on the New Jersey
Constitution provision regarding the diminishment of the salaries of sitting Judges and
Justices.
Petitioner also asserts that the termination of health insurance by Respondent
violates N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10(b), which provides that “No person shall be dismissed or
4 N.J.S.A. 18A:25-8.

7
reduced in compensation” . . . “except for inefficiency, incapacity, unbecoming conduct,
or other just cause, and then only after a hearing held pursuant to this subarticle.”
It is clear that health insurance benefits for a tenured school employee are
controlled by the CBA. This is supported by both Allen and Manna. However, the CBA
is silent as to how, or when, health insurance benefits should be terminated given the
facts herein. In the instant matter Petitioner simply stopped going to work. After a long
history of extremely poor attendance Petitioner stopped working altogether on August
23, 2017. 	Prior to that date, on June 14, 2017, Respondent ceased payment of health
insurance premiums for Petitioner. 	For unknown reasons Respondent failed to file
tenure charges against Petitioner until February 22, 2018.
While I have determined that the CBA is the controlling document concerning the
payment of health insurance premiums, and that health insurance benefits are not
compensation as set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10, It is clear from the undisputed facts that
tenure charges should have been filed as set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10.
As the CBA offers no guidance on how to terminate payment of health insurance
premiums given the facts herein the only reasonable way for Respondent to proceed
would be to timely file tenure charges. 	It did not. 	Rather, Respondent waited eight
months from the time it stopped payment of Petitioner’s health insurance premium to
the time tenure charges were filed. Why Respondent waited is not explained.
Petitioner notes that she was not reinstated to health insurance benefits by
Respondent on the 120 th day after the filing of tenure charges.
N.J.S.A. 18:6-14 states in pertinent part:
Upon certification of any charge to the commissioner, the
board may suspend the person against whom such charge is
made, with or without pay, but, if the determination of the
charge by the arbitrator is not made within 120 calendar after
certification of the charges, excluding all delays which are
granted at the request of such person, then the full salary
(except for said 120 days) of such person shall be paid

8
beginning on the one hundred twenty-first day until such
determination is made.
N.J.S.A. 18:6-14 is not applicable in the instant matter. 	Petitioner was not
suspended. 	She did not report to work at all from August 23, 2017. 	Further, N.J.S.A.
18:6-14 refers only to reinstatement of salary.
Based upon the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that Respondent’s motion for summary
decision should be denied. 	I further CONCLUDE that Petitioner’s cross-motion for
summary decision should be granted.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that Respondent’s motion for summary decision is
DENIED; and,
It is further ORDERED that Petitioner’s cross-motion for summary decision is
GRANTED; and,
It is further ORDERED that Respondent shall reimburse Petitioner for the cost of
health benefits premiums paid by her from the date such benefits were terminated by
Respondent 	(June 	14, 	2017) 	through 	the 	date 	of 	tenure 	charges 	were 	certified
(February 22, 2018) totaling $40,279.46; and,
It is further ORDERED that no reimbursement shall be made until such time
Petitioner submits adequate documentation as to the payment of insurance premiums
by way of canceled checks and/or receipts from the insurance provider; and
It is further ORDERED that reimbursement to Petitioner shall be made within
sixty (60) days after receipt of such adequate documentation.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	Initial 	Decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.

9
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, 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.
June 21, 2019
DATE 	THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
db

10
APPENDIX
List of Moving Papers
For Petitioner:
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Respondent’s motion for summary decision and
in Support of Her Cross-Motion for Summary Decision dated April 15, 2019
Certification of Petitioner (Exhibit A of Memorandum of Law)
Reply letter brief dated May 9, 2019
Supplemental brief dated May 23, 2019
For Respondent:
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Decision dated March 5, 2019,
with Exhibits A through C
Reply letter brief dated April 26, 2019
Supplemental letter brief dated May 24, 2019
Exhibits:
J-1 	Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Elizabeth Board of Education
and The Elizabeth Education Association (July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2012)
Pleadings:
Petition for Relief
Answer and Affirmative Defenses