K.F., on behalf of minor child, M.F. v. Board of Education of the Township of Cherry Hill, Camden County, 12/12/25 (#556-25)

556-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 10903-22
Agency Dkt. No. 317-11/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
K.F., on behalf of minor child, M.F.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Cherry
Hill, Camden County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
and the exceptions filed pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4 by petitioner K.F. and by respondent Cherry
Hill Board of Education (Board) have been reviewed.
Petitioner appeals several out-of-school suspensions imposed by the Board on her minor
child, M.F., during the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years. M.F. was an eighth-grade student
at John A. Carusi Middle School (Carusi) during the 2021-2022 school year. The Board issued her
ten short-term suspensions that year for various infractions. M.F. was a freshman at Cherry Hill
West High School (Cherry Hill West) during the 2022-2023 school year. The Board issued her a
three-day suspension for an incident on September 23, 2022. It is undisputed that M.F. has had
an Individualized Education Program (IEP) since September of 2018; it was updated on October
20, 2021.

2
On November 3, 2022, K.F. emailed Superintendent Dr. Joseph Meloche, requesting that
someone from the district send her the Board policy that provides for due process. Additionally,
she asked, “[W]ho does the appeal go to, how long does the district have to review the appeal,
what happens if the initial decision is upheld – who is the next level of appeal, etc.” On November
4, 2022, Dr. Meloche responded, stating that “[w]hile the Code of Student Conduct and District
Policy and Regulation 56001 (as well as Policy 5610)2 include references to student due process
rights, they do not specify the District’s appeal process for short-term suspensions.” 	He also
explained that a parent can appeal to the Assistant Superintendent of the student’s school; if a
parent is dissatisfied with that decision, she may appeal to the Superintendent and then to the
Commissioner, which must be filed within 90 days.
Petitioner alleges that the Board violated M.F.’s due process rights by failing to provide
her with an informal hearing, as required by N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a)(2), before imposing short-term
suspensions. Petitioner also alleges that the Board’s suspension letters do not provide notice of
students’ due process rights. 	Lastly, petitioner contends that the Board violated M.F.’s due
process rights by failing to follow the procedures it established and adopted for disciplinary
matters. The Board asserts that its policies are appropriate and that it did not violate M.F.’s due
process rights.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the Board committed due process
violations against its students, including M.F., when it (1) failed to train its employees on the
Middle School Code of Conduct and High School Code of Conduct in violation of N.J.A.C. 6A:16-
1 District’s Student Discipline/Code of Conduct.
2 District’s Suspension Policy.

3
7.1(a)(4); (2) failed to provide parents, including K.F., with notice of appeal procedures, whether
it be the district’s internal appeal process or an appeal to the Commissioner of Education
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A: 16-7.1(c)(3)(v); and (3) failed to include in its suspension letters the facts
upon which the charges are based and notice of the right to appeal the suspension, which
includes the District’s internal appeal process and the option to appeal the decision to the
Commissioner.
Next, the ALJ overturned two of M.F.’s two-day suspensions — one resulting from an
incident on November 17, 2021, and the other resulting from an incident on November 29, 2021.
Regarding the November 17, 2021, suspension, the ALJ found that M.F. was not given an informal
hearing wherein she could present her version of what occurred, as required under N.J.A.C.
6A:16-7.2(a)(2). 	The ALJ further found that there was no informal hearing because school
representatives had initially told K.F. to come to the school to pick up M.F. for touching a staff
member. However, when she arrived, Principal Dr. Neil Burti informed K.F. that the original
charge against M.F. had not been substantiated and that a new issue had since arisen; however,
M.F. had left his office. The ALJ found that Dr. Burti did not give M.F. an opportunity to explain
why she left his office before issuing an out-of-school suspension for insubordination toward staff
and administration; as such, the Board violated her due process rights. The ALJ also reversed the
suspension because M.F.’s manifestation determination meeting, which was held after M.F.
served her two-day suspension, determined that M.F.’s behavior was a manifestation of her
disability. The ALJ expressed concern over this result, stating that “[t]he practical implication is
that M.F. served a two-day out-of-school suspension that she should not have received in the
first place.” Initial Decision at 34.

4
Regarding the November 29, 2021, suspension, the ALJ found that there was no evidence
presented indicating that M.F. was allowed to explain her version of the events giving rise to the
suspension. In addition, the ALJ noted that the Board did not hold a manifestation meeting for
this incident, and that Michelle Smith, the Carusi Assistant Principal who issued the suspension,
did not testify at the hearings. 	Accordingly, the ALJ overturned the November 29, 2021,
suspension and ordered it expunged from M.F.’s record, along with the November 17, 2021,
suspension.
In her exceptions, petitioner contends that all of M.F.’s suspensions should have been
expunged since the ALJ had found that the Board violated M.F.’s rights each time it issued her a
suspension.
In its exceptions, the Board contends that it did not violate M.F.’s due process rights when
it issued the November 17, 2021, and November 29, 2021, suspensions. The Board maintains
that the due process owed to M.F. is as follows:
In cases involving short-term suspension (less than ten days),
minimum due process requirements dictate that (1) the student
be given oral or written notice of the charges against him; (2) if the
student 	denies 	the 	charges, 	the 	student 	is 	entitled 	to 	an
explanation of the evidence that forms the basis for the charges;
and (3) the student is to be given the opportunity to present his
side of the story. Gross v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 581 (1975).
Board’s Exceptions at 16.
Regarding the November 17, 2021, suspension, the Board asserts that four white cards3
were submitted by Carusi staff on November 17, 2021, concerning M.F.’s inappropriate behavior.
3 At Carusi, when staff members and teachers were unable to handle a disciplinary issue with a student
on their own, they would complete a white card that included an account of the incident, the student or

5
The Board argues that one of the cards referenced an incident where M.F. left the lunchroom
without permission and tried to get into the bathroom. The Board explains that M.F. cursed at a
teacher and refused to return to the lunchroom. The Board argues that Dr. Burti reviewed the
white card and assigned the suspension in accordance with the Code of Conduct. 	The Board
further argues that M.F. was sent to Dr. Burti’s office and was asked to remain there as there was
a safety concern between M.F. and another student; however, M.F. failed to follow this
instruction and left.
The Board contends that it provided M.F. due process. It asserts that Dr. Burti had an
informal hearing with M.F. wherein he provided her with the opportunity to share her version of
events. The Board further asserts that M.F. had a second opportunity to share her version of
events at the manifestation meeting held on November 22, 2021. The Board argues Dr. Burti
provided K.F. a suspension letter on November 17, 2021, informing her that M.F. had been issued
a two-day suspension on November 18 and 19, 2021, for violating the Code of Conduct for
“Insubordination towards Staff” and “Insubordination toward Administration.” 	The Board
further argues that the discipline was issued in a progressive manner and that the two-day
suspension was appropriate given M.F.’s previous violations of the Code of Conduct. Lastly, the
Board asserts that petitioner was provided information on how to appeal the suspension, stating,
“K.F. was provided notice of the manifestation meeting on November 22, 2021 . . . Therein, K.F.
was notified of her rights for special education services set forth in the Parental Rights of Special
Education, which provides disciplinary appeal information on page 33.” 	As such, the Board
faculty involved, and any steps the faculty member took to resolve the issue. Assistant principals at Carusi
would utilize the white cards in their investigation of a disciplinary matter.

6
asserts that Petitioner has not met her burden of establishing that it acted in bad faith regarding
this suspension; therefore, the ALJ’s reversal of the November 17, 2021, suspension should be
rejected. Board’s Exceptions at 15.
In addition, the Board contends that it did not violate M.F.’s due process rights by holding
the manifestation determination meeting after M.F. had served her suspension because it was
not required to provide a manifestation meeting at that point in time. The Board argues that
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.8(a), a manifestation determination is required only when a
suspension is for more than 10 consecutive school days. 	The Board asserts that prior to
November 17, 2021, M.F. had only been issued six out-of-school suspensions, and therefore they
were not obligated to hold a manifestation meeting prior to the suspension.
Regarding the November 29, 2021, suspension, the Board argues that petitioner has
provided no evidence demonstrating that M.F. was not given the opportunity to present her side
of the story during an informal hearing and, therefore, the ALJ’s decision to reverse the
suspension should be rejected. The Board further argues that under N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.8(a), it was
not required to hold a manifestation meeting before issuing the November 29, 2021, suspension;
as such, the ALJ’s determination should be reversed.
Next, the Board takes exception to the ALJ’s conclusion that the Board failed to train its
staff on the code of conduct and argues that petitioner’s petition is void of any allegations that
the staff were improperly trained. Furthermore, the Board asserts that petitioner did not provide
any testimony regarding the Board’s training on the Code of Conduct, nor did petitioner produce
documentary evidence to support a claim that the Board failed to train its staff.

7
The Board also takes issue with the ALJ’s conclusions that the Board violated its students
due process rights by (1) failing to notify parents of the District’s internal appeal procedures and
(2) failing to include students’ appeal rights in its suspension letters to parents pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1(c)(3)(v). The Board contends that there are no facts on the record to support
the ALJ’s determinations. The Board also asserts that its Suspension Policy 5610 mimics N.J.A.C.
6A:16-7.2 and that it followed both Policy 5610 and N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2 when issuing M.F.’s
suspensions. Regarding the ALJ’s conclusion that the suspension letters did not provide notice
of students’ due process rights, the Board argues that parents are given notice that disciplinary
determinations can be appealed to the Commissioner. Specifically, the Board argues that every
parent in the district, including petitioner, is given a copy of the Code of Conduct annually through
Genesis, an electronic student management system. The Board contends that both the middle
school and high school codes of conduct include language informing parents of their right to
appeal a disciplinary decision to the Commissioner. The Board further contends that petitioner
executed a form acknowledging receipt of these policies every school year; therefore, she was
aware of her right to appeal to the suspensions to the Commissioner. Lastly, the Board asserts
that the ALJ properly upheld the Board’s suspensions issued on January 10, 2022, March 21, 2022,
May 4, 2022, June 16, 2022, and September 23, 2022.
Upon review, the Commissioner adopts the ALJ’s Initial Decision in part and rejects it in
part, as explained herein. First, the Commissioner adopts the ALJ’s conclusion that the Board
violated M.F.’s due process rights by failing to include in its suspension letters the facts upon
which the charges were based and notice of the right to appeal the suspension, which includes
the option to appeal the decision to the Commissioner. The Commissioner, however, rejects the

8
ALJ’s conclusion that the Board’s notice of the right to appeal must include an explanation of the
district’s internal appeal process. 	As an initial matter, the Board is not required to have an
internal appeal procedure for short-term suspensions; therefore, the Board did not violate M.F.’s
due process rights by not including an explanation of said procedures in its suspension letters.
Nonetheless, the Board was required by regulation to include in its suspension letters an
explanation of M.F.’s “due process rights, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1(c)3,” but failed to do so.
N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a)(3)(iv). Despite these procedural deficiencies, the ALJ upheld all of M.F.’s
suspensions except for two, which she overturned for other procedural reasons. 	The
Commissioner rejects the ALJ’s recommendation to reverse only the suspensions from November
17, 2021, and November 29, 2021, and concludes that all of the suspensions must be overturned
due to the Board’s procedurally deficient suspension letters.
The record confirms that the Board’s suspension letters dated October 5, 2021 (Exhibit R-
44), October 15, 2021 (Exhibit R-45), November 2, 2021 (Exhibit R-46), November 10, 2021
(Exhibit R-33), November 17, 2021 (Exhibit J-3), November 29, 2021 (Exhibit J-4), January 10, 2022
(Exhibit J-5), March 21, 2022 (Exhibit J-6), May 6, 2022 (Exhibit J-7), June 16, 2022 (Exhibit J-8),
and September 28, 2022 (Exhibit J-9), identified the charge, the terms and conditions of the
suspension, and the provisions of the code of student conduct that M.F. was accused of violating
– as mandated by N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a)(3)(i),(iii), and (v). 	However, the facts upon which the
charge was based and an articulation of M.F.’s due process rights (see N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a)(3)(ii)
and (iv)) were not included in the notice, contrary to regulatory requirements.
The suspension letters also contravene the Board’s own policies. For example, both the
middle school and high school codes of conduct state that “[d]isciplinary action shall be applied

9
consistently and uniformly with necessary due process in accordance with the regulations of the
New Jersey Administrative Code,” and that “[s]taff shall comply with the regulations of the New
Jersey Administrative Code when dealing with discipline and/or suspension of classified pupils.”
Exhibit J-1 at 3; Exhibit R-30 at 3. 	The Board’s Policy 5600 states that “[a]ny student to be
disciplined shall be provided the due process procedures for student and their families as set
forth in Policy and Regulation 5600 and N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2 through 7.4.” 	Exhibit R-30 at 21.
District Regulation 5600 provides that students have a right to “[p]arent notification consistent
with the policies and procedures established pursuant to . . . N.J.A.C. 6A: 16-7.1 through 7.8.”
Exhibit R-30 at 24. 	The Board’s Policy 5610 states that, “[t]he district will comply with the
requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2 and 7.3, in addition to all the procedural protections set forth
in N.J.A.C. 6A:14, for each student with a disability who is subject to a short-term or long-term
suspension.” 	Exhibit R-29 at 2. 	The “Administrative Procedure Suspension and Expulsions”
section of the Middle School Code of Conduct states that after a building principal determines
that a short-term suspension is warranted, the student’s parent shall be provided with written
notice “which shall state that the student has been suspended, the reason(s) for and terms of the
suspension, the length of the suspension and the student’s/parents’ right to appeal the
suspension in accordance with law.” Exhibit J-1 at 24. In addition, the suspension “letter shall
provide notice that further engagement by the student in conduct warranting suspension or
expulsion shall amount to a knowing and voluntary waiver of his/her right to a free public
education.” 	Ibid. 	Despite state regulations and the Board’s own policies providing explicit
instructions on what information must be included in a written notice, the Board’s suspension

10
letters failed to include the facts upon which the charges were based and an explanation of M.F.’s
due process rights.
The Commissioner will not uphold a suspension that fails to comply with the requisite due
process requirements. See D.H. o/b/o H.H. v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Cape May, Cape May Cty.,
Commissioner Decision No. 478-25 (Oct. 10, 2025) (overturning a short-term suspension in part
because the Board violated N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a)(3)). 	Moreover, the Commissioner notes that
Board Policy 5610 acknowledges that “even the temporary exclusion of a student from the
educational program of this district is a severe sanction and one that cannot be imposed without
due process.” Exhibit R-29 at 1. Accordingly, M.F.’s suspensions must be overturned.
Notably, the Board does not argue that its suspension letters included the requisite due
process information; rather, the Board contends that during the 2021-2022 school year, K.F.
received a Disciplinary Action Manifestation Determination from the Board before each
manifestation meeting, which set forth information on how to appeal the determination. The
Board’s argument fails for two reasons. First, as the ALJ correctly noted, the language of N.J.A.C.
6A:16-7.2 concerning the Board’s obligations to provide its students with due process is
mandatory rather than permissive, as evidenced by the word “shall.” The regulations are clear
that the oral or written notification to the student’s parent shall include an explanation of the
student’s due process rights. The Disciplinary Action Manifestation Determinations were not the
written notifications that the Board provided to K.F pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a)(3).
Moreover, neither the Disciplinary Action Manifestation Determination documents, nor the
Manifestation Determination Form documents, include an explanation of M.F.’s due process
rights. The Disciplinary Action Manifestation Determination documents state that as a parent of

11
a student who is deemed eligible for special education services, “you have rights regarding
identification, evaluation, classification, the development of an IEP, placement and the provision
of a free, appropriate public education under the New Jersey Administrative Code for Special
Education, N.J.A.C. 6A:14.” 	The documents further state that, “A description of these rights,
which are called procedural safeguards, is contained in the document Parental Rights in Special
Education (PRISE)” and includes information on how to attain a copy of PRISE and the contact
details for individuals and organizations who can “help in understanding your rights.” Nowhere
does the Disciplinary Action Manifestation Determination explain that a parent has the right to
appeal the decision to the Commissioner. N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a)(3).
Second, K.F. was not provided with a Disciplinary Action Manifestation Determination
each time M.F. received an out-of-school suspension. The Board contends that K.F. received a
Disciplinary 	Action 	Manifestation 	Determination 	document 	before 	every 	manifestation
determination meeting was held; the record indicates that the Board held five manifestation
determination meetings for M.F. during the 2021-2022 school year. The Board issued M.F. ten
out-of-school suspensions during that school year. 	Therefore, even if the Commissioner
accepted the Board’s argument that the Disciplinary Action Manifestation Determinations
satisfied requirements under N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a)(3)(iv), at least five suspensions, for which no
manifestation determination meeting was held, remain. Since N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a)(3) requires
a district to provide oral or written notice each time a student is suspended, those remaining
suspensions would still have to be overturned for failure to include an explanation of M.F.’s due
process rights in its suspension letters.

12
Nonetheless, each out-of-school suspension from October 5, 2021, to September 2022,
must be overturned due to the Board’s insufficient suspension letters. 	The Board seems to
suggest that because annually, K.F. acknowledged that she received the code of conduct (which
informs parents of a student’s right to appeal to the Commissioner), K.F. was given notice of her
due process rights pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a)(3)(iv). The Commissioner is not persuaded
by the Board’s argument. 	The requirements under N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a)(3) must be satisfied
whenever a district imposes a short-term suspension and regardless of whether the parent may
have known of her right to appeal through other means. As such, the Board violated M.F.’s due
process rights when it failed to include in its suspension letters an explanation of her due process
rights as well as the facts upon which the charges were based.
The Commissioner rejects the ALJ's conclusion that the Board committed due process
violations against its other students by failing to include in its suspension letters the facts upon
which the charge is based and an explanation of the student’s due process rights. 	There is
nothing in the record allowing the Commissioner to make a determination about whether the
suspension letters sent to students other than M.F. complied with N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a)(3). M.F.'s
suspension letters are the only suspension letters in the record. In addition, the record is devoid
of evidence or testimony that provides insight into the suspension letters sent to the parents of
other 	students. 	The 	Commissioner 	accepts 	the 	Board’s 	argument 	that 	a 	disciplinary
determination is tailored specifically to each student’s history and the facts of the incident.
Without this information, the Commissioner cannot conclude that the Board’s suspension letters
to other students violated those students’ due process rights.

13
The Commissioner also rejects the ALJ’s conclusion that the Board violated its students’
due process rights by failing to provide parents, including K.F., with notice of appeal procedures
in its codes of conduct pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1(c)(3)(v). The regulation requires a district’s
code of conduct to include a description of students’ rights to “[d]ue process appeal procedures
and policies, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3- 1.3 through 1.17; N.J.A.C. 6A:4; and, where applicable,
N.J.A.C. 6A:14- 2.7 and 2.8, and N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2 through 7.5.” Specifically, the ALJ took issue
with the fact that none of the District’s relevant documents, from Policy 5610 to the Middle
School Code of Conduct to the High School Code of Conduct, mention the Board’s internal appeal
procedure. However, since the Board is not required by the applicable statutes and regulations
to have an internal appeal process for short-term suspensions, the Board did not violate M.F.’s
due process rights by not including its internal appeal procedures in the district’s codes of
conduct, policies, and regulations.4
The Commissioner also rejects the ALJ’s determination that the Board violated its
students’ due process rights by failing to include the appeal procedures to the Commissioner in
its relevant documents, in violation of N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1(c)(3)(v). The “Student Rights” section
of both the middle school and high school codes of conduct state that a student has the right to
“appeal disciplinary determinations of District officials or the Board of Education to the New
Jersey Commissioner of Education, and, where applicable, to pursue the due process rights
established NJAC 6A:14 for pupils classified as eligible for special education.” Exhibit J-1 at 6;
Exhibit R-30 at 6. 	The “Administrative Procedure Suspension and Expulsions” section of the
4 However, the Commissioner notes that if the Board has established an internal appeal process that it
wants parents to follow, it would likely be best practice to make that information more readily available
to the school community.

14
Middle School Code of Conduct references N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a) and outlines the regulatory
requirements for a suspension letter. Exhibit J-1 at 24. Board Policy 5610 also states that the
district will comply with the requirements under N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2 and 7.3, and where
applicable, N.J.A.C. 6A:14. Exhibit R-29 at 2. The Board’s Policy 5600 states that “Any student to
be disciplined shall be provided the due process procedures for student and their families as set
forth in Policy and Regulation 5600 and N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2 through 7.4.” Exhibit R-30 at 21. Lastly,
District Regulation 5600 provides that students have a right to “[p]arent notification consistent
with the policies and procedures established pursuant to . . . N.J.A.C. 6A: 16-7.1 through 7.8.”
Exhibit R-30 at 24. As such, the Board’s policies are sufficient under N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1(c)(3)(v).
Lastly, the Commissioner disagrees with the ALJ’s conclusion that the Board violated the
due process rights of its students, including M.F., by failing to train its employees on the Middle
School Code of Conduct and High School Code of Conduct in violation of N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1(a)(4).
The regulation requires each district board of education to provide its employees with an “annual
training on the code of student conduct, including training on the prevention, intervention, and
remediation of student conduct that violates the district board of education’s code of student
conduct.” N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1(a)(4). The record does not support the conclusion that the Board
failed to provide its employees with the annual training on the codes of student conduct. The
burden of proof in the instant matter rests with the petitioner, but she has not met her burden.
K.F. did not provide any evidence or testimony concerning the training of Board employees and
only raised the training issue once during three days of hearings. During cross-examination, Dr.
Burti was asked if there was any training on the disciplinary infraction table in the Middle School
Code of Conduct. He responded that there is no district training in terms of code of conduct

15
review, “it’s just something we review with our supervisor.” 	Tr. Day 1, 189:6-16. 	The Board
contends that Dr. Burti’s response confirms that the Board does in fact train its employees.
Without more information, the Commissioner cannot confirm Dr. Burti’s statement, but neither
can the Commissioner render a determination in favor of petitioner that the Board fails to train
its employees in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1(a)(4). 	Therefore, the Commissioner must
reject the AJL’s conclusion that the Board violated the due process rights of its students, including
M.F., by failing to train its employees on the codes of conduct.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted in part and rejected in part. 	The Board is
directed to expunge the suspensions dated October 5, 2021, October 15, 2021, November 2,
2021, November 10, 2021, November 17, 2021, November 29, 2021, January 10, 2022, March 21,
2022, May 6, 2022, June 16, 2022, and September 28, 2022 from M.F.’s records.
IT IS SO ORDERED.5
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	December 12, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	December 15, 2025
5 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-
9.1. Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days
from the date of mailing of this decision.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
AGENCY DKT. NO. 317-11/22
K.F. ON BEHALF OF M.F.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF CHERRY HILL,
CAMDEN COUNTY,
Respondent.
Marissa J. Costello, Esq., for petitioner (Costello & Whitmore Law Offices,
attorneys)
Christina M. Michelson, Esq., for respondent (Methfessel & Werbel, Esqs.,
attorneys)
Record Closed: May 7, 2025 Decided: June 19, 2025
BEFORE KIMBERLEY M. WILSON, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, K.F., on behalf of M.F., appeals from out-of-school suspensions
imposed on M.F. during the 2021−2022 school year by administrators at John A. Carusi

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
2
Middle School (Carusi), one of the schools within respondent Board of Education of the
Township of Cherry Hill (Board or District), and one suspension imposed during the
2022−20231 school year by administrators at Cherry Hill West High School (Cherry Hill
West). The relief that K.F. seeks includes overturning all of these out-of-school
suspensions based on alleged due process rights violations, reviewing District policies
and procedures regarding student discipline and ensuring that all reporting and
implementation requirements are being met, and an audit of suspensions to review the
disproportionate amount of suspensions of minority students and students with
disabilities.2 The Board generally denies that it violated M.F.’s due process rights and
maintains that its policies are appropriate.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or around November 18, 2022, K.F. filed a pro se petition of appeal with the
New Jersey Department of Education (DOE). On or around December 6, 2022, the Board
filed an Answer to Petition of Appeal With Affirmative Defenses. On or around December
7, 2022, the matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing as a
contested case. N.J.S.A. 54:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A. 14F-1 to -13.
After several prehearing conferences, discovery concluded. On or around
November 10, 2023, the Board filed a motion for summary decision, which K.F. opposed.
The Board filed a reply brief, and on or around January 12, 2024, the record was reopened
to allow counsel to submit supplemental briefing, which they did. Oral argument on the
motion was heard on March 21, 2024, and pursuant to a Letter Order dated March 22,
1 To maintain confidentiality, the details of the various incidents during the 2021−2022 and 2022−2023
school years giving rise to discipline will not be discussed in this Initial Decision. The details are also not
relevant to a determination of whether M.F.’s due process rights were violated. Incidents will be mentioned
based on the approximate date they occurred.
2 The adverse action from which petitioner appeals is a November 7, 2022, letter that Dr. Kwame R. Morton,
Sr., district assistant superintendent, sent to K.F. denying her request to overturn M.F.’s out-of-school
suspensions from the 2021−2022 school year. Petitioner’s request for “an audit of suspensions to review
the disproportionate amount of suspensions of minority students and students with disabilities” is not directly
related to the District’s adverse action, and petitioner’s counsel has provided no basis for which petitioner
would be able to obtain that relief on behalf of District students. In addition, there was minimal specific
testimony presented regarding other District students and any alleged disparate treatment of minority
students and students with disabilities when they were disciplined. For these reasons, this request for relief
will not be addressed in this Initial Decision.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
3
2024, the record remained open to allow supplemental submissions by March 28, 2024,
and any objections by April 4, 2024. The District provided a supplemental submission on
April 3, 2024. Pursuant to an Order Denying Summary Decision dated May 20, 2024, the
Board’s motion for summary decision was denied.
After status conferences on June 4, 2024, August 21, 2024, and September 10,
2024, hearing dates were scheduled for January 8, 2025, and January 9, 2025. In
preparation for the hearing, counsel could not agree upon the appropriate standard of
review. Counsel submitted letters dated October 15, 2024, outlining their respective
positions.
During the final prehearing status conference on December 16, 2024, counsel
indicated that they wished to convert their dispute into cross-motions and requested that
the October 15, 2024, submissions be considered as their respective motion papers.
Counsel’s request was granted. Pursuant to an Order on Motion dated January 3, 2025,
the standard of review was determined.
Hearings were held on January 8, 2025, January 9, 2025, and February 26, 2025.
The record remained open to allow counsel to submit post-hearing summation briefs,
which were received by May 7, 2025, and the record closed that day.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The parties stipulated to the following relevant facts, and therefore, I FIND them
as FACT:
1. M.F. was an eighth-grade student at Carusi during the 2021−2022 school
year.
2. M.F. had an Individualized Education Program that was updated on October
20, 2021 (IEP). (J-2.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
4
3. On November 17, 2021, Dr. Neil Burti, principal at Carusi, sent a letter to
K.F. advising that M.F. received a two-day out-of-school suspension for
insubordination towards staff and insubordination towards administration.
(J-3.)
4. On November 22, 2021, K.F., M.F., members of K.F.’s child study team,3
and Dr. Julie Benavides, Carusi’s assistant principal, held a manifestation
meeting. (R-7.)
5. On November 22, 2021, Abbe Morris (Morris), Carusi’s social worker, sent
K.F. a Disciplinary Action Manifestation Determination, explaining that a
decision was made regarding M.F.’s disciplinary action. (R-6.)
6. On January 10, 2022, a manifestation determination meeting was held
regarding K.F.’s alleged violations of the Middle School Code of Conduct.4
(R-9.) K.F. was present at this meeting with M.F.’s child study team. (Ibid.)
7. On January 10, 2022, Morris sent K.F. a Disciplinary Action Manifestation
Determination. (R-8.)
8. On January 10, 2022, Dr. Benavides sent K.F. a letter confirming K.F.’s two-
day out-of-school suspension for violations of the Middle School Code of
Conduct. (J-5.)
9. On March 21, 2022, a manifestation determination meeting was held
regarding K.F.’s alleged violations of the Middle School Code of Conduct
with K.F., the child study team and Dr. Benavides. (R-12.)
3 The child study team typically included the case manager, special education teacher, regular education
teacher and a district representative.
4 There are two Codes of Conduct at issue in this matter, which are the District’s Middle School Code of
Student Conduct for the 2021−2022 school year (Middle School Code of Conduct), (J-1), and the District’s
High School Code of Conduct for the 2022−2023 school year (High School Code of Conduct). (J-2.) To
the extent the parties' stipulations do not distinguish between the two, differentiation will be made based on
the applicable school year at issue.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
5
10. K.F. provided a written statement objecting to the discipline determination.
(Ibid.) She wrote: “Enforcement of conduct is inconsistent. Nothing [M.F.]
does results in less than suspension. [W]hen other students create ‘unsafe’
situations they are not suspended. [M.F.] was anxious all day. Her meds
were late. I was not told if or what the other students said to determine if
her behavior was a manifestation of her disability.” (Ibid.)
11. On March 21, 2022, Morris sent K.F. a Disciplinary Action Manifestation
Determination. (R-11.)
12. On March 21, 2022, Dr. Benavides sent K.F. a letter confirming that M.F.
received a three-day out-of-school suspension for violating the Middle
School Code of Conduct for threats and harassment towards a student.
(J-6.)
13. On May 6, 2022, a manifestation determination meeting was held with K.F.,
the child study team and Dr. Benavides. (R-14.) K.F. provided a written
statement on the form and stated: “I don’t agree that the behaviors are not
a manifestation of her disability. She has been harassed and bullied by
these students for over a week. There are text messages of the student
threatening her. Her ongoing reaction to the harassment is clearly related
to her behaviors.” (Ibid.)
14. On May 6, 2022, Morris sent K.F. a Disciplinary Action Manifestation
Determination, explaining that a decision was made regarding disciplinary
action against M.F. (R-13.)
15. On June 16, 2022, a manifestation determination meeting was held with
K.F., M.F., the child study team and Dr. Benavides. (R-17.)
16. On June 16, 2022, Morris sent K.F. a Disciplinary Action Manifestation
Determination, explaining that a decision was made regarding disciplinary
action against M.F. (R-16.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
6
17. On June 16, 2022, Dr. Benavides sent K.F. a letter confirming that M.F. was
assigned an out-of-school suspension for four days for violations of the
Middle School Code of Conduct. (J-8.)
18. On June 16, 2022, K.F. and Dr. Joseph N. Meloche, district superintendent,
met to discuss the suspension issued to M.F., and K.F. requested that he
overturn the suspension. (R-18.)
19. On June 20, 2022, Dr. Meloche sent K.F. a letter denying K.F.’s appeal of
M.F.’s four-day suspension. (Ibid.)
20. In the 2022−2023 school year, M.F. attended Cherry Hill High School West
(Cherry Hill West) as a ninth grader. (R-19.)
21. On September 23, 2022, M.F. was involved in a physical altercation with
another student during her lunch period. (Ibid.)
22. M.F. received a three-day out-of-school suspension for this incident. (Ibid.)
23. On September 28, 2022, K.F. sent Abel Ramos (Ramos), assistant principal
at Cherry Hill West, an email requesting the suspension paperwork. (R-20.)
K.F. also stated that M.F. was defending herself in the fight. (Ibid.)
24. On September 28, 2022, Ramos sent K.F. an email attaching the
suspension letter for M.F. (R-21.)
25. Ramos also scheduled a “re-entry meeting” with K.F. and advised her that
“[w]e will briefly discuss the incident, how it could have been avoided as we
reflect upon it, and how we will move forward from this incident.” (Ibid.)
26. On September 28, 2022, Ramos sent K.F. a letter informing K.F. that M.F.
received an out-of-school suspension for three days. (R-22.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
7
27. On October 26, 2022, Dr. Kwame R. Morton, Sr., assistant superintendent
for the District, granted K.F.’s appeal of an October 11, 2022, suspension.
(R-26.)
28. On November 3, 2022, K.F. sent Dr. Meloche an email appealing M.F.’s
suspensions. In the email, Dr. Meloche stated the following: “Thank you
for your inquiry. While the Code of Student Conduct and District Policy and
Regulation 5600 (as well as Policy 5610) include references to student due
process rights, they do not specify the District’s appeal process for
short-term suspensions. We will look into amending the Code of Conduct
to clarify that. Our process is that short-term suspensions or other minor
discipline may be appealed to the Assistant Superintendent of Schools
having oversight of the particular school of attendance. If a parent is
dissatisfied with the result at that level, the parent may appeal to the
Superintendent. We endeavor to meet with the parents to review their
concerns and provide a response within a reasonable time frame; our
procedure does not include specific time limits. If a parent wishes to further
contest minor discipline, the next step would be an appeal to the
Commissioner of Education, which must be filed within 90 days.” (R-27,
emphasis added.)
29. On November 7, 2022, Dr. Morton sent K.F. an email denying her request
to overturn M.F.’s suspensions in the 2021−2022 school year. (R-28.)
From the documents the parties provided for the hearing, I FIND the following
FACTS:
Middle School Code of Conduct
1. The Middle School Code of Conduct states that students have the right to
“[a]ppeal disciplinary determinations of District officials or the Board of
Education to the New Jersey Commissioner of Education, and, where

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
8
applicable, to pursue the due process rights established in N.J.A.C. 6A:14
for pupils classified as eligible for special education.” (J-1 at 6.)
2. The Middle School Code of Conduct also states that students have the right
to “[t]he due process procedures established by the District for review of
conduct which may result in the imposition of short-term suspensions,
long-term suspensions or expulsions. These procedures are set forth below
in this Code of Conduct.” (Ibid., emphasis added.)
3. The conduct and discipline section of the Middle School Code of Conduct
states that “[d]isciplinary action shall be applied consistently and uniformly
necessary due process in accordance with the regulations of the New
Jersey Administrative Code. Staff shall comply with the regulations of the
New Jersey Administrative Code when dealing with discipline and/or
suspension of classified pupils.” (Id. at 3.)
4. The Middle School Code of Conduct provides the following due process
procedures for suspensions:5 “The building principal is the only school
official who may suspend a student. The building principal may delegate to
an assistant, who holds the appropriate certificate and endorsement,
authority to implement and administer procedures that lead to suspension.
The building principal, however, must assume full responsibility for ensuring
that due process is afforded to a student in each case.” (Id. at 23.)
5. The procedure for imposing a suspension in the Middle School 2021−2022
Code of Conduct is discussed as follows:
Before any suspension is imposed, the building principal must
determine whether the student is classified or recently has
been, or should be referred to the Child Study team for
evaluation. If the incident involves such a student, the
5 A short-term suspension is an “out-of-school suspension for a period not to exceed ten (10) consecutive
school days and may be imposed by the building principal. (J-1 at 23.) For students who are classified,
among other categories related to classification, the District must follow procedures in Section F1 of the
Middle School Code of Conduct. (Ibid.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
9
procedures set forth in Section F1 of this document shall be
followed.
The building principal or designee must document his/her
investigation of the incident giving rise to the discipline,
including the names of any witnesses, reports and/or copies
of any statements made by any student/staff, any student
admission(s), any involvement of law enforcement officers,
and all steps taken during the investigation.
If the student is a general education student, the building
principal shall provide the student with either oral or written
notice of the charges as soon as practicable and immediately
hold an informal hearing with the student, i.e., the student
shall be given an explanation of the evidence of the violation
and be given the opportunity to explain the situation. The
building principal shall then determine, on the basis of the
incident itself, or in conjunction with the student’s past
disciplinary history, whether an in-school, short-term or
long-term suspension is warranted.
[Ibid.]
6. If the building principal finds that a short-term suspension is appropriate
after the informal hearing, “written notice shall be provided to the
parent/guardian, or the student if s/he is over the age of eighteen (18), which
shall state that the student has been suspended, the reason(s) for and the
terms of the suspension, the length of the suspension and the
student’s/parents’ right to appeal the suspension in accordance with law. . .
. The building principal shall immediately inform the Superintendent of any
pupil suspension. The Superintendent shall report the suspension to the
Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting.” (Id. at 24.)
7. Section F of the Middle School Code of Conduct addresses students who
are classified.6 (Id. at 26.) Administrative Procedure S-25A provides the
procedures that must be followed for disciplining students with disabilities.
(Ibid.)
6 Students who are classified receive special education and related services pursuant to the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1401, et seq.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
10
8. Administrative Procedure S-25G, titled “Special Education Discipline for
Students with Disabilities,” provides that “children with disabilities are
subject to the same discipline procedures as the general student population,
unless otherwise exempted or modified within the child’s IEP.” (Id. at 27.)
Students with disabilities may be disciplined for up to ten days within a
school year under the same rules that apply to all students. (Ibid.) This
procedure also states that “[w]henever a school official suspends/removes
a child with a disability under the discipline policy, he/she must notify the
case manager and the parent in writing of the removal, provide a reason,
and specify the number of days.” (Ibid.)
9. According to District Policy 5610, the Board acknowledges that “even the
temporary exclusion of a student from the educational program of this
district is a severe sanction and one that cannot be imposed without due
process.” (R-29.)
10. Under District Policy 5610, “[c]onduct which shall constitute good cause for
suspension or expulsion of a student guilty of such conduct shall include,
but not be limited to, the conduct as defined in . . . the [District’s] Student
Discipline/Code of Conduct Policy and Regulation in accordance with the
N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1, et seq.” (Ibid.)
11. District Policy 5610 states that for short-term suspensions, “the student will
be provided oral or written notice of the charges and an informal hearing
conducted by the Principal or designee in accordance with the procedures
outlined in N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2. To the extent the student’s presence poses
a continuing danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disrupting
the educational process, the student may be immediately removed from the
student’s educational program and the informal hearing shall be held as
soon as practical after the suspension.” (Ibid.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
11
The District’s 2022−2023 High School Code of Conduct (High School Code of Conduct)
12. The High School Code of Conduct states that “[d]isciplinary action shall be
applied consistently and uniformly with necessary due process in
accordance with the regulations of the New Jersey Administrative Code.
Staff shall comply with the regulations of the New Jersey Administrative
Code when dealing with discipline and/or suspension of classified pupils.”
(R-30 at 3.)
13. Student rights in the High School Code of Conduct include the right to
“[a]ppeal disciplinary determinations of District officials or the [Board] to the
New Jersey Commissioner of Education and, where applicable, to pursue
the due process rights established in N.J.A.C. 6A:14 for pupils classified as
eligible for special education.” (Id. at 6.)
M.F.’s out-of-school suspensions during the 2021−2022 school year
14. M.F. was suspended from school ten times during the 2021−2022 school
year. The information regarding notice of M.F., the dates of suspension,
the Middle School Code of Conduct violations as referenced by citation and
whether a manifestation determination meeting was conducted for each
incident is as follows:
Date of
Incident7
Date of
written
notice to
parent
Number of
days M.F.
was
suspended
Middle School Code
of Conduct
violation(s)
Manifestation
determination
meeting
conducted?
October 5,
2021
October 5,
2021
(R-44)
1 Defiance
Insubordination
Disrespectful to staff
Electronic device
violation
No (R-4)
7 This date is approximate, as the actual date of the incident was not always readily apparent from the
exhibits.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
12
Unauthorized area
without supervision
(R-3 at 8)
Profanity (R-4)
Use of profanity
directed at staff
members (R-44)
October
15, 2021
October
15, 2021
(R-45)
1 Fighting/physical
aggression (R-3 at 7)
Hitting (R-4.)
Repeatedly hitting
another student in the
cafeteria (R-45)
No (R-4)
November
2, 2021
November
2, 2021
(R-46)
1 Fighting/physical
aggression (R-3 at 6)
Aggression/verbal
abuse (R-4)
Physical aggression
directed towards
student
Verbal abuse/profanity
directed towards staff
(R-46)
No (R-4)
November
10, 2021
November
10, 2021
(R-33)
1 Threat (R-3 at 6)
Profanity
Threat (R-4)
Threats directed
towards student (R-33)
No (R-4)
November
17, 2021
November
17, 2021
(J-3)
2 Defiance
Insubordination (R-3 at
6)
Insubordination (R-4)
Insubordination
Disrespectful to staff
Fighting/physical
aggression (R-7)
Yes (R-7)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
13
November
29, 2021
November
29, 2021
(J-4)
2 Insubordination
Disrespectful to staff
Disrespectful to student
Verbal abuse or use of
profanity
Fighting/physical
aggression
Inappropriate physical
contact (R-3 at 5)
Fighting
Insubordination
Profanity
Disrespect towards staff
member (J-4)
No (R-4)
January
10, 2022
January
10, 2022
(J-5)
2 Electronic device
violation
Unauthorized area
without supervision
Incitement (R-3 at 5)
Out of area
Technology violation –
Class disruption (R-4)
Out of area
Technology violation
Class disruption (R-9)
Disruptive/inappropriate
behavior
Electronic device
violation
Being in an
unauthorized area (J-5)
Yes (R-9)
March 21,
2022
March 21,
2022 (J-6)
3 Harassment (R-3 at 4)
Threat/harassment
(R-4)
Racial harassment
(R-12)
Threats/harassment
towards student (J-6)
Yes (R-12)
May 6,
2022
May 6,
2022 (J-7)
5 Threat (R-3 at 3) Yes (R-14)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
14
Threat/intimidation
(R-4)
Threats
Intimidation
Profanity
(students/staff)
Leaving school building
Insubordination (R-14)
Threats
Intimidation (J-7)
June 16,
2022
June 16,
2022 (J-8)
4 Defiance
Disrespectful to staff
Verbal abuse or use of
profanity
Disruptive/inappropriate
behavior
Fighting/physical
aggression (R-3 at 3)
Unacceptable
language/profanity
directed at staff
Disrupting/attempting to
disrupt school day
Insubordination towards
admin. staff (R-17)
Insubordination
Disruptive/inappropriate
behavior (J-8)
Yes (R-17)
15. In Dr. Morton’s October 26, 2022, letter to K.F., Dr. Morton was unable to
verify that M.F. was given the opportunity to participate in an informal
hearing before a disciplinary consequence was administered. (R-26.) As a
result of his determination, M.F.’s suspension was expunged from her
record, and she was to be provided a minimum of eight hours of
compensatory services. (Ibid.)
16. In an email dated November 3, 2022, K.F. emailed Dr. Meloche and
requested that someone from the District provide her the specific Board
policy that provides for due process. (R-25.) Her questions were the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
15
following: “[W]ho does the appeal go to, how long does the district have to
review the appeal, what happens if the initial decision is upheld – who is the
next level of appeal, etc.” (Ibid.)
17. In Dr. Morton’s November 7, 2022, email, he advised K.F. that he was not
able to substantiate the allegation that M.F. was not afforded due process
in the disciplinary events during the 2021−2022 school year. (R-28.) He
said that even if he were able to substantiate that allegation, it would not
justify overturning M.F.’s suspensions from that school year. (Ibid.)
18. None of the letters from Carusi or Cherry Hill West to K.F. regarding out-
of-school suspensions imposed on M.F. provided the facts upon which
M.F.’s suspension was based. (R-44; R-45; R-46; J-3; J-4; J-5; J-6; J-7;
J-8; J-9.)
Testimony
The following individuals testified during the hearing:
1. Dr. Meloche, superintendent of the District
2. Dr. Burti, principal at Carusi during the 2021−2022 school year
3. Dr. Julie Benavides, assistant principal at Carusi during the
2021−2022 school year
4. Ramos, assistant principal at Cherry Hill West during the 2022−2023
school year
5. K.F., M.F.’s guardian, who has a background in education and is a
former Board member
The following is not a summary of all hearing testimony but an encapsulation of all
relevant hearing testimony solely regarding K.F.’s claims that M.F.‘s due process rights
were violated and a review of District policies and procedures on student discipline to
ensure reporting and implementation requirements are being met. The testimony related
to these issues falls into the following categories: Middle School Code of Conduct/High

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
16
School Code of Conduct, the District’s disciplinary process, the District’s appeal process
for disciplinary decisions and informal hearings for M.F.’s disciplinary violations.
Middle School Code of Conduct/High School Code of Conduct
The District’s Middle School Code of Conduct and High School Code of Conduct,
as applicable, are shared with District families and parents, and they govern the
expectations for student behavior. They are published on the District’s website and
accessible electronically through Genesis, an electronic student management system.
Parents and guardians must sign off electronically, which then provides access to the
student’s schedule. K.F. signed acknowledgment receipts for the 2020−2021,
2021−2022 and 2022−2023 school years, indicating that she received and reviewed the
Middle School Code of Conduct and High School Code of Conduct for the applicable
school year. (R-54.)
K.F. testified that when she signed these acknowledgments, there was no place to
raise questions or concerns about them in Genesis, and that in order to access any
information about your student, including courses, grades and IEP, parents had to
complete the acknowledgment receipts for those forms.
The District’s disciplinary process
1. Carusi
At Carusi, when teachers and staff were unable to handle a disciplinary issue with
a student on their own, they would complete a white card that included a first-hand
account of the incident, the student and/or faculty involved and any remedial steps the
faculty member took to resolve the issue. The white cards would be delivered to the
appropriate Carusi assistant principal, who would investigate what happened. That
investigation included following up with the faculty member to find out what occurred,
identifying any witnesses, meeting with the students and witnesses involved, taking

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
17
written and oral statements, speaking to parents and finding text messages or social
media posts that are related to the incident.
Dr. Burti testified that when administrators are called to respond immediately to an
incident, the administrators may be speaking to the students upon their arrival and
directing students to their office to determine what occurred. Students are not required
to make a written statement and are given the chance to give a verbal or written
statement. After the incident, various administrators and staff, including the members of
the student’s child study team and school counselors, would discuss what occurred, make
a decision on whether the student could remain in school, review the Middle School Code
of Conduct and assign the appropriate discipline.
Dr. Benavides’ understanding of students’ rights for disciplinary matters was that
they had due process rights, including the opportunity to share their version of events,
which could be a verbal or written statement.
Once the discipline was imposed, there would be a follow-up, including parent
notification. Depending on the nature of the incident, parents would be notified of the
incident before discipline was imposed.
After an incident that could give rise to discipline, in some instances, a student’s
presence poses an ongoing threat of danger or disruption to the educational program,
and in those circumstances, the informal hearing will be held afterwards, including at a
re-entry hearing. A re-entry hearing is held when the student returns to school after the
suspension. It is typically held with a principal or assistant principal, student and parent
and is designed to provide support to the student to ensure the behavior does not recur.
Dr. Burti testified that there was no District training on how to determine the
appropriate discipline for students based on the Middle School Code of Conduct or High
School Code of Conduct.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
18
2. Cherry Hill West
All documentation regarding any potential student violations of the High School
Code of Conduct was contained on Genesis. Ramos would review this portion of Genesis
for conduct that was inflammatory or required an immediate response.
At the high school level, the disciplinary process of suspensions included engaging
with the student to discuss the matter, finding out whether there was aggravating or
circumstantial information, and discussing the High School Code of Conduct. In some
matters, Ramos would seek counsel from his immediate supervisor to determine if the
course of action was appropriate. If the students were to be suspended, the parents
would be contacted.
Appeal process for the District’s disciplinary decisions
If a parent or guardian objected to discipline imposed on a student, the appeal
procedure, assuming that an assistant principal imposed the discipline, was to first appeal
to the principal, assistant superintendent, superintendent, and Board (internal appeal
procedure) and then the commissioner of the DOE. Dr. Burti recognized that the notices
of suspension that he sent out regarding M.F. did not include information about the parent
or guardian’s appeal rights.
Ramos testified that there is an appeal process available to parents and guardians
who wish to appeal discipline, but the High School Code of Conduct does not specify the
process that he understood, which, from his testimony, was identical to the internal appeal
procedure Dr. Burti described in his testimony, and then an external appeal to the DOE.
For the document that is generated to advise parents or guardians that their child is being
disciplined, there is a link to the Board’s policies, which, when clicked, would require
parents to navigate through many policies to find the information they desire to learn.
Dr. Meloche testified that the statement in his November 4, 2022, email to K.F.
regarding the District’s appeal process and amending the Code of Conduct to clarify the
process was likely drafted by the Board’s solicitor.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
19
K.F. testified that the Middle School Code of Conduct does not include any
information about an appeal process. After the manifestation determination meetings,
there was no information shared about how to appeal a disciplinary decision. None of the
suspension letters that she received from Carusi or Cherry Hill West about M.F.’s
suspensions contained information about her appeal rights.
During her tenure on the Board, no suspension appeals were brought before the
Board, and Board members were not advised how many suspensions were being given.
During the 2021−2022 school year, Dr. Meloche met with K.F. regarding M.F.’s
disciplinary issues. He said that he saw K.F. regularly because K.F. was a member of
the Board, and there was a weekly meeting with Board leadership, along with committee
and scheduled Board meetings. During these discussions, Dr. Meloche and K.F. had
informal discussions about how M.F. was doing in school. According to Dr. Meloche, he
was accessible to K.F. not necessarily during those meetings but adjacent to them, and
K.F. knew how to contact him. On the other hand, K.F. testified that she spoke to District
officials outside of the time that she was on duty as a Board member.
Informal hearings for M.F.’s disciplinary violations
As previously noted, M.F. received out-of-school suspensions ten times during the
2021−2022 school year. According to K.F., M.F. was never suspended before the
2021−2022 school year. Testimony on those specific suspensions, to the extent they
were addressed, is as follows:
1. November 17, 2021
During this incident, K.F. said that there was no informal hearing on the charges
against M.F. because school representatives originally told K.F. to come to the school to
pick up M.F. for touching a staff member before an investigation began. It took K.F. about
twenty-five minutes to get to the school, and when she arrived, Dr. Burti told K.F. that
there was a new issue. Dr. Burti confirmed that the original charge was not confirmed,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
20
but M.F. left the office. K.F. did not know whether Dr. Burti gave M.F. the chance to
explain why she left the office. Dr. Meloche was not aware whether there was an informal
hearing for this incident, and Dr. Burti did not recall.
M.F. was given two days of out-of-school suspension, served on Thursday,
November 18, 2021, and Friday, November 19, 2021. (J-3.) The manifestation
determination meeting occurred on Monday, November 22, 2021, and the decision made
was that M.F.’s behavior was a manifestation of her disability. (R-7.) M.F. lost
instructional time because she was suspended before the manifestation determination
meeting.
2. November 29, 2021
K.F. testified that M.F. was not given the opportunity to explain what happened
before she was disciplined because Dr. Benavides told K.F. that she did not need to
interview M.F. because the incident was recorded on video. K.F. viewed the video and
said that it was difficult to determine what occurred. Dr. Benavides, however, did not
impose this discipline on M.F.; Michelle Smith (Smith), another assistant principal at
Carusi, imposed discipline. (J-4.)
K.F.’s testimony as to whether a manifestation determination meeting took place
was uncertain; at one point in her testimony, K.F. testified that there was a manifestation
determination meeting, and she later testified there was no such meeting.
3. January 10, 2022
K.F. testified that when she received a call from school representatives to pick up
M.F. after the incident, M.F. was not given the opportunity to explain what occurred while
K.F. was present. K.F. said that typically after incidents, M.F. was upset and angry and
did not want to communicate.
4. March 21, 2022

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
21
For the March 21, 2022, incident, Dr. Benavides did not conduct an investigation
for the allegations, which were violations of the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (“Act”),
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 to -37, and were investigated under a different process. Dr.
Benavides did ask M.F. whether she made the statements giving rise to the investigation,
and M.F. did not respond.
K.F., however, testified that she was not aware that Dr. Benavides spoke to M.F.
about the allegations to get M.F.’s side of the events and did not believe that an informal
hearing occurred. M.F. was not allowed to make a statement regarding the suspension
related to the alleged violations of the Act.
5. May 6, 2022
During the investigation of these allegations, K.F. contacted Dr. Benavides to find
out whether M.F. was threatening other students and whether she was safe. Dr.
Benavides asked M.F. to advise where M.F.’s communications fell in the chain of text
messages. The meeting ended abruptly with M.F. using profanity, making a statement
along the lines of “I’m not doing this anymore with you,” and leaving her office.
6. June 16, 2022
After the incident, school representatives called K.F. and told her that she needed
to pick up M.F. from school. The manifestation determination meeting was held the next
day. K.F. attended the meeting and left before it concluded. Once K.F. learned that M.F.
would be suspended and would miss her eighth-grade graduation, she called the District’s
main office and requested a meeting with the superintendent.
Dr. Meloche and another assistant superintendent met with K.F. regarding M.F.’s
suspension in the superintendent’s office in Cherry Hill. (R-18.) During the meeting, they
discussed the discipline and K.F.’s desire to have the suspension removed so that M.F.
could attend her graduation ceremony. K.F. also conveyed her frustration that M.F. had
not been treated fairly and that she had been targeted.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
22
After this meeting, Dr. Meloche spoke with Dr. Burti regarding the incident, and Dr.
Meloche had no reason to believe that M.F. should not have been suspended. Dr.
Meloche upheld the discipline “based on the events specific to that suspension and then
the culmination of the events leading up to what occurred.” (T1, 50:12−16.) M.F. was
not permitted to participate in her eighth-grade graduation ceremony.
Dr. Meloche did not meet again with K.F. after this meeting, as she resigned from
the Board. They stopped seeing each other regularly.
Dr. Benavides testified that for all of M.F.’s disciplinary actions for which she was
in charge, she investigated the incidents, which included speaking to the students
involved and any student and adult witnesses. Dr. Benavides was involved in the October
5, 2021, January 10, 2022, March 21, 2022, May 6, 2022, and June 16, 2022, disciplinary
decisions against M.F. (J-5; J-6; J-7; J-8; R-44.)
7. September 23, 2022
Immediately after the September 23, 2022, incident, Ramos went to an office
where M.F. was located to assess what happened, and M.F. advised Ramos of what
happened. Ramos was able to ask M.F. questions about the incident, and even though
she was very agitated, Ramos received some answers to his questions. Ramos testified
that when K.F. came to pick up M.F. from school, both were able to give their version of
what happened. Ramos testified that M.F. was given the opportunity on the day of the
incident to provide her version of the event.
According to K.F., school representatives called her to pick up M.F. immediately
after the incident, and because K.F. was working remotely that day, she was able to pick
up M.F. about ten minutes later. When K.F. arrived, M.F. was sitting in the principal’s
office, and M.F. was very agitated. K.F. was told that they were not able to talk to M.F.
because she was on the phone with a friend who was not at school that day, and they
weren’t able to interview her.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
23
K.F. was not provided a suspension letter immediately after M.F.’s suspension,
and K.F. emailed the assistant principal to obtain the letter. Ramos advised her that his
secretary had been out of the office, and he was behind. Ramos told K.F. that he
consulted with M.F.’s child study team before M.F. was suspended. Ramos testified that
his secretary created a letter regarding M.F.’s three-day suspension. (J-9.) Ramos
described the letter as a form letter used at Cherry Hill West.
According to K.F., in October 2022, M.F. was suspended for an incident that
happened among students while M.F. was walking home at the end of a school day, which
was a half-day early dismissal. Ramos called K.F. to advise her that M.F. had been
suspended, and K.F. went to Dr. Morton and asked him how M.F. could have been
suspended when there was no opportunity to interview M.F. Dr. Morton ultimately
overturned the suspension because he believed that M.F.’s due process rights had been
violated for a failure to conduct an interview.
K.F. testified that around November 2021, she had a due process petition filed
against the District regarding an IEP to place M.F. on home instruction. This due process
petition was resolved with the District. K.F. did not believe that M.F. received
compensatory education for the days for which M.F. was suspended from school. No
one from the District, such as a teacher or tutor, contacted her to work with M.F. on the
work that M.F. missed. M.F. would request that the school send her the assignments that
M.F. was missing; sometimes M.F. received the assignments, and sometimes, she did
not.
K.F. said that she was always allowed to provide information to the schools
regarding incidents involving M.F. after the fact, but she never felt that the subsequent
information had any effect on decision-making.
K.F. believes that M.F.’s behavior deserves consequences, understanding that
some of the acts were driven by disabilities and others were not. Her issue was that the
District did not follow due process, including interviewing students. K.F. requested
redacted witness statements and other related information, but she was never given any.
She was also never told what her appeal rights were.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
24
Additional Findings
It is the obligation of the fact finder to weigh the credibility of the witnesses before
making a decision. Credibility is the value that a fact finder gives to a witness’s testimony.
Credibility is best described as that quality of testimony or evidence that makes it worthy
of belief. “Testimony to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness but must be credible in itself. It must be such as the common experience and
observation of mankind can approve as probable in the circumstances.” In re Estate of
Perrone, 5 N.J. 514, 522 (1950). To assess credibility, the fact finder should consider the
witness’s interest in the outcome, motive, or bias. “A trier of fact may reject testimony
because it is inherently incredible, or because it is inconsistent with other testimony or
with common experience, or because it is overborne by other testimony.” Congleton v.
Pura-Tex Stone Corp., 53 N.J. Super. 282, 287 (App. Div. 1958).
I generally accept all of the testimony provided as credible, except as specifically
noted in conflicting testimony. Dr. Meloche, Dr. Burti, Dr. Benavides, Ramos and K.F.
were all professional and forthright in their testimony, including those instances where
they made admissions pertinent to the case.
Accordingly, I FIND the following additional FACTS:
1. K.F. signed acknowledgment receipts for the 2020−2021, 2021−2022 and
2022−2023 school years, indicating that she received and reviewed the
Middle School Code of Conduct and High School Code of Conduct for the
applicable school year.
2. When K.F. signed the acknowledgment receipts for the Middle School Code
of Conduct and High School Code of Conduct, there was no place to raise
questions or concerns about them in Genesis, and in order to access any
information about M.F., including courses, grades and IEP, she had to
complete the acknowledgment receipts.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
25
3. The Middle School Code of Conduct does not include specific language
regarding a parent or guardian’s right to appeal disciplinary action imposed
on a District student through the internal appeals procedure that Dr. Burti
described in his testimony.
4. The Middle School Code of Conduct does not include specific statutory
language regarding a parent or guardian’s right to appeal disciplinary action
taken against a student outside of the District, namely an appeal with the
Commissioner of the BOE.
5. The High School Code of Conduct does not include specific language
regarding a parent or guardian’s right to appeal disciplinary action imposed
on a District student through the internal appeals procedure that Dr. Burti
described in his testimony.
6. The High School Code of Conduct does not include specific statutory
language regarding a parent or guardian’s right to appeal disciplinary action
taken against a student outside of the District, namely an appeal with the
Commissioner of the BOE.
7. None of the suspension letters that K.F. received from Carusi, specifically
the letters dated October 5, 2021, October 15, 2021, November 2, 2021,
November 17, 2021, November 29, 2021, January 10, 2022, March 21,
2022, May 6, 2022, or June 16, 2022, contained specific information about
K.F.’s right to appeal discipline imposed on M.F., whether the internal
appeal procedure or outside of the District to the Commissioner of DOE.
8. The September 28, 2022, suspension letter that K.F. received from Cherry
Hill West did not contain any specific information about K.F.’s right to appeal
discipline imposed on M.F., whether the internal appeals procedure or
outside of the District to the Commissioner of DOE.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
26
9. After the manifestation determination meetings, there was no information
shared with M.F. about how to appeal a disciplinary decision.
10. During M.F.’s tenure on the Board, no suspension appeals were brought
before the Board, and Board members were not advised how many
suspensions were being given throughout the District.
11. For the November 17, 2021, incident, M.F. was not given the chance to
explain why she left Dr. Burti’s office before she was suspended.
12. M.F. served her two days of out-of-school suspension on Thursday,
November 18, 2021, and Friday, November 19, 2021, before the Monday,
November 22, 2021, manifestation determination meeting, where the child
study team determined that M.F.’s behavior was a manifestation of her
disability. M.F. lost instructional time because she was suspended before
the manifestation determination meeting.
13. For the November 29, 2021, incident, the District did not conduct a
manifestation determination meeting regarding this disciplinary action, and
there was no evidence presented that M.F. was permitted to explain her
version of the events giving rise to a suspension.
14. For the January 10, 2022, incident, M.F. was not given the opportunity to
explain what occurred while K.F. was present.
15. For the March 21, 2022, incident, Dr. Benavides asked M.F. whether she
made the statements giving rise to the investigation, and M.F. did not
respond.
16. As part of the investigation of the allegations on or around May 6, 2022, Dr.
Benavides asked M.F. to advise where M.F.’s communications fell in the
chain of text messages. The meeting ended abruptly with M.F. using

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
27
profanity, making a statement along the lines of “I’m not doing this anymore
with you,” and leaving her office.
17. Dr. Benavides investigated all of M.F.’s disciplinary actions for which she
was in charge, which included speaking to the students involved and any
student and adult witnesses. Dr. Benavides was involved in the October 5,
2021, January 10, 2022, March 21, 2022, May 6, 2022, and June 16, 2022,
disciplinary decisions against M.F.
18. For the June 16, 2022, incident, after the manifestation determination
meeting, which confirmed that M.F. would be suspended and miss her
eighth-grade graduation, K.F. called the District’s main office and requested
a meeting with the superintendent.
19. K.F.’s request to meet with the superintendent regarding the June 16, 2022,
suspension did not follow the District’s unwritten internal appeal procedure.
20. For the September 23, 2022, incident, M.F. was given the opportunity on
the day of the incident to provide her version of the event.
21. The District did not provide training on how to determine the appropriate
discipline for students based on the Middle School Code of Conduct or High
School Code of Conduct.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
As previously noted, M.F. seeks the following relief from the District in this matter:
(i) overturn all of M.F.’s suspensions from the 2021−2022 school year and one
suspension from the 2022−2023 school year based on violations of M.F.’s due process
rights; and (ii) a review of District policies and procedures related to student discipline to
ensure that all reporting and implementation requirements are being met. Students’ due

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
28
process rights as they pertain to student conduct and potential discipline resulting from
misconduct are discussed in N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1 as follows:
(a) Each [District] shall develop, adopt, disseminate, and
implement a code of student conduct that establishes
standards, policies, and procedures for positive
student development and student behavioral
expectations on school grounds and, as appropriate,
for conduct away from school grounds.
. . . .
2. The [District] shall establish a process for the
annual review and update of the code of student
conduct.
3. The code of student conduct shall be
disseminated annually to all school staff,
students and parents.
4. The [District] shall provide to all district board of
education employees annual training on the
code of student conduct, including training on
the prevention, intervention, and remediation of
student conduct that violates the [District’s] code
of student conduct.
5. The [District] shall provide for the code of
student conduct's equitable application.
6. For students with disabilities subject to [IEPs] in
accordance with 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and
accommodation plans under 29 U.S.C. §§ 794
and 705(20), the code of student conduct shall
be implemented in accordance with the
applicable plans.
(b) The code of student conduct shall be established to
achieve the following purposes:
. . . .
6. Establish parameters for school responses to
violations of the code of student conduct that
take into account, at a minimum, the severity of
offenses, the developmental ages of student

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
29
offenders and students' histories of
inappropriate behaviors in accordance with
N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2 through 7.8, as appropriate.
(c) The code of student conduct shall include, at a
minimum:
1. A description of students' responsibilities that
includes expectations for academic
achievement, behavior and attendance,
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:32-8 and 12.1;
2. A description of behaviors that result in
suspension or expulsion, pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:37-2. . .
3. A description of students' rights to:
i. Advance notice of behaviors that result in
suspensions and expulsions that have
been identified pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:37-2;
. . . .
v. Due process appeal procedures and
policies, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3
through 1.17; N.J.A.C. 6A:4; and, where
applicable, N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.7 and 2.8,
and N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2 through 7.5;
vi. Parent notification consistent with the
policies and procedures established
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:16-6.2(b)3, this
section, and N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2 through
7.8; and
vii. Protections pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §
1232g, Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act; 34 CFR § 99, Family
Educational Rights and Privacy; 20
U.S.C. § 1232h, Protection of Pupil
Rights; 34 CFR Part 98, Student Rights
in Research, Experimental Programs,
and Testing; P.L.104-191, Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act; 45 CFR 160, General Administrative
Requirements; 20 U.S.C. § 7165,
Transfer of school disciplinary records;

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
30
42 CFR Part 2, Confidentiality of
Substance Use Disorder Patient
Records; N.J.S.A. 18A:40A-7.1,
Confidentiality of certain information
provided by pupil, exceptions; N.J.A.C.
6A:16-3.2, Confidentiality of student
alcohol and other drug information;
N.J.S.A. 18A:36-19, Pupil records,
creation, maintenance and retention,
security and access, regulations,
nonliability; N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60,
Disclosure of juvenile information,
penalties for disclosure; N.J.A.C.
6A:32-7, Student Records; N.J.A.C.
6A:14-2.9, Student records; as well as
other existing Federal and State laws and
rules pertaining to student protections. . .
[N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1, emphasis added.]
M.F.’s suspensions during the 2021−2022 and 2022−2023 school years were all
short-term suspensions, as they were all for less than ten consecutive school days.
N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a). The due process rights afforded to students for short-term
suspensions are as follows:
(a) In each instance of a short-term suspension, a [District]
shall assure the rights of a student suspended for one,
but not more than 10 consecutive school days, by
providing for the following:
1. As soon as practical, oral or written notice of
charges to the student.
i. When charges are denied, an
explanation of the evidence forming the
basis of the charges also shall be
provided;
2. Prior to the suspension, an informal hearing
during which the student is given the opportunity
to present the student's version of events
regarding the student's actions leading to the
short-term suspension and is provided notice of
the [District's] actions taken pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1(c)2 and 5:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
31
i. The informal hearing shall be conducted
by a school administrator or the school
administrator's designee;
ii. To the extent that a student's presence
poses a continuing danger to persons or
property or an ongoing threat of
disrupting the educational process, the
student may be immediately removed
from the student's educational program
and the informal hearing shall be held as
soon as practical after the suspension;
iii. The informal hearing shall take place
even when a school staff member has
witnessed the conduct forming the basis
of the charge; and
iv. The informal hearing and the notice
given may take place at the same time;
3. Oral or written notification to the student's
parents of the student's removal from the
student's educational program prior to the end
of the school day on which the school
administrator decides to suspend the student.
The notification shall include an explanation of:
i. The specific charges;
ii. The facts on which the charges are
based;
iii. The provision(s) of the code of student
conduct the student is accused of
violating;
iv. The student's due process rights,
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1(c)3 and
this section; and
v. The terms and conditions of the
suspension.
[N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2, emphasis added.]
A local board of education’s action within its discretionary powers will only be
reversed if it is “patently arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by improper motives.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
32
Kopera v. Bd. of Ed. of West Orange, 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App. Div. 1960). “Where
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 Sewerage Co. v. Dept. of Env’l Prot., 122 N.J.
Super. 184, 199 (Ch. Div. 1973), aff.’d. 131 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1974).
From a review of the applicable law and the facts in this matter, the District violated
M.F.’s due process rights in several ways. First, the District did not train its employees
on the Middle School Code of Conduct or High School Code of Conduct, in violation of
N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1(a)(4).
Second, the District did not provide parents and guardians, including K.F., notice
of appeal procedures, either internal or external appeal procedures (the Commissioner of
the DOE), as required by N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1(c)(3)(v). None of the District’s relevant
documents, from the Middle School Code of Conduct, the High School Code of Conduct
or District Policy 5610, even remotely mentions the internal appeal procedure. In his
November 3, 2022, email to K.F., Dr. Meloche admits the same, noting that the Board
needed to amend the Middle School Code of Conduct and the High School Code of
Conduct to provide that information.
How, then, can a District student’s parent or guardian know how to proceed if they
wish to challenge and/or appeal disciplinary action taken against their student? Do
District parents and guardians even know that the internal appeals procedure exists? The
simple fact is that they do not, and the fact that during her tenure on the Board, K.F. never
heard any disciplinary appeals from parents and guardians regarding discipline imposed
upon their children, a necessary part of the internal appeals procedure, underscores this
point.
The District attempts to argue that because K.F. requested to meet with the
superintendent regarding the June 16, 2021, suspension, she must have been aware of
the internal appeal procedure. It is important to note that K.F. did not follow the chain of
command for appeals as District representatives described it; she skipped a step. From
her testimony, it appears that K.F., in her frustration over the situation, went to the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
33
highest-ranking person in the District, rather than an assistant superintendent, to
advocate for M.F. K.F. did not consult with Dr. Burti or an assistant superintendent before
contacting the superintendent, who are the next individuals in the internal appeal
procedure’s chain of command. K.F.’s procedural failing proves that she was not aware
of the District’s internal appeals procedure.
The third and fourth due process violations are the District’s failure to include in
the written notification to parents and guardians that a student has received a short-term
suspension the facts on which charges are based pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a)(3)(ii)
and again, to provide notice of due process rights, which includes the internal, informal
appeal process, and the ability to appeal a disciplinary decision to the Commissioner of
the DOE pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3 to -1.17 and N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a)(3)(iv). None
of this information, including references to the applicable regulations, is included in the
form letters that the District provides to parents and guardians when students receive a
short-term suspension.
K.F. argues generally that M.F. did not receive due process, namely an informal
hearing as required by N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a)(2), before Carusi and Cherry Hill West
administrators imposed short-term suspensions on M.F. The United States Supreme
Court has held that in cases involving short-term suspension, a school disciplinarian may
informally discuss the alleged misconduct with the student minutes after it has occurred
and that the student is not entitled to a formal trial-type proceeding. Goss v. Lopez, 419
U.S. 565, 581-83 (1975). For an informal hearing, the student should be given the
opportunity to persuade the disciplining authority that there is a case of mistaken identity
or that there is some other compelling reason why they should not be suspended pending
a full hearing. Hernandez v. Don Bosco Preparatory High, 322 N.J. Super. 1, 17 (App.
Div. 1999) (citing R.R. v. Shore Reg’l High Sch. Bd. of Educ., 109 N.J. Super. 337, 347−48
(Ch. Div. 1970). Based on these guiding principles, K.F. is correct in two instances.
The first instance is the November 17, 2021, incident, where Dr. Burti did not give
M.F. the opportunity to explain why she left his office before receiving an out-of-school
suspension. On its face, this is a violation of M.F.’s due process rights pursuant to

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
34
N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a)(2). M.F. was not given the opportunity to explain her behavior
before discipline was imposed.
Equally troubling here is that a manifestation determination meeting, required for
M.F. under the IDEA,8 was held after M.F. served her out-of-school suspension, and the
determination was that her behavior was a manifestation of her disability. The practical
implication is that M.F. served a two-day out-of-school suspension that she should not
have received in the first place. M.F. lost instructional time as a result. The second
instance is the November 29, 2021, incident, where there was no manifestation
determination meeting, and there was no evidence presented that M.F. was permitted to
explain her version of the events giving rise to a suspension. Smith did not testify during
the hearing.
The next question is the appropriate remedy. K.F. advocates for the reversal of
those suspensions; through testimony, the District asserts that its actions were not
arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. (Resp’t’s Br. 24−25.) As to the District’s argument,
I disagree. The language in the applicable regulations, N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1 and N.J.A.C.
6A:16-7.2, regarding the District’s obligations to provide its students with due process is
mandatory (“shall”), rather than permissive. See Quereshi v. Cintas Corp., 413 N.J.
Super. 492, 498 (App. Div. 2010) (stating, “[t]he use of the word ‘shall’ ordinarily denotes
action that is mandatory, unless the context suggests otherwise.”); see also A.B. v. Div.
of Med. Assistance and Health Servs., 407 N.J. Super. 330, 340 (App. Div. 2009) (stating,
“[a] rule of an administrative agency is subject to the same canons of construction as a
statute.”) A failure to abide by state law or regulation is arbitrary, capricious and
unreasonable. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210−211 (1997) (stating that an
agency’s ruling should not be disturbed except for rare circumstances where “agency
action is clearly inconsistent with its statutory mission or with other State policy,” which
includes an inquiry into whether the agency’s action offends the State or Federal
Constitution or violates express legislative policies.).
8 See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(i)(1)(E).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
35
If a student’s due process rights are violated, the student is entitled to a remedy,
which can range from the immediate reinstatement of the student back in school to having
the record expunged of any disciplinary action. See L.K. and A.K. o/b/o L.K. v. N.
Burlington Cnty. Reg’l. Bd. of Educ., EDU 6071-12, Initial Decision (Jan. 27, 2014),
adopted, Comm’r (Mar. 21, 2014), https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/
collections/oal/html/initial/edu6071-12_1.html; C.F. v. Wildwood Bd. of Educ., 96
N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 619, EDU 798-96 (Mar. 26, 1996). I agree that the reversal of the two
out-of-school suspensions on November 17, 2021, and November 29, 2021, is
appropriate, and M.F.’s record should be expunged of both of these disciplinary
infractions. This result is consistent with N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.7(a)(1), which allows parents
or guardians to request the expungement of certain information in their student’s record.
Regardless of whether a school district allows the information to be expunged, parents or
guardians “shall be permitted to place in the student record a statement commenting upon
the information in the student record or setting forth any reasons for contesting a portion
of the student record, including the decision made in the appeal. The parent's or adult
student's statement shall be maintained as part of the student record, as long as the
contested portion of the student record is maintained.” N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.7(d).
As a parent, I find the District’s failure to follow the plain and mandatory language
of State regulations designed to protect students’ due process rights troubling, particularly
when parents and guardians clearly do not know the process by which they can advocate
for their children’s rights. For the period of time in question here, the District had the last
and final say regarding student discipline, a situation made possible because it failed to
provide parents and guardians with the information they needed to challenge the District’s
actions. The irony is that even at the end of this Initial Decision, the parties, including the
District, will be apprised of their respective appeal rights if they disagree. For a period of
time, however, the District did not provide its students, parents and guardians with that
same type of information, despite its mandatory obligation by regulation to do so.
For the foregoing reasons, I CONCLUDE that the District has violated students’
due process rights for the following:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
36
1. The District did not train its employees on the Middle School Code of
Conduct or High School Code of Conduct, in violation of N.J.A.C.
6A:16-7.1(a)(4).
2. The District failed to provide parents and guardians, including K.F., notice
of appeal procedures, whether the internal appeal procedure or an appeal
to the Commissioner of the DOE, as required by N.J.A.C.
6A:16-7.1(c)(3)(v).
3. When disciplining students, including M.F., the District failed to include in
the written notification to parents and guardians that a student has received
a short-term suspension the facts on which charges are based pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a)(3)(ii) and notice of their due process rights, which
includes the District’s internal appeal procedure and the ability to appeal a
disciplinary decision to the Commissioner of the DOE pursuant to N.J.A.C.
6A:3-1.3 to -1.17, in violation of N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(a)(3)(iv).
I FURTHER CONCLUDE that the District’s actions in imposing out-of-school
suspensions on M.F. on November 17, 2021, and November 29, 2021, violated M.F.’s
due process rights by failing to conduct an informal hearing as required by N.J.A.C.
6A:16-7.2(a)(2), and as a result of those due process violations, those suspensions
should be expunged from her permanent record.
ORDER
I ORDER that the District violated the due process rights of its students when it (i)
failed to train its employees on the Middle School Code of Conduct or High School Code
of Conduct, a violation of N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1(a)(4); (ii) failed to provide to provide parents
and guardians, including K.F., notice of appeal procedures, whether the internal appeal
procedure or an appeal to the Commissioner of the DOE, as required by N.J.A.C.
6A:16-7.1(c)(3)(v); and (iii) when disciplining students, including M.F., the District failed
to include in the written notification to parents and guardians that a student has received
a short-term suspension the facts on which charges are based pursuant to N.J.A.C.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
37
6A:16-7.2(a)(3)(ii) and notice of due process rights, which includes the District’s internal
appeal process and the ability to appeal a disciplinary decision to the Commissioner of
the DOE pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3 to -1.17, in violation of pursuant to N.J.A.C.
6A:16-7.2(a)(3)(iv).
I FURTHER ORDER that the District’s actions in imposing out-of-school
suspensions on M.F. on November 17, 2021, and November 29, 2021, violated M.F.’s
due process rights for a failing to conduct an informal hearing as required by N.J.A.C.
6A:16-7.2(a)(2), and as a result of those due process violations, those suspensions shall
be expunged from M.F.’s permanent record.
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 10903-22
38
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 19, 2025
DATE KIMBERLEY M. WILSON, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: June 19, 2025
Date Mailed to Parties:
KMW/ml
c: Clerk, OAL-T

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
39
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For petitioner:
K.F.
For respondent:
Dr. Joseph N. Meloche
Dr. Neil Burti
Dr. Julie Benavides
Abel Ramos
Exhibits
Joint:
J-1 Board Middle School Code of Student Conduct 2021−2022
J-2 M.F.’s IEP dated October 20, 2021
J-3 Letter from Dr. Burti to K.F. dated November 17, 2021
J-4 Letter from Michelle Smith to K.F. dated November 29, 2021
J-5 Letter from Dr. Benavides to K.F. dated January 10, 2022
J-6 Letter from Dr. Benavides to K.F. dated March 21, 2022
J-7 Letter from Dr. Benavides to K.F. dated May 6, 2022
J-8 Letter from Dr. Benavides to K.F. dated June 16, 2022
J-9 Letter from Ramos to K.F. dated September 28, 2022
J-10 Emails between K.F. and Dr. Meloche dated October 13, 2022, to
November 6, 2022
For petitioner:
None entered into evidence.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
40
For respondent:
R-3 M.F.’s student conduct list dated September 27, 2021, to November 22,
2022
R-4 List of M.F.’s manifestation determination meetings for the 2020−2021
school year
R-5 Board’s Middle School Code of Conduct 2022−2023
R-6 Disciplinary Action Manifestation Determination Form dated November 11,
2021
R-7 Manifestation Determination Form for November 22, 2021, meeting
R-8 Disciplinary Action Manifestation Determination Form dated January 10,
2022
R-9 Manifestation Determination Form for January 10, 2022, meeting
R-10 Invitation for a Manifestation Determination letter dated March 18, 2022
R-11 Disciplinary Action Manifestation Determination Form dated March 21, 2022
R-12 Manifestation Determination Form for March 21, 2022, meeting
R-13 Disciplinary Action Manifestation Determination Form dated May 6, 2022
R-14 Manifestation Determination Form for May 6, 2022, meeting
R-15 Invitation for a Manifestation Determination letter dated June 15, 2022
R-16 Disciplinary Action Manifestation Determination Form dated June 16, 2022
R-17 Manifestation Determination Form for June 16, 2022, meeting
R-18 Letter from Dr. Meloche to K.F. dated June 20, 2022
R-19 Cherry Hill High School West Incident Summary Report dated September
23, 2022
R-20 Email from K.F. to Ramos dated September 28, 2022, 8:04 a.m.
R-21 Email from Ramos to K.F. dated September 28, 2022, 9:24 a.m.
R-24 Email from Dr. Meloche to K.F. dated October 14, 2022, 6:23 p.m.
R-25 Email from K.F. to Dr. Meloche dated November 3, 2022
R-26 Letter from Dr. Morton to K.F. dated October 26, 2022
R-27 Email from K.F. to Dr. Meloche dated November 6, 2022
R-28 Email from K.F. to Dr. Meloche dated November 7, 2022
R-29 Board Policy 5610 – Suspension
R-30 Board High School Code of Conduct 2022−2023

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10903-22
41
R-32 Email from Dr. Burti to K.F. dated November 23, 2021
R-33 Letter from Dr. Benavides to K.F. dated November 10, 2021
R-42 Carusi cards
R-43 Letter from Dr. Benavides to K.F. dated September 27, 2021
R-44 Letter from Dr. Benavides to K.F. dated October 5, 2021
R-45 Letter from Michelle Smith to K.F. dated October 15, 2021
R-46 Letter from Dr. Burti to K.F. dated November 2, 2021
R-51 Board Policy 5600 – Student Discipline/Code of Conduct
R-52 District Parent Access − Genesis
R-53 Important Documents and Information for the 2022−2023 School Year,
Genesis Parent University
R-54 Acknowledgment receipts for Code of Student Conduct for 2020−2021,
2021−2022 and 2022−2023 school years
R-55 Video of September 12, 2022, incident
R-56 Video of September 12, 2022, incident
R-57 Video of September 12, 2022, incident
The nonsequential numbering of exhibits reflects the fact that numerous pre-marked exhibits were
neither identified nor offered into evidence.