J.S., on behalf of minor child, M.S. v. Board of Education of the Township of Franklin, Somerset County, 12/22/25 (#561-25)

561-25
OAL Dkt. Nos. EDU 05949-25 and 11772-24
Agency Dkt. Nos. 96-4/24 and 218-7/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
J.S. and A.S., on behalf of minor child, M.S.,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Franklin,
Somerset County,
Respondent.
AND
J.S., on behalf of minor child, M.S.,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Franklin,
Somerset County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by the petitioners pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the Franklin Board of
Education’s (Board) reply thereto, have been reviewed and considered.
Petitioners appeal two harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) determinations
concerning their minor child, M.S — (1) that on October 30, 2023, students A.M. and K.M. did

2
not commit an act of HIB against M.S.; and (2) on March 7, 2024, M.S. committed an act of HIB.
At the time of both incidents, M.S. was a fifth-grade student at Elizabeth Avenue Elementary
School (Elizabeth School).
Regarding the first HIB matter, petitioner J.S. contacted the Board on October 30, 2023,
to report an incident involving M.S. that had occurred during recess. According to the incident’s
HIBster log, J.S. alleged that a classmate had made a comment about M.S. having a bald spot in
his hair. On October 31, 2023, the Board commenced an investigation to determine whether the
incident constituted HIB against M.S. and referred the matter to Abigail Stanton-Schmidt
(Schmidt), the anti-bully specialist (ABS) at Elizabeth School. 	On October 31, 2023, Schmidt
interviewed M.S., alleged offenders K.M. and A.M., and witness B.D. In his written statement
dated October 31, 2023, M.S. wrote that “[t]here are a group of students that comment on my
alopecia.” Exhibit J-1. M.S. later identified A.M. and K.M. as the alleged offenders but could not
specify which one made the comment. M.S. also said that while he was playing basketball on
October 30, 2023, “they came up to me and stole my ball.” Exhibit J-32. M.S. also admitted that
“[t]here will be times we say things back and forth” and that he has made a comment about
K.M.’s teeth and has called A.M. “a rat.” Ibid.
A.M. stated that she and M.S. “basically hate each other” and that M.S. has called her a
“rat” and makes up lies about her. Exhibit J-27. Regarding the October 30, 2023, incident, A.M.
stated that she was playing basketball with another student when M.S. tried to “put himself into
the game.” Ibid. A.M. stated that K.M. took the ball and M.S. started making comments first.
A.M. claimed that K.M. said, “At least I don’t have a bald spot.” 	Ibid. 	K.M. denied making a
comment about M.S.’s hair. Exhibit J-30. K.M. stated that M.S. said several comments to her

3
including, “[y]ou always cut the line, that’s why you have no friends,” and “[y]our gap is ugly and
no one likes you.” K.M. also stated that M.S. was “calling us roaches and rats.” Ibid. Witness
B.D. said that he heard someone make a comment about M.S.’s hair but did not know who said
it. Exhibit J-31.
Schmidt completed her investigation on November 3, 2023. 	The result of her
investigation was inconclusive as Schmidt was unable to substantiate who had made the
comment about M.S.’s alopecia. On November 3, 2023, Schmidt’s findings were assigned to the
Principal of Elizabeth School, Greg Romero (Romero) for review. Romero approved the findings,
and forwarded them to the district’s anti-bullying coordinator, Orvil Wilson (Wilson) for review.
Wilson discussed the incident with the district’s superintendent, Dr. John Ravally (Dr. Ravally);
both agreed with the investigation’s results. 	Wilson prepared an executive summary of the
October 30, 2023, incident and on December 21, 2023, Dr. Ravally presented the results of the
investigation to the Board. On December 22, 2023, the Board sent petitioners a letter stating
that investigation did not find evidence of harassment, intimidation, or bullying. 	Petitioners
appealed the determination and appeared before the Board on January 15, 2024. On January
17, 2024, the Board sent petitioners a letter affirming the inconclusive finding. On April 11, 2024,
petitioners appealed the Board’s decision to the Commissioner
Regarding the second HIB matter, on March 8, 2024, petitioner, J.S., reported that
students were making fun of M.S.’s bald spots and hairline. 	The Board commenced an HIB
investigation that day and referred the investigation to Schmidt. As part of her investigation,
Schmidt interviewed M.S., alleged offenders J.H., S.P., and M.M., and student witnesses E.M.,
B.D., J.G.T., S.A., A.R.A., and D.C. Schmidt had each student write a statement. In addition, she

4
added a notation on a few statements based on information she received during that student’s
interview. In his handwritten statement, M.S. stated that on March 7, 2024, S.P., J.H, and M.M.,
were outside, grouped together. Exhibit J-3. There is a school rule that requires students to line
up with their class before reentering the school after recess. M.S. stated that he asked J.H. to go
to her class line, however the girls became upset and said, “no.” Later at lunch, M.S. was telling
his friend, E.M., what had occurred when the girls overheard him. Exhibit J-3. M.S. stated that
S.P. and M.M. said, “your hairline is the shape of a ‘V,’ and that’s why you got bald spots on the
back of your head.” Exhibit J-2.
J.H. stated that a classmate had fallen in mud and said, “I have poop on my leg.” Exhibit
J-8. According to J.H, M.S. replied, “you have poop all over yourself.” As J.H. got up to walk away,
M.S. said, “See, that’s how to get those people away.” 	Exhibit J-8. 	The comment made J.H.
“irritated 	and 	uncomfortable” 	and 	in 	response, 	she 	stated,
I heard you have bald spots, and the back of your head looks like a ‘V.’” 	Exhibit J-16.
M.M. stated that when she and her friends were lining up after recess, M.S. said, “Can
you guys move, I don’t wanna be in your mess.” Exhibit J-9. From there, M.M., S.P., and M.S.
began arguing. M.M. wrote that M.S. “made a comment on my skin saying, ‘you have poop on
your face.’” Ibid. M.M. took this comment as an insinuation about the color of her skin. Ibid.
M.M. retorted by saying that M.S.’s hairline was V-shaped. Ibid. S.P. stated that when her and
her friends were lining up to come back into the building after recess, M.S. was trying to get J.H.
and M.M. to go to their appropriate class line. Exhibit J-10. S.P. said that comments were made
between M.S., and S.P. and her friends, and M.S. told her to “shut up and said something else.”
Ibid. S.P. admitted that she said to M.S., “the back of your hair looks like a ‘V.’” Exhibit J-10.

5
Witness B.D. stated that he heard M.S. “saying something about their skin color.” Exhibit
J-15. Witness D.C. said that he never heard M.S. say anything about their skin color. Exhibit J-
14.
Schmidt completed her investigation and on March 15, 2024, determined that the
incident did not constitute HIB because the alleged victim, M.S., was in a mutual conflict with the
alleged offenders, M.M., S.P., and J.H. Petitioners contacted Dr. Ravally, who, after reviewing
the preliminary findings, referred the matter back to Schmidt for further investigation. As part
of her investigation, Schmidt re-interviewed M.S. and newly identified witnesses. Schmidt found
that M.S. experienced a substantial amount of emotional distress from the incident and
determined that S.P.’s, and M.M.’s comments to M.S. constituted HIB. 	In the investigation
summary, Schmidt included that according to the alleged offenders, M.S. “made a comment to
the effect of ‘It looks like you are covered in poop.’” Exhibit J-6 at 833. Schimdt noted that the
alleged offenders took this as an insinuation about the color of their skin, and that they were
angered by M.S.’s behavior towards them which resulted in them making the comments.
A parent of one of the alleged offenders requested an investigation into the alleged
comments made by M.S. regarding her skin color/race on March 7, 2024. Counseling Supervisor
Quiyon Peters (Peters) was assigned the second investigation into the March 7, 2024, incident.
The alleged victims were J.H. and M.M., and the alleged offender was M.S. 	As part of her
investigation, Peters reviewed the executive summary from the initial investigation, reviewed the
statements from Schmidt’s investigation, reviewed video footage of the March 7, 2024 incident,
and on March 27, 2024, re-interviewed M.S., J.H., M.M, and student witnesses, S.P., P.B., E.M.
J.G.T., A.R.A., S.A. B.D., and D.C. Peters began her interviews by reading each student’s previous

6
statement to them to confirm its accuracy, and then asked questions specific to the HIB allegation
against M.S. Peters recorded any additional comment made by the student.
In his interview, M.S. denied making a comment about J.H. having poop all over her body.
M.M. reiterated what she said in her initial interview, specifically that M.S. told her that she has
poop on her face, and she again admitted to making a comment about M.S.’s hair looking like
the letter “V.” S.P. stated that M.S. told J.H. and M.M., “it looks like you have poop all over your
skin and body.” S.P. stated that they were offended and upset by the comment. Exhibit J-19.
J.H. stated in her interview that as she got up to walk away during the incident, M.S. said, “See,
that’s how to get those people away.” 	Exhibit J-8. 	The comment made J.H. “irritated and
uncomfortable” and in response, she stated, I heard you have bald spots, and the back of your
head looks like a ‘V.’” 	Exhibit J-16. In his interview, witness B.D. who stated that M.S., J.H, and
M.M. were in an argument on March 7, 2024, told Peters that he heard M.S. says, “when I close
my eyes, I see you.” B.D. added that J.H. responded by saying something about M.S.’s bald spot.
Exhibit J-20. Witnesses J.G.T., S.A., and D.C. did not recall hearing any comments about the girls’
skin color looking like poop. Exhibits J-21, 22, and 24.
From her investigation, Peters determined that HIB had occurred. 	Peters found that
M.S.’s comments were race-motivated and used to cause emotional harm to and/or embarrass
students. 	Peters sent the preliminary findings to Romero for review; Romero reviewed and
approved Peters’ findings. He then sent the materials to Wilson, who also watched the video
from March 7, 2024, as part of his review. Wilson agreed with the decision, and on April 25,
2024, the Board affirmed the determination. Petitioner appealed to the Commissioner on July
15, 2024. On October 29, 2024, the matters were consolidated.

7
At the OAL, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the Board was not
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in determining that (1) the October 30, 2023, incident did
not constitute HIB against M.S., and (2) on March 7, 2024, M.S. committed an act of HIB. 	In
reaching her determination regarding the October 30, 2023, incident, the ALJ rejected
petitioners’ arguments that the Board failed to comply with the procedures under the Anti-
Bullying Bill of Rights (Act). The ALJ found that the Board completed the HIB investigation within
10 school days, as mandated by N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(a). 	The ALJ also found that N.J.S.A.
18A:37-15(b)(6) permits a principal to designate someone to initiate an HIB investigation, and
that here, the evidence establishes that Schmidt, as Romero’s designee, contacted petitioners
within one day of when the incident was reported. In addition, the ALJ concluded that the Board
did not violate the Act by putting the HIB matter on the agenda for the December 2023 Board
meeting, rather than the November 16, 2023, meeting. The ALJ noted that the Board completed
its investigation on November 15, 2023, one day before the November Board meeting; by then,
the meeting agenda had already been set and published. Given this, the ALJ concluded that the
Board correctly moved the HIB to the December meeting. The ALJ further concluded that even
if the Board committed the procedural errors that petitioners claim, the deficiencies were cured
because the Board heard the HIB matter at the December 2023 Board meeting, petitioners
received a call from Schmidt informing them of the HIB matter the day after the incident was
reported , and the investigation was completed in 10 school days.
Next, the ALJ concluded that the Board’s determination regarding the October 30, 2023,
incident was not biased or influenced in any way. 	In so doing, the ALJ rejected petitioners’
arguments that Schmidt tampered with M.S.’s written statement and that the Board’s decision

8
was influenced by the fact that A.M.’s mother works for the district. Regarding petitioners’ claims
that the Board was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in determining that the HIB allegation
could not be substantiated, the ALJ found that Schmidt conducted a prompt and thorough
investigation; the ALJ also found that M.S. could not identify exactly who made the comment, as
evidenced by his statement, “a group of students that comment on my alopecia” Exhibit J-1. The
ALJ found that K.M. denied A.M.’s allegation that K.M. made a comment about M.S.’s alopecia;
the ALJ also found that neither M.S. nor B.D. could corroborate the comment. The ALJ concluded
that because the alleged incident could not be substantiated, the Board’s decision was not
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
As to the March 7, 2024, incident, the ALJ concluded that petitioners failed to sustain their
burden of establishing that the Board was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in finding that
M.S. committed an act of HIB. Citing to the testimonies of Schmidt, Wilson, Romero, and Dr.
Ravally, the ALJ further concluded that petitioners did not establish that the Board initiated the
investigation against M.S. out of retaliation. The ALJ also rejected petitioners’ claim that Peters’
investigation was racially biased, finding that petitioners provided no evidence indicating that
such a bias existed. Further, Peters testified that her investigation was based on the law and not
the victims’ skin color or race. 	Lastly, the ALJ concluded that petitioners did not meet their
burden of establishing that the Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably in utilizing
the designated Safety and Security Committee to review the HIB investigation against M.S. In
reaching her determination, the ALJ cited case law where the Commissioner deemed permissible
the Board’s use of a HIB committee to fulfill its responsibility of reviewing an investigative report.

9
In their exceptions, petitioners reiterate arguments that were considered and rejected by
the ALJ, namely that the Schmidt tampered with M.S.’s written statement leading to a
determination that the October 30, 2023, incident did not constitute HIB, that the Board’s
investigation into the October 30, 2023, incident spanned more than 10 school days in violation
of N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(a), that the Board improperly utilized its Safety and Security
Committee to review the HIB investigation against M.S, and that the Board commenced an HIB
investigation into M.S. out of retaliation.1 Petitioners contend that the ALJ erred in failing to
address alleged discrepancies in the testimonies of district staff. Petitioners further contend that
these supposed inconsistencies call into question the validity of their testimony.
Petitioners contend that the Board’s HIB determination against M.S. lacks support from
the witness statements. For instance, petitioners argue the alleged victims, J.H. and M.M., “do
not identify the same statement.” Exceptions at 17. Petitioners note that J.H. alleged that M.S.’s
comment was “you have poop all over yourself,” and M.M.’s alleged that M.S.’s comment was
“you have poop all over your face.” Petitioners argue that while both comments mention the
word “poop,” “they do not align with the body part mentioned.” Ibid. Next, Petitioners argue
that the Board lacks the proof “to determine a definitive racial issue” and point to a statement
by Wilson that the determination of HIB in the second March 7, 2023, investigation, “could have
gone either way” to support their claim that the Board was arbitrary in determining that M.S.
committed HIB. Exceptions at 18. Petitioners request that both determinations be overturned.
1 Petitioners’ inclusion of facts not raised at the hearing or in briefs submitted at the OAL is improper per
N.J.A.C. 1:1- 18.4(c). Therefore, this information was not considered.

10
In response, the Board requests that the Initial Decision be affirmed. The Board contends
that the appropriate legal standard for assessing a determination by a board of education is
whether the Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably. The Board claims that rather
than adhering to the appropriate legal standard, petitioners, in their exceptions, attempt to set
new legal standards which have no basis in law. Specifically, the Board points to the petitioners’
argument that J.H.’s and M.M.’s comments are not the same statement because “they do not
align with the body part mentioned,” and therefore the ABS should not have given the
statements credence. The Board argues that requiring two separate children to have identical
recall of an incident for their statements to be considered is an unreasonably high burden of
proof with no basis in law.
In response to petitioners’ claim that Wilson’s statement that the second March 7, 2023,
investigation “could have gone either way” is evidence that the Board acted arbitrarily, the Board
contends that where there is room for two opinions, a Board’s action is not arbitrary or capricious
when exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even though it may be believed that an
erroneous conclusion has been reached. Lastly, the Board denies targeting M.S. and argues that
the additional information and context petitioners attempt to introduce into the record through
exceptions is inappropriate under N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4(c).
When a local board of education acts within its discretionary authority, its decision is
entitled to a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed unless there is an affirmative
showing that the decision was “patently arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by improper
motives.” Kopera v. Bd. of Educ. of W. Orange, 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App. Div. 1960).
Furthermore, “where there is room for two opinions, action is not arbitrary or capricious when

11
exercised honestly and upon due consideration,” and the Commissioner will not substitute his
judgment for that of the board. Bayshore Sewerage Co. v. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 122 N.J. Super.
184, 199 (Ch. Div. 1973), aff’d, 131 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1974). Regarding HIB determinations,
this standard has been explained as requiring a petitioner to “demonstrate that the Board acted
in bad faith, or in utter disregard of the circumstances before it.” G.H. and E.H. o/b/o K.H. v. Bd.
of Educ. of Borough of Franklin Lakes, Bergen Cnty., OAL Dkt. No. EDU 13204-13 (Initial Decision
Feb. 24, 2014), adopted, Commissioner Decision No. 157-14 (Apr. 10, 2014).
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ – for the reasons thoroughly set
forth in the Initial Decision – that petitioners failed to establish that the Board was arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable in determining that (1) the October 30, 2023, incident did not
constitute HIB, and (2) M.S. committed an act of HIB on March 7, 2024. The Commissioner does
not find petitioners’ exceptions to be persuasive. 	First, petitioners contend that Wilson’s
statement that the second March 7, 2024, investigation “could have gone either way” supports
their claim that the Board arbitrarily determined that M.S. committed HIB. However, petitioners
are mistaken. 	As the Board correctly argues, when there is room for two opinions, a Board’s
action will not be considered arbitrary when exercised honestly and upon due consideration.
Bayshore Sewerage Co., 122 N.J. Super. at 199
Here, the Board initiated the second HIB investigation after a parent requested an
investigation into the alleged comments made by M.S. on March 7, 2024, regarding their
daughter’s skin color/race. 	The Board referred the investigation to Peters. 	As part of her
investigation, Peters reviewed the executive summary from the initial investigation, reviewed the
statements from Schmidt’s investigation, reviewed video footage of the March 7, 2024, incident,

12
and on March 27, 2024, re-interviewed M.S., J.H., M.M, and student witnesses, S.P., P.B., E.M.
J.G.T., A.R.A., S.A. B.D., and D.C. Peters began her interviews by reading each student’s previous
statement to them to confirm its accuracy, and then asked questions specific to the HIB allegation
against M.S. Peters recorded any additional comment made by the student. Peters included her
notes in the HIBster log, where changes or alterations to the system are noted. Peters testified
that her investigation was based on the law and not the victims’ race or skin color. 	Peters’
investigation revealed that M.S.’s statements were motivated by race and constituted HIB. The
record supports Peters’ finding. 	Thus, Peters’ investigation was conducted with honesty and
upon due consideration; as such, her determination was not arbitrary or capricious. 	For the
Commissioner to overturn the determination just because it could go the other way would
require the Commissioner to substitute his judgment for that of the Board’s, which is
impermissible. Thus, the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that the Board was not arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable in determining that M.S. committed an act of HIB on March 7, 2024.
Second, petitioners also appear to take issue with the ALJ’s weighing of certain testimony
and evidence, particularly the comments about “poop” that J.H. and M.M. allege that M.S. made
towards them. Petitioners note that M.M. alleged that M.S. said, “you have poop all over your
face,” and J.H. alleged that M.S.’s comment was “you have poop all over yourself.” Petitioners
appear to argue that because the statements are not identical, the ALJ should not have
considered the statements credible. Similarly, petitioners allege that there are discrepancies in
the testimony of the district staff members and that the ALJ erred in failing to address these
inconsistencies. Petitioners contend that these supposed inconsistencies call into question the
validity of the district staff members’ testimonies. 	For instance, petitioners claim that the

13
testimonies of Schmidt and the Vice Principal Edgar Vasquez Molina contradict each other,
particularly regarding whether Vasquez was part of M.S.’s interview process for the March 7,
2023 incident. The Commissioner notes that the ALJ had the opportunity to assess the credibility
of the various witnesses who appeared before her and make findings of fact based upon their
testimony. In this regard, the clear and unequivocal standard governing the Commissioner’s
review is:
The agency head may not reject or modify any findings of fact as to issues of
credibility of lay witness testimony unless it is first determined from a review of
the record that the findings are arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or are not
supported by sufficient, competent, and credible evidence in the record.
N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c).
The Commissioner finds no basis in the record to disturb the ALJ’s credibility assessment
regarding Schmidt’s, Vasquez’s, or any district staff member’s testimony regarding the Board’s
HIB investigations. The ALJ did not demonstrate bias against petitioners and petitioners have
failed to provide any credible evidence that the ALJ’s findings are not supported by credible
evidence in the record. Regarding the discrepancy in J.H.’s and M.M.’s comments, petitioners
have not provided any evidence indicating that the ALJ was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable
in finding that M.S. said both comments. Furthermore, as the ALJ correctly noted, the fact that
a discrepancy exists regarding what M.S. said does not negate the fact that all the comments
concerned color and race.
Lastly, petitioners claim retaliation without providing any evidence in support of their
contention. The burden of proof in the instant matter rests with the petitioners; they have not
met their burden of establishing that the Board’s behavior was arbitrary, capricious, or

14
unreasonable due to retaliation. 	Petitioner contends that the Board initiated the second HIB
investigation regarding the March 7, 2024, incident in retaliation as evidenced by an HIBster log
that states, “District/School recommendation for HIB investigation as a follow-up.” Exhibit J-6 at
1. However, even if the Commissioner was to accept petitioners’ argument, the Board initiating
the investigation is not dispositive. 	Petitioners have failed to establish that the Board was
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in deciding that the October 30, 2023, incident does not
constitute HIB and that M.S. committed an act of HIB on March 7, 2024.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the
petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	December 22, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	December 22, 2025
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
INITIAL DECISION
J.S. AND A.S. ON BEHALF OF M.S., OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24
Petitioners, AGENCY DKT. NO. 96-4/24
v.
TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN BOARD
OF EDUCATION, SOMERSET COUNTY,
Respondent,
and
J.S. ON BEHALF OF M.S., OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11772-24
Petitioners, AGENCY DKT. NO. 218-7/42
v.
TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN BOARD
OF EDUCATION, SOMERSET COUNTY,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
J.S. and A.S., pro se
Susan S. Hodges, Esq., for respondent (Parker McCay, P.A., attorneys)
Record Closed: June 12, 2025 Decided: June 30, 2025
BEFORE NICOLE T. MINUTOLI, ALJ:
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Respondent upheld two harassment, bullying, or intimidation (HIB) determinations,
finding that on October 30, 2023, A.M. and K.A. did not commit an act of HIB against M.S.
and finding that on March 7, 2024, M.S. committed an act of HIB. Should the HIB
conclusions stand? Yes. Respondent’s determinations are entitled to a presumption of
correctness, and petitioners have not established that the decisions were arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 17, 2024, respondent, Township of Franklin, Board of Education
(Board), upheld a November 11, 2023, finding that M.S. was not a victim of HIB on
October 30, 2023. On April 11, 2024, petitioners J.S. and A.S., on behalf of M.S.,
appealed the Board's decision of January 17, 2024, to the Department of Education
(DOE). The DOE transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where
it was filed on April 30, 2024, to be heard as a contested case. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15;
N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23.
On May 25, 2024, the Board upheld a March 21, 2024, finding that M.S. committed
an act of HIB on March 7, 2024. On July 15, 2024, petitioners J.S. and A.S., on behalf of
M.S., appealed the Board's decision of May 25, 2024, to the DOE. The DOE transmitted
the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where it was filed on August 12,
2024, to be heard as a contested case. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1
to -23.
On March 11, 2025, March 12, 2025, and March 25, 2025, I held the hearing but
kept the record open for the parties to obtain transcripts and provide post-hearing
submissions. I requested supplemental information, and upon receipt of the requested
information, I closed the record on June 12, 2025.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
3
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF FACTS
The parties submitted joint exhibits and a Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts.
(Stip.) Based upon a review of the testimony and the joint documentary evidence
presented and having had the opportunity to observe the demeanor and assess the
credibility of the witnesses who testified, I FIND the following pertinent FACTS and accept
as FACT the testimony set forth below.
At the time of each incident, M.S. attended the Elizabeth Avenue Elementary
School (Elizabeth School). (Stip.) At the time of each incident, M.S. was in fifth grade.
(Id.)
The October 30, 2023, incident involved allegations of an act of HIB against K.M.
and A.M. and was investigated by Abigail Stanton-Schmidt (Schmidt), the anti-bullying
specialist (ABS) at the Elizabeth School. Schmidt had worked at Elizabeth School as an
ABS since 2019.
The March 7, 2024, incident involved allegations of an act of HIB against M.S. It
was investigated by Schmidt and Quiyon Peters (Peters), supervisor of school counseling
for kindergarten through eighth grade at Franklin Township Public Schools. Peters had
worked in the field of school counseling for nineteen years, eleven of which were spent in
Franklin Township Public Schools. While at Franklin Township Public Schools, Peters
spent eight years as a middle school counselor before being promoted to her current
position as supervisor. (T-1 at 135−136.)
Schmidt and Peters were both witnesses and provided testimony regarding the
underlying HIB matters, the substance of the allegations, the investigation conducted,
and the conclusions reached. M.S. and E.M. were also called in petitioners’ case. Dr.
John Ravally, superintendent, Orvil Wilson, the former director of school management
and student advocacy and anti-bullying coordinator for the Franklin Township Board of
Education, Elizabeth School Principal Greg Romero (Romero), and Vice Principal Edgar
Vasquez Molina (Vasquez) were joint witnesses.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
4
The October 30, 2023, HIB Investigation
On October 30, 2023, M.S.’s parents contacted his teacher to report an incident in
which M.S. was involved that day. Schmit was assigned to investigate this incident. On
October 31, 2023, Schmidt contacted M.S.’s parent to discuss the incident. On October
31, 2023, Schmidt interviewed M.S., K.M., A.M., and B.D. (J-1.)
M.S. stated that on October 30, 2023, “[t]here are a group of students that
comment on my alopecia.” (J-1 at 4.) M.S. later identified K.M. and A.M. as the alleged
offenders, but he was unable to specify which one commented. M.S. alleged that during
recess, he was playing basketball on the basketball court at school, and “they would come
up to me [and] steal my ball.” (Ibid.)
During the altercation, someone called M.S. a cockroach, and he responded by
calling someone a rat. (T-1 at 34.) After the incident, M.S. went back to class, and he
“didn’t think much of it.” (Ibid.) M.S. and A.M. had ongoing arguments since third grade.
(T-1 at 37.)
K.M. stated that M.S. made several comments to her, including, “you always cut
the line, that’s why you have no friends,” “the only friend you have is your mom,” “you
have a gap in your teeth you shouldn’t be talking,” and “you gaps ugly and no one likes
you.” (J-1 at 1.) K.M. also said M.S. was calling her a roach and a rat. K.M. denied
saying anything about M.S.’s alopecia. (Ibid.)
A.M. stated that M.S. called her a rat and that she and M.S. have called each other
names in the past. M.S. also makes up lies about her. (J-1 at 2.) On October 30, 2023,
A.M. was playing basketball with other students, and M.S. attempted to insert himself into
the game. M.S. started making comments, but she did not mention his hair. A.M. claimed
that K.M. said, “at least I don’t have bald spots.” (Ibid.)
Witness B.D. said he heard someone comment about M.S.’s hair, but he did not
know exactly who said it. (J-1 at 3.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
5
During each interview, Schmidt wrote notes in a notepad and later transferred the
statements to the HIBster log without altering the statements. (T-1 at 216.) Schmidt
completed her investigation on November 3, 2023. She found that all three parties
involved exchanged comments, and no student, besides A.M., could identify who made
the statement about M.S.’s alopecia. Schmidt found the incident was a mutual conflict
and not covered under HIB because she was unable to substantiate who made the
comments about M.S.’s alopecia. (J-25 at 5; T-1 at 159−160.) Schmidt did not alter any
reports or witness statements, nor did anyone from the board of education or
administration attempt to influence her HIB investigation or preliminary findings. (T-1 at
208.) The fact that A.M.’s mother worked for the school district did not influence Schmidt’s
investigation, nor did anyone from the BOE or administration attempt to shield A.M. (T-3
at 64; T-1 at 161.)
On November 3, 2023, Schmidt’s preliminary findings were assigned to Romero
for review. Romero was not involved in any student interviews. (J-25 at 21; T-2 at 77−78.)
On November 11, 2023, Romero approved the preliminary findings and forwarded them
to Wilson. (J-25 at 22; T-2 at 77.)
As the District’s anti-bullying coordinator, Wilson was trained on how to handle HIB
incidents under the Act, overseeing the District’s HIB policy and its ABS. (T-3 at 9.) He
oversees the principal’s responsibilities and role in HIB investigating and reporting. (T-3
at 10.) The principal, vice principal, or ABS is permitted to make initial contact with the
parents at the start of a HIB investigation. (T-3 at 11.)
An appeal of a HIB investigation can be presented to the Board or a committee of
the Board. The District’s Climate and Safety Committee is responsible for reviewing HIB
appeals, as HIB is considered part of the District's safety procedures and policies. (T-3
at 19−22; T-2 at 122.)
After discussing the incident with Dr. Ravally, Wilson prepared an executive
summary of the October 30, 2023, incident to submit to the Board meeting. (T-2 at 114.)
Wilson and Dr. Ravally agreed with the investigation's results and Romero’s actions.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
6
(J-34.) The HIB investigation was not deemed completed until Wilson completed his
review and prepared a summary report of the HIB investigation. (T-2 at 120.)
There were four school days that week in which to investigate (October 31,
November 1, November 2, and November 3). (R-1 at 1−2.) The following week, Elizabeth
School was closed for the New Jersey Education Association Convention on November
9 and 10, 2023, leaving only November 6, 7, and 8, 2023, for the investigation. (Ibid.)
The investigation continued the following week and was completed on November 15,
2023.1
The investigation's results were reported to the Board at its meeting on December
21, 2023. (T-2 at 117.)2 By letter dated December 22, 2023, respondent informed the
parents of the results of the HIB investigation related to the incident on October 30, 2023,
and their appeal rights. (J-24.)
On January 3, 2024, petitioners appealed the HIB findings. (J-36.) On January 5,
2024, respondent attempted to schedule a hearing for January 10, 2024, with the District’s
Climate and Safety Committee. However, petitioners refused to meet with this committee
and requested a hearing with the Board. (Ibid.) On January 8, 2024, respondent notified
petitioners that the Board would hear their appeal in a closed session on January 15,
2024. (J-38.)
During the Board meeting on January 15, 2024, petitioners presented additional
information. (J-39.) By letter dated January 17, 2024, the Board issued its final decision
affirming the finding that HIB was not evidenced concerning the October 30, 2023,
incident. (Ibid.)
1 Wilson testified that the investigation was completed one day before the scheduled Board meeting on
December 16, 2023. (T-3 at 62−63.)
2 Although there was a November 16, 2023, board meeting, the agenda for that meeting was already set
and published. (T-3 at 15.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
7
The March 7, 2024, HIB Investigation
On March 8, 2024, M.S.’s parents reported that students were making comments
about M.S.’s “bald spots and hairline.” (J-28.) Romero responded via email, and Vasquez
called M.S.’s father to inform him that a HIB investigation had begun. (Ibid.)
On March 8, 2024, Schmidt initiated her investigation into the incident. Initially,
M.S. was the alleged victim, and M.M. and J.H. were the alleged offenders. Schmidt
interviewed M.S., M.E., J.H., M.M., S.P., B.D., J.G.T., S.A., A.R.A., and D.C. Schmidt
had each student write their statement, but she added a notation on a few based on the
interview. (T-1 at 10−11.)
Before students wrote their statements, Schmidt provided them with an overall
summary of the report received by the school and asked the students to state as much
information as possible, including who, what, when, where, and why. (T-2 at 12.) Schmidt
did not instruct any student on what to write. (T-2 at 13.)
M.S. stated that on March 7, 2024, S.P., J.H., M.M., and a few girls were outside
at recess. The school rule requires students to line up in their class line to enter the
school. M.S. asked J.H. to go to her class line. The girls got mad, and J.H. refused.
During lunch, when M.S. was telling his friend, E.M., what happened, the girls overheard,
and then S.P. started making comments about M.S.’s alopecia. S.P. and M.M. said, “your
hairline is in the shape of a 'V,' and that’s why you have bald spots on the back of your
head.” (J-2; J-3.) Although M.S. stated that he was asked to help line up students at
recess as a member of the safety patrol, Romero stated that safety patrol students only
assist at arrival and dismissal.
J.H. stated that another student fell in mud and said about himself, “I have poop
on my leg.” M.S. said, “you have poop all over yourself.” (J-8.) As J.H. walked away,
M.S. then said, “See, that’s how you get rid of those people.” J.H. was irritated and
uncomfortable by M.S.’s comment. J.H. responded, “you have bald spots and the back
of your head looks like a ‘V.’” (Ibid.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
8
M.M. stated that when lining up for recess, M.S. said, “I don’t want to be in [your]
guys mess, so you can move.” (J-9.) At that point, M.M., S.P., and M.S. began arguing.
M.S. then commented on M.M.’s skin, saying, “you have mud all over your body and there
is poop all over your face.” (Ibid.) M.M. responded, making fun of M.S.’s hairline in a “V.”
(Ibid.) M.M. stated that in the lunchroom, M.S. continued to talk about the argument.
(Ibid.)
S.P. stated that M.S. was trying to tell J.H. and M.M. to get in line at recess. M.S.
said it multiple times because they ignored his request. S.P. said there were comments
made between M.S. and the group of girls S.P. was with. S.P. stated that she and her
friends were getting upset about M.S.’s comments – they were offensive. S.P. said to
M.S., “the back of your head looks like a ‘V.’” (J-10.)
Witness E.M. stated that while lining up at recess, S.P. and M.M. were not in their
correct class line. M.S. told them to get in their class line. After he did, S.P. and M.M.
began making comments about M.S.’s alopecia. (J-4.) E.M. stated that he or M.S. was
not asked to assist students lining up at recess on this day. (Ibid.)
Witness J.G.T. stated that M.S. argued with a few girls during recess. He told M.S.
to walk away. J.G.T. heard one of the girls comment on a bald spot on the side of M.S.’s
head. (J-11.)
Witness S.A. stated that M.S. and a group of girls were pushing and shoving when
lining up after recess. He said M.S. pushed some of the girls and was making fun of the
girls’ friends and family. (J-12.)
Witness A.R.A. stated that M.S., M.M., J.H., and S.P. were arguing and pushing
each other while coming in from recess but didn’t hear what was being said. (J-13.)
Witness D.C. stated that while he was at the lunch table, M.S. told him that M.M.
and S.P. were talking badly about M.S. Some girls overheard M.S. and told him to be
quiet. D.C. never heard M.S. say anything about color. (J-14.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
9
Witness B.D. stated he heard M.S. say something about “their” skin color. (J-15.)
Schmidt completed her investigation and, on March 15, 2024, determined that the
HIB was unfounded due to a mutual conflict between the alleged victim, M.S., and the
alleged offenders, M.M., J.H., and S.P. (T-1 at 198). Romero agreed with Schmidt’s
preliminary findings and assigned the matter to Wilson for review.
On or about March 15, 2024, M.S.’s parents were advised of the preliminary
findings. (T-2 at 50.) On the same day, M.S.’s parents contacted Dr. Ravally to discuss
the matter. (T-2 at 128.)
After reviewing the preliminary findings, Dr. Ravally decided to refer the matter
back to the ABS for further investigation. (T-3 at 61.) The investigation was reopened.
(T-2 at 13.) Schmit re-interviewed M.S. (J-3) and newly identified witnesses.3 (T-2 at 14.)
Schmidt determined that M.S. experienced a substantial amount of emotional distress as
a result of comments made on March 7, 2024. (T-2 at 15.) Schmidt then found the
remarks to M.S. constituted an act of HIB by M.M. and S.P. (T-2 at 16.)
Romero or Molina did not attempt to influence or aid Schmidt’s investigation. (T-1
at 177.) Romero, Molina, the BOE, or the administration did not attempt to influence
Schmidt’s decision on whether the March 7, 2023, incident constituted an act of HIB. (T-1
at 205–208.) Schmidt was not instructed or advised by anyone in the administration or
the BOE to have a specific outcome on the HIB investigation. (T-2 at 14−18.) No one
from the BOE or administration attempted to influence Molina regarding the outcome of
any HIB investigation. (T-2 at 68−69.) Dr. Ravally never directed the administration or
ABS to reach a specific result in the HIB investigation involving M.S. (T-2 at 140−141.)
By letters dated March 21, 2024, respondent informed the parents of M.S., S.P.,
and M.M. of the results of the HIB investigation related to the incident on March 7, 2023,
and their appeal rights.
3 Schmidt could not recall which witnesses were interviewed after the matter was reopened.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
10
After sharing the findings with the families of the alleged victim and alleged
offenders, the parent of an alleged offender requested an investigation into the alleged
comments made by M.S. concerning their race/skin color. (T-2 at 16; T-2 at 89; T-3 at
28; J-6 at 10.) The request for a HIB investigation was documented in the HIBster log,
but it does not identify that a parent requested the investigation. It states that the
“District/School recommendation for HIB investigation as a follow-up.” (J-6 at 1.)
On or about March 27, 2024, the HIB investigation was initiated regarding M.S.’s
comments towards J.H. and M.M. (J-25 at 1.) Peters was assigned to perform the second
investigation into the March 7, 2024, incident. (T-2 at 59.) The alleged victims in this
investigation were M.M. and J.H., and the alleged offender was M.S. (T-1 at 65.) Peters
began her investigation by reviewing the executive summary from the initial investigation.
(J-6 at 771−772.) In the summary, M.S. allegedly said, “it looks like you are covered in
poop,” which M.M. and J.H. understood as an insultation about the color of their skin. (J-6
at 772.) Peters next reviewed the statements from Schmidt’s investigation and on March
27, 2024, reinterviewed the alleged victims, J.H. and M.M., the alleged offender, M.S.,
and witnesses, S.P., P.B., E.M., J.G.T., S.A., A.R.A., D.C., and B.D. (T-1 at 89−90; J-6
at 2−3.) During her interviews, Peters read each student's previous statement to them to
confirm its accuracy, asked questions specific to the HIB allegation against M.S., and
recorded any additional comments made by the student. (T-1 at 139−143.) Schmidt
attended these interviews as an observer only. (T-2 at 17.)
During Peters’ interview with M.S., he stated that J.H. was not in her class line, so
M.S., after waiting two minutes, asked her to move to her correct line. (J-18.) J.H. refused
to move. J.H. and her friends were in line behind M.S. Once in the cafeteria, M.S. told
his friend E.M. about how J.H. and her friends were cutting lines and not following the
rules. (Ibid.) S.P., M.M., and J.H. overheard M.S. speaking with E.M. and told M.S. to
shut up. M.S. responded, “no.” S.P. then said to M.S., “That’s why you have a bald spot
in the back of your head,” and “your hairline is in the shape of a ‘V.’” (Ibid.) M.S. stated
he did not make any comments about J.H. having poop all over her body or to M.M. about
poop. He denied making any comments about poop. (Ibid.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
11
Peters interviewed J.H., who said that as she, M.M., and S.P. walked away, M.S.
said, “see how you get those people away.” (J-16.)
Peters interviewed M.M., who repeated almost verbatim what she said in her initial
interview. (J-17.)
Peters interviewed the witness, E.M., who stated that M.M. and S.P.’s friend, J.H.,
was in the wrong line. M.S. told J.H. to go to her line. J.H. was angry that M.S. was trying
to tell her what to do, so J.H. started making comments about M.S.’s bald spots. (J-5.)
E.M. heard J.H. say, “You can’t be talking with that bald spot.” (Ibid.) E.M. stated that he
or M.S. was not asked to help line up people during recess that day, although they had
been asked in the past. E.M. stated that he thought he had heard someone mention
something about poop, but he did not remember. (Ibid.) E.M. admitted that he has
serious hearing problems − he thought he heard it, but he wasn’t sure. (Ibid.)
Peters interviewed the witness, S.P., who stated that M.S. said to J.H. and M.M.,
“it looks like you have poop all over your skin and body.” J.H. and M.M. got upset from
this comment. (J-19.)
Peters interviewed the witness, J.G.T., who stated that she didn’t recall hearing
any comments about poop. (J-21.)
Peters interviewed the witness, S.A., who stated she heard M.S. say one of the
students had poop all over their pants, but she did not hear any other comments about
poop and their skin. (J-22.)
Peters interviewed the witness, D.C., who stated that during recess, he fell in the
mud. M.S. was telling everyone to line up after recess; he specifically told M.M. and S.P.
D.C. stated that M.S. is bossy. (J-24.) He did not remember hearing anyone comment
about poop or M.S.’s hair. (Ibid.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
12
Peters interviewed the witness, B.D., who stated that M.S., M.M., and J.H. were
engaged in an argument. He heard M.S. say, “when I close my eyes, I see you,” meaning
pitch black. J.H. then said something about M.S.’s bald spot. (J-20.)
Peters reviewed the video from the school cameras. (J-7.) Peters saw students
gathering at the end of the recess line, but because the students were all grouped, she
couldn't see if they were pushing or shoving. (T-1 at 70, 72.)
Peters recorded her investigation into the HIBster log. Any changes to the HIBster
log would be reflected in the log, including corrections of typographical errors. (T-1 at
138.) Peters’ investigation was based on the law, not a victim’s race or skin color. (T-1
at 147.) Peters’ race did not influence her determination in the HIB case against M.S.
(Ibid.)
Based on her investigation, Peters found that M.S.’s comments were
race-motivated and used to embarrass and/or cause emotional harm to students, as
evidenced by witness statements denoting “poop” as a skin color and “when I close my
eyes, I see you (the dark).” (J-6 at 771.) Peters determined that the act of HIB had
occurred based on the information collected in the investigation. (Ibid.)
On April 3, 2024, Peters assigned her preliminary findings to Romero. On the
same day, Romero reviewed and approved Peters’ initial findings and forwarded them to
Wilson for review. (J-6 at 865−866.)
During his review, Wilson watched the video of March 7, 2024. The camera was
too far away to capture exactly what was happening, but there was some commotion.
(T-3 at 37.) Wilson did not direct anyone to reach a particular conclusion. (T-3 at 66.)
Wilson did not find anything unusual in this investigation. (T-3 at 67.) Wilson agreed with
the decision. (T-3 at 39.) On April 25, 2024, the BOE affirmed the report of the incident
as HIB, and petitioners were notified on April 26, 2024. (R-4.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
13
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq., is designed
“to strengthen the standards and procedures for preventing, reporting, investigating, and
responding to incidents of harassment, intimidation, and bullying of students that occur in
school and off school premises.” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.1(f). Under the Act, “harassment,
intimidation or bullying” (HIB) is defined as:
[A]ny gesture, any written, verbal or physical act, or any
electronic communication, whether it be a single incident or a
series of incidents, that is reasonably perceived as being
motivated either by any actual or perceived characteristic,
such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or a
mental, physical or sensory disability, or by any other
distinguishing characteristic, that takes place on school
property, at any school-sponsored function, on a school bus,
or off school grounds as provided for in section 16 of
P.L.2010, c.122 (C.18A:37-15.3), that substantially disrupts or
interferes with the orderly operation of the school or the rights
of other students and that:
a. a reasonable person should know, under the
circumstances, will have the effect of physically
or emotionally harming a student or damaging
the student’s property, or placing a student in
reasonable fear of physical or emotional harm to
his person or damage to his property;
b. has the effect of insulting or demeaning any
student or group of students; or
c. creates a hostile educational environment for
the student by interfering with a student’s
education or by severely or pervasively causing
physical or emotional harm to the student.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.]
Each school district must adopt a policy that prohibits HIB and provides for a
prompt response to any alleged HIB incident. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(a). Once an alleged
HIB incident is reported to the school principal, the principal or their designee must initiate

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
14
an investigation within one school day of receiving the report. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6).
A school anti-bullying specialist shall conduct the investigation, which must be completed
within ten school days from the date of notification of the incident. Ibid. The results of
the investigation shall then be quickly reported to the superintendent of schools, who may
take certain remedial action. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(6)(b). The results shall also be reported
to the board of education “no later than the date of the board of education meeting next
following the completion of the investigation, along with information on any services
provided, training established, discipline imposed, or other action taken or recommended
by the superintendent.” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(6)(c).
Under the Act, the parents of the students involved in any alleged HIB incident are
entitled to receive information about the nature of the investigation and the result of the
investigation. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(6)(d). Parents may request a hearing before the board,
which must be held within ten days of the request. Ibid. Any hearing shall be held in
executive session to protect the identity of any students involved. The board may hear
from the anti-bullying specialist regarding the incident, recommendations for discipline or
services, and any programs implemented to prevent such incidents. Ibid. The board
must issue a decision at the first meeting after its receipt of the investigation report. The
board may affirm, reject, or modify the superintendent’s decision. The board’s decision
may be appealed to the Commissioner of Education. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(6)(e).
An action by a board of education “is entitled to a presumption of correctness and
will not be upset unless there is an affirmative showing that such decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable.” Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327,
332 (App. Div. 1965). The Commissioner will not substitute their judgment for that of a
board of education, whose exercise of discretion may not be disturbed unless shown to
be “patently arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by improper motives.” Kopera v.
W. Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App. Div. 1960). Our courts have held
that “[w]here there is room for two opinions, action is not arbitrary or capricious when
exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even though it may be believed that an
erroneous conclusion has been reached.” Bayshore Sew. Co. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot.,
122 N.J. Super. 184, 199–200 (Ch. Div. 1973), aff’d, 131 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1974).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
15
Thus, to prevail, petitioners must demonstrate that the Board acted in bad faith or in utter
disregard of the circumstances before it. T.B.M. v. Moorestown Bd. of Educ., 2008 N.J.
AGEN LEXIS 67 (February 6, 2008) (citing Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J.
Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965), aff’d, 46 N.J. 581 (1966)).
Petitioners challenge two separate determinations of respondent.
The October 30, 2023, HIB Investigation
Petitioners challenge respondent’s determination that on October 30, 2023, A.M. and
K.A. did not commit an act of HIB against M.S. Petitioners raise three procedural defects.
First, petitioners allege that the school principal, Romero, rather than the ABS, should
have contacted petitioners after they reported the incident to M.S.’s teacher the preceding
day. While the Act does state that the principal must inform the parents of all students
involved in the alleged incident, this is not always reasonable in light of the strict HIB
timeline. Additionally, the Act permits a principal to designate someone to initiate the
investigation. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6). One can infer that a principal may appoint
someone to contact the parents, especially in cases like this, when the parents were the
ones who reported the incident to the school. Moreover, Wilson affirmed that the
principal, vice principal, or ABS is permitted to make initial contact with the parents at the
start of a HIB investigation. In this case, the evidence establishes that Schmidt, as
Romero’s designee, contacted petitioners within one day of when the incident was
reported.
Petitioners next allege that respondent failed to complete the investigation within
ten school days from the date of the incident report. This is incorrect. The evidence
presented establishes that the investigation was completed within ten days. The HIB
investigation was opened on October 31, 2023. There were four school days that week
in which to investigate (Oct. 31, Nov. 1, Nov. 2, and Nov. 3). The following week,
Elizabeth School was closed for the New Jersey Education Association Convention on
November 9 and 10, 2023, leaving only November 6, 7, and 8, 2023, to investigate. (R-1
at 1−2.) The investigation continued the following week and was completed on November

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
16
15, 2023.4 Counting the school days available for the investigation, respondent
completed it within ten days.5
Third, petitioners allege that respondent violated the Act by failing to place the HIB
on the November 16, 2023, agenda of the Board meeting. In this case, the investigation
was completed on November 15, 2023. A Board meeting was scheduled for December
16, 2023; however, the meeting's agenda had already been set and published. (Ibid.)
Therefore, respondent placed the HIB on the agenda of the December Board meeting.
(T-3 at 62−63.) Understanding the Act requires the results of a HIB investigation to be
reported to the BOE no later than the date of the board meeting immediately following the
completion of the investigation; this may not be practicable in every case, as in this
instance. Because the November 16, 2023, board meeting agenda was set and
published, respondent correctly added the HIB to the next board meeting.
Even arguendo, that respondent failed to follow the ABR to the letter, these
procedural defects do not amount to a violation of petitioners’ due process rights.
Petitioners were contacted by Schmit, the ABS, the day after the incident was reported.
The investigation was completed in ten days, and the Board heard the HIB matter at its
December 2023 meeting. Thus, whatever procedural irregularities occurred in this matter
were cured. Therefore, I CONCLUDE that respondent’s actions in response to the HIB
reporting complied with the Act.
As to the substantive issues, petitioners make unsupported allegations that
respondent’s decision in this matter was influenced because A.M.’s mother works for the
school district. Not only did petitioners fail to produce any evidence of the alleged bias,
but Schmidt and Wilson both testified that it did not influence their HIB investigations.
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that the HIB finding in the October 30, 2023, incident was not
influenced by or biased in any way.
4 Wilson testified that the investigation was completed one day before the scheduled Board meeting on
December 16, 2023. (T-3 at 62−63.)
5 Wilson testified that the investigation is not deemed completed until he completes his review and the
summary report is done. (T-2 at 120.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
17
Finally, petitioners allege that respondent erred in its determination that the
October 30, 2023, incident did not constitute HIB because it was unsubstantiated. I
disagree.
Schmit conducted a thorough and prompt investigation. After interviewing M.S.,
A.M., K.M., and B.D., no one was able to confirm who made the alleged comment about
M.S.’s hair. M.S. himself did not identify who commented. In his statement, he stated, “a
group of students that comment on my alopecia.” (J-1.) It was Schmidt who indicated
A.M. and K.M.’s names on the statement after asking M.S. clarifying questions during the
interview. K.M. denied A.M.’s allegation that K.M. made the comment to M.S., and neither
M.S. nor B.D. could corroborate it. In addition, although petitioners argued that E.M. was
interviewed and Schmidt failed to include this information, E.M. testified that he was not
interviewed. (T-1 at 48.) Based on her investigation, she concluded that the HIB
allegation could not be substantiated regarding the identity of the commenter, thus finding
the HIB unfounded. Because the alleged incident could not be substantiated, I
CONCLUDE that the action of respondent in determining that the October 30, 2023,
incident did not constitute HIB was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
The March 7, 2024, HIB Investigation
Petitioners challenge respondent’s determination that on March 7, 2024, M.S.
committed an act of HIB by making comments regarding students’ race. Petitioners first allege
that respondent acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably in finding M.S. in
violation of HIB because respondent initiated the investigation in retaliation. In support of
their allegation, petitioners' only evidence is that the HIBster log states the “District/School
recommendation for HIB investigation as a follow-up.” (J-6 at 1.) Based on the HIBster
log, petitioners infer that respondent alone decided to open the HIB investigation against
M.S. in retaliation.
Respondent contends that the parent of one of the alleged offenders requested
the HIB investigation against M.S. Although they did not know why the HIBster log stated,
District/School recommendation for HIB investigation as a follow-up, Wilson, Schmidt,
Romero, Wilson and Dr. Ravally all testified that it was a parent who requested the HIB

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
18
investigation against M.S. (T-1 at 199; T-2 at 16, 52−53, 89, 90, 92,139; T-3 at 27−28.)
Based on the evidence presented, I CONCLUDE that petitioners failed to establish that
respondent requested the HIB investigation against M.S. in retaliation.
Petitioners make unsupported allegations that the March 7, 2024, HIB investigation
conducted by Peters was racially biased. Petitioners failed to produce any evidence of
this bias, and Peters testified that her investigation was based on the law, not on a victim’s
race or skin color. Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that the March 7, 2024, investigation
conducted by Peters was not racially biased.
Petitioners next contend that respondent acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and
unreasonably in finding M.S. in violation of HIB because 1) the alleged victims could not
be identified; and 2) witnesses did not provide the exact wording of M.S.’s alleged
statements. I disagree that M.S.’s statements didn’t meet the requirements of the Act.
Regarding the first element, in defining HIB as an action “that is reasonably
perceived as being motivated either by any actual or perceived characteristic,” N.J.S.A.
18A:37-14, “the statute requires an analysis of how the actor’s motivation is perceived
and whether that perception is reasonable[;] [i]t does not require an analysis of the actual
motivation of the actor.” See, R.H. and M.H. o/b/o A.H. v. Sayreville Bd. of Educ., EDU
09435-17 and EDU 14833-17 (consolidated), Comm’r, (September 23, 2021),
https://www.nj.gov/education/legal/commissioner/2021/198-21.pdf. Here, it was not
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable for the Board to conclude that a reasonable person
would consider M.S.’s statements to be motivated by race.6 The fact that student
statements were not identical in verbiage does not negate the fact that all comments were
regarding color and race.
Regarding the second element, there is ample evidence in the record that M.S.’s
comments caused a substantial disruption to or interference with “the orderly operation
6 M.S.’s comments include, among others, that the target students “it looks like you are covered in poop”;
“you have poop all over yourself“; “you have mud all over your body and there is poop all over your face”;
and “when I close my eyes, I see you.” (J-8; J-9; J-19; J-20.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
19
of the school or the rights of other students[.]” J.H. was irritated and uncomfortable by
M.S.’s comment. S.P. stated that she and her friends were getting upset about M.S.’s
remarks – they were offensive. M.M. stated she was trying to move away from the
arguing. Accordingly, given this evidence, the Board was not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable in finding a substantial disruption to the school environment and the rights
of multiple students.
Regarding the third element, an act of HIB is one that “a reasonable person should
know, under the circumstances, will have the effect of physically or emotionally harming
a student,” “has the effect of insulting or demeaning any student or group of students,” or
“creates a hostile educational environment for the student by interfering with a student’s
education or by severely or pervasively causing physical or emotional harm to the
student.” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14. M.S.’s comments had the “effect of insulting or
demeaning” not only J.H. and M.M., but also any other Black students who heard his
comments. In short, given this evidence, the Board was not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable in finding that M.S.’s conduct satisfied N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14(b) and (c).
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that petitioners failed to sustain their burden of establishing that
the Board acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner in finding that M.S.
committed an act of HIB.
Lastly, petitioners allege that respondent acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and
unreasonably in utilizing a designated Safety and Security Committee to review the HIB
investigation against M.S. I disagree.
In J.L. o/b/o A.L. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Bridgewater-Raritan Reg’l Sch. Dist.,
Somerset Cnty., EDU 11604-15, Comm’r (December 9, 2016) https:
//www.nj.gov/education/legal/commissioner/2016/dec/416-16.pdf., (The Commissioner
determined that the Board’s use of a HIB committee to fulfill its responsibility for reviewing
the investigative report was permissible under the Act.) Also, in J.M. o/b/o T.M. v. Bd. of
Educ. of the Town of Tinton Falls, Monmouth Cnty., EDU 1131-14, Comm’r (April 2,
2025), https://www.nj.gov/education/legal/commissioner/2015/apr/124-15R.pdf., a
subcommittee was designated and utilized to review the HIB investigation.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
20
Here, the HIB investigation was reviewed by the Safety and Security Committee.
Wilson testified that the Safety and Security Committee is respondent’s designated
subcommittee responsible for reviewing HIB investigations. (T-3 at 19−20.) Accordingly,
I CONCLUDE that petitioners failed to establish that respondent acted arbitrarily,
capriciously, and unreasonably in utilizing a designated Safety and Security Committee
to review the HIB investigation against M.S.
ORDER
Following my conclusions above, I ORDER that the Petitions of Appeals filed under
OAL Docket No. 05949-24 and OAL Docket No. 11772-24 be and hereby are
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. Exceptions may be filed by email to
ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of Controversies

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
21
and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
June 30, 2025 _______________________________
DATE NICOLE T. MINUTOLI, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date emailed to Parties:
NTM/tc

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
22
APPENDIX
Witnesses
Joint:
Quiyon Peters
Abigail Stanton-Schmidt
Edgar Vasquez Molina
Greg Romero
John Ravally
Orvyl Wilson
For petitioners:
M.S.
E.M.
For respondent:
None
Exhibits
Joint:
J-1 M.S. Handwritten Statement − October 30, 2023, incident
J-2 M.S. Handwritten Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-3 M.S. Handwritten Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-4 E.M. Handwritten Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-5 E.M. Typed Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-6 HIBster log − March 7, 2024, incident
J-7 Video of March 7, 2024 incident
J-8 J.H. Handwritten Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-9 M.M. Handwritten Statement − March 7, 2024, incident

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
23
J-10 S.P. Handwritten Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-11 J.G.T. Handwritten Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-12 S.A. Handwritten Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-13 A.R.A. Handwritten Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-14 D.C. Handwritten Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-15 B.D. Handwritten Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-16 J.H. Typed Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-17 M.M. Typed Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-18 M.S. Typed Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-19 S.P. Typed Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-20 B.D. Typed Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-21 J.G.T. Typed Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-22 S.A. Typed Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-23 A.R.A. Typed Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-24 D.C. Typed Statement − March 7, 2024, incident
J-25 HIBster log – October 30, 2023, incident
J-26 Answers to Interrogatories
J-27 A.M. Typed Statement – October 30, 2023, incident
J-28 Emails between J.S. and Romero relating to the March 7, 2024, incident
J-29 Genesis notes
J-30 K.M. Typed Statement – October 30, 2023, incident
J-31 B.D. Typed Statement – October 30, 2023, incident
J-32 Petitioners' Interrogatory Request
J-33 Response to Interrogatory Request
J-34 December 22, 2023, letter from Wilson to petitioners regarding the
conclusion of the October 30, 2023, HIB investigation
J-35 Description of the BOE Safety & Security Committee
J-36 Petitioners' email requesting a hearing for the October 30, 2023, incident
J-37 Petitioners' email requesting a meeting for the March 7, 2024, incident
J-38 January 8, 2024, email from petitioners regarding the October 30, 2023,
incident
J-39 January 17, 2024, letter from Dr. Ravally to petitioners regarding the
October 30, 2023, incident.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05949-24 and EDU 11772-24
24
For respondent:
R-1 Affidavit of Dr. John Ravally
R-2 March 21, 2024, letter from Wilson to S.P.’s parents relating to the March
7, 2024, incident
R-3 March 21, 2024, letter from Wilson to M.M.’s parents relating to the March
7, 2024, incident
R-4 April 26, 2024, letter from Brian Bonnano, assistant superintendent, to
petitioners relating to the March 7, 2024, incident
R-5 April 26, 2024, letter from Brian Bonnano, assistant superintendent, to
S.P.’s parents relating to the March 7, 2024, incident
R-6 April 26, 2024, letter from Brian Bonnano, assistant superintendent, to
M.M.’s parents relating to the March 7, 2024, incident