A.T.-L. v. Board of Trustees of Philips Academy Charter School of Paterson, Passaic County, and Dowayne Davis, 11/7/25 (#523-25E)

523-25E
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 16982-25
Agency Dkt. No. 329-9/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Order on Emergent Relief
A.T.-L.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Trustees of Philip’s Academy Chater School
of Paterson, Passaic County, and Dowayne Davis,
Respondents.
The record of this emergent matter, the sound recording of the hearing held at the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL), and the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) have been
reviewed and considered.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner has failed to demonstrate
entitlement to emergent relief pursuant to the standards enunciated in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126,
132-34 (1982), and codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6.
Accordingly, the recommended Order denying petitioner’s application for emergent relief is
adopted for the reasons stated therein. This matter shall continue at the OAL with such proceedings as
the parties and the ALJ deem necessary to bring it to closure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	November 7, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	November 10, 2025

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ORDER DENYING
EMERGENCY RELIEF
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16982-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 329-9/25
A.T.-L.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PHILIP’S ACADEMY
CHARTER SCHOOL OF PATERSON, PASSAIC
COUNTY AND DOWAYNE DAVIS,
Respondents.
_______________________________________
A.T.-L., petitioner, pro se
Thomas O. Johnston, Esq., for respondent Philip’s Academy Charter School of
Paterson (Johnston Law Firm, attorneys)
BEFORE KELLY J. KIRK, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Per the transmittal, petitioner “challenges respondent’s actions related to
restrictions imposed on petitioner’s access to school property.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16982-25
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or about September 30, 2025, petitioner A.T.-L. filed a Pro Se Petition of
Appeal (Petition) and a motion for emergent relief.
The Department of Education transmitted the case to the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) under the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, and the act
establishing the office, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23, for a hearing under the Uniform
Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6, and the rules of procedure
established by the Department of Education to hear and decide controversies and
disputes arising under school laws, N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.1 to -1.17. Jurisdiction to hear and
decide controversies arising under school laws is conferred under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9. The
case was filed at the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on October 1, 2025.
On October 8, 20251, respondent Philip’s Academy Charter School filed a letter
brief and two certifications of Dowayne Davis—one dated April 2, 2025 with fifteen
exhibits2 (April 2025 Certification) and one dated October 8, 2025, with twenty-eight
exhibits (October 2025 Certification), in opposition to petitioner’s motion for emergent
relief.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
The petitioner’s Motion for Emergent Relief states as follows:
1. On February 5, 2025, my ex-husband and I were
subjected to unlawful restrictions imposed by Dr.
Davis, CEO of Philips Academy Charter School,
including denial of access to her child, school
1 Filed October 8, 2025 at 6:19 p.m./6:21 p.m.
2 Exhibits A—P were referenced/attached, with the exception of Exhibit K, which was not
referenced or attached. (Exhibit I includes Ia, Ib and Ic and Exhibit N includes Na, Nb, Nc and Nd.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16982-25
3
meetings, and related school activities, including board
meetings.
2. These restrictions have been continued without due
process, causing irreparable harm to me and [R.L.] and
our daughter, including emotional distress, disruption
of educational access, and ongoing retaliation.
3. I have filed a timely appeal regarding the unlawful
restrictions, but absent emergent relief, the harm will
continue and intensify, particularly impacting the child's
well-being and access to education.
4. Pursuant to Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982),
emergent relief is warranted when:
• There is a likelihood of irreparable harm if relief is not
granted immediately;
• There is a clear legal right to the requested relief as the
abuse of power is remarkable where we can't even
walk on the sidewalk;
• The balance of harms favors granting the relief; and
• Granting the relief serves the public interest, including
protecting a child's right to education and equal
treatment just as her peers.
5. I am respectfully requesting that this Office:
a. Immediately stay the enforcement of all restrictions
imposed on me and my ex-husband regarding access
to our child and school activities, board meetings,
parent teacher conferences etc;
b. Order the school to allow my ex-husband and I full
parental access pending the outcome of the appeal;
and
c. Grant any other relief that the Court deems just and
appropriate to prevent ongoing harm.
WHEREFORE, Appellant respectfully requests that this Court
grant emergent relief pending appeal.
LEGAL STANDARD

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16982-25
4
Where authorized by law and where irreparable harm will result without an
expedited decision granting or prohibiting some action or relief connected with a
contested case, emergency relief pending a final decision on the whole contested case
may be ordered upon the application of a party. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.6(a). With respect to
school laws in particular, the Commissioner has jurisdiction to hear and determine all
controversies and disputes arising under school laws, except higher education, or under
the rules of the State board or of the Commissioner. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9. Where the subject
matter of the controversy is a particular course of action by a district board of education
or any other party subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, the petitioner may
include with the petition of appeal, a separate motion for emergent relief or a stay of that
action pending the Commissioner's final decision in the contested case. N.J.S.A. 6A:3-
1.6(a). A motion for a stay or emergent relief must be accompanied by a letter
memorandum or brief which must address the following standards to be met for granting
such relief pursuant to Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982):
1. The petitioner will suffer irreparable harm if the requested
relief is not granted;
2. The legal right underlying petitioner's claim is settled;
3. The petitioner has a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of
the underlying claim; and
4. When the equities and interests of the parties are balanced,
the petitioner will suffer greater harm than the respondent will
suffer if the requested relief is not granted.
[N.J.S.A. 6A:3-1.6(b).]
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A.T.-L. seeks an emergent order to “stay the enforcement of all restrictions
imposed on [petitioner] and [her] ex-husband regarding access to [their] child and school
activities, board meetings, parent teacher conferences etc” and “to allow . . . full parental
access pending the outcome of the appeal.” Petitioner argues that the parents “were

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16982-25
5
subjected to unlawful restrictions imposed by Dr. Davis, CEO of Philips Academy Charter
School, including denial of access to [their] child, school meetings, and related school
activities, including board meetings,” and that the restrictions are “causing irreparable
harm to” the parents and student, “including emotional distress, disruption of educational
access, and ongoing retaliation,” and that “the harm will continue and intensify,
particularly impacting the child's well-being and access to education.” Conversely,
respondent argues that petitioner cannot satisfy any of the required elements under the
law to obtain injunctive relief. More specifically, respondent argues that petitioners have
no likelihood of success on the merits because petitioners have acted in a threatening
manner towards the school environment, despite repeated warnings,” that “L.L. is not
threatened with irreparable harm since her education is uninterrupted,” and that “the
balancing of the equities weigh in favor of denying of emergent relief.”
Irreparable harm is harm that cannot adequately be redressed by monetary
damages. Crowe, supra, 90 N.J. at 132-33. Emergent relief should not be ordered except
when necessary to prevent substantial, immediate and irreparable harm. Subcarrier
Communications, Inc. v. Day, 299 N.J. Super. 634, 638 (App. Div. 1997). The Petition
alleges that the restrictions started in February 2025, but it is noted that some restrictions
predated February 2025, and A.T.-L. did not file the Petition or the motion for emergency
relief until September 30, 2025. Petitioner argues that L.L. is worried about being
disenrolled or that her parents will be arrested, but it is unlikely that either scenario would
occur if the parents are in compliance with residency laws and are not on school property.
Petitioner alleges violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:36-19, relative to the right of the parent or
guardian to be supplied with full information about the pupil, but at this juncture it does
not appear that the parent is being denied access to any pupil records. Petitioner alleges
violation of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), which charter schools are required to
comply with pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-6. However, at this juncture it likewise does
not appear that the parent is being denied access to respondent’s board meetings, as
participation remotely via Zoom is available. L.L. is able to attend school, and her parents
are “able to communicate with designated staff virtually or via phone.” See October 2025

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16982-25
6
Certification. Additionally, it does not appear that parent is being denied access to any
“public” sidewalk that is not on school property.
L.L. was enrolled at the school in January 2023. Davis’s April 2025 Certification
references A.T.L.’s “insults to staff” and “menacing conduct, multiple complaints from
parents,” including an April 19, 2024 parent-complaint, an October 14, 2025 parent-
complaint/police report that A.T.-L. had threatened her children, a January 10, 2025
parent-complaint that R.L. “confronted a student in the parking lot who was allegedly
engaged in a conflict” with L.L. and that “the parents are aggressive,” and certified that
A.T.-L. “confronted a staff member during the holiday show.” See April 2025 Certification,
Exhibits Nb, Nc and Nd. Davis’s October 2025 Certification certified that A.T.-L. criticized
staff in “a particularly accusatory, degrading and, at times, defamatory manner,” and had
filed “dozens of complaints under the New Jersey’s Harassment Intimidation Bullying
Law” and “11 Affirmative Action Complaints”—which were “investigated and found to lack
merit.” Davis’s October 2025 Certification additionally references a May 7, 2024 parent-
complaint that [A.T.-L.] was waiting for her and followed when she drove away, and a
January 13, 2025 parent-complaint that the complainant’s son fears for his life because
L.L.’s parents approach him and humiliate him. See October 2025 Certification, Exhibits
C and H.
L.L. is not being denied access to school, her parents are not being denied access
to her school records, and they are able to communicate with the school regarding L.L.,
and they are able to participate remotely in meetings via Zoom. The motion for emergent
relief reflects no imminent need or reason for the parents to be present inside the school
or on school property pending resolution of the Petition. I CONCLUDE that petitioner
has failed to establish irreparable harm warranting emergent relief.
Additionally, petitioner’s February 7, 2025, email states that she has filed “more
than 100 Affirmative Action Complaints, more than 50 HIB [Harassment, Intimidation and
Bullying] Complaints, several police reports alongside countless emails as it relates to the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16982-25
7
orchestrated lies against me, my daughter and my husband3.” It is noted that there is a
January 2023 Superior Court Order which reflects that “all civil actions and/or criminal
citizen’s complaints hereinafter filed by [A.T.-L.], pro se, are to be reviewed by an
Assignment Judge of the Superior Court, as soon as practicable after being filed but
before service is effectuated on an party, with the Assignment Judge of the Superior Court
having the responsibility, for good cause, to sua sponte dismiss any patently frivolous or
non-meritorious civil action and/or criminal citizen’s complaint.” See April 2025
Certification, Exhibit M. Of significant concern is the Statement of Reasons
accompanying the February 24, 2023 Order of the Honorable Ernest M. Caposela,
A.J.S.C. Based upon the extensive history of school incidents, there is potential for further
disruption of school operations, parent-complaints, and police response if the emergent
relief is granted. Accordingly, I further CONCLUDE that when the equities and interests
of the parties are balanced, the petitioner cannot demonstrate that she will suffer greater
harm than the respondent.
In order to prevail on an application for emergent relief, a petitioner must meet all
four conjunctive prongs set forth in Crowe. Since petitioner has failed to do so, I
CONCLUDE that the application for emergent relief should be denied. The facts should
be fully developed at an evidentiary hearing, which will afford an opportunity to assess the
credibility of any witnesses and weigh the testimony and evidence presented.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion for emergent relief is DENIED.
It is noted that the file does not contain an answer from respondents. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that an answer should be filed in accordance with the Uniform Administrative
Procedure Rules. It is further ORDERED that a telephone prehearing conference is
hereby scheduled for October 22, 2025 at 3:30 p.m. to address procedures and to
establish a motion schedule and/or hearing dates.
3 The February 7, 2025 email refers to R.L. as her “husband,” but the Petition refers to R.L. as her
ex-husband.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16982-25
8
This order on application for emergency relief may be adopted, modified, or
rejected by the COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who is
authorized by law to make the final decision in this case. The final decision shall be
issued without delay but no later than forty-five days from the entry of this order. If the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION does not adopt, modify, or
reject this order within those forty-five days, this recommended order shall become the
final decision on the issue of emergency relief under N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
October 14, 2025
DATE KELLY J. KIRK, ALJ
am