Lynda Alfano, Kimberly Dalton, Connie Luna, Gerardo Molina-Matta, Kerry Raslowski, and Leslie Santa v. Board of Education of the City of Perth Amboy, Middlesex County, 1/30/25 (#35-25)

35-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 02462-21
Agency Dkt. No. 19-2/21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Lynda Alfano, Kimberly Dalton, Connie Luna,
Gerardo Molina-Matta, Kerry Raslowsky, and
Leslie Santa1,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Perth Amboy,
Middlesex County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
have been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
The threshold procedural issue in this case is whether the petition should be dismissed as
untimely pursuant to the 90-day rule, N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i); 	see also Kaprow v. Bd. of Educ. of
Berkeley Twp., 131 N.J. 572 (1993). 	Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that the petition is untimely. 	As determined by the ALJ,
petitioners filed this action on February 5, 2021—162 days after respondent voted to approve
1 Santa withdrew her petition on July 23, 2021.

2
their transfers to new positions. Petitioners have not asserted that extraordinary circumstances
warrant an extension of the 90-day limitation period, and none can be gleaned from the record.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter,
respondent’s motion for summary decision is granted, and the petition of appeal is hereby
dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	January 30, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	January 31, 2025
2 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-
9.1. Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days
from the date of mailing of this decision.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02462-21
AGENCY DKT. NO. 19-2/21
LYNDA ALFANO, KIMBERLY DALTON,
CONNIE LUNA, GERARDO MOLINA-MATTA,
KERRY RASLOWSKY AND LESLIE SANTA1,
Petitioners,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PERTH AMBOY,
MIDDLESEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
Justin Schwam, Esq., for petitioners (Weissman & Mintz LLC, attorneys)
Isabel Machado, Esq., for respondent (The Machado Law Group, attorneys)
Record Closed: November 21, 2024 Decided: December 2, 2024
BEFORE JUDITH LIEBERMAN, ALJ:
1 Santa withdrew her petition on July 23, 2021.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02462-21
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioners contend respondent Board of Education of Perth Amboy (respondent
or Board) improperly abolished their master teacher positions and assigned them to
different teaching positions and subsequently appointed younger, less senior and less
qualified teachers to master teacher positions. They contend respondent was motivated
by age-based discriminatory animus, violated its statutory and regulatory obligations
when it abolished the master teacher position and violated their seniority rights. They
seek reinstatement to master teacher positions. Respondent filed a motion for summary
decision in which it argues that the petition was not filed in a timely manner; it properly
exercised its managerial authority to transfer personnel to positions within the scope of
their certifications; petitioners do not have seniority rights and are not entitled to tenure
protection with respect to the master teacher position; and the master teacher position
was not abolished.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioners filed their petition on February 5, 2021, and respondent filed its answer
on February 25, 2021. The Department of Education (DOE) Office of Controversies and
Disputes transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where it was
filed on February 26, 2021, as a contested case. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A.
52:14F-1 to -13. The matter was assigned to me on April 7, 2021, and the first prehearing
status conference was conducted on June 2, 2021. During the status conference, the
parties advised that discovery was in progress, and respondent sought leave to file a
motion to dismiss the petition. Respondent’s motion was received on July 19, 2021, and
petitioners’ opposition brief was received on August 11, 2021, after which the record for
the motion closed. On September 23, 2021, the motion was granted with respect to
petitioners’ allegations of violations of the collective bargaining agreement. The motion
was denied with respect to petitioners’ remaining claims. On June 28, 2022, an order
was issued granting in part petitioners' motion to compel supplemental answers to
interrogatories and produce documents.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02462-21
3
After several status conferences were conducted, respondent sought leave to file
a motion for summary decision, which was received on March 20, 2023. Petitioners
sought and received multiple extensions of the deadline for the filing of their opposition
brief and also requested an additional extension because the parties were actively
engaged in settlement negotiations. The parties represented that good faith negotiations
continued through August 2024. However, on September 10, 2024, they advised that
they were unable to finalize a settlement agreement. Respondent thus requested that its
March 20, 2023, summary decision motion be heard. Petitioners were permitted to file
an opposition brief. On September 10, 2024, petitioners advised that they would not
oppose the motion. On November 4, 2024, respondent was asked to supplement the
record. It did so on November 21, 2024, and the record closed that day.
The Petition
Petitioners made the following claims in their petition:
1. Respondent improperly abolished the master teacher position, as it is
required to fill the position pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-4.3. Petition at
¶¶20, 25.
2. Respondent violated N.J.A.C. 6A:32-5, which requires that “whenever an
employment category is abolished, the tenured employees shall be given
employment in the same category to which he or she is entitled by seniority.
The person shall be placed and remain upon the preferred eligible list until
a vacancy occurs in the category to which seniority entitled him or her.” Id.
at ¶21.
3. Respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:28-10, which requires that dismissals or
reductions in force shall be based upon seniority and not upon residence,
age, sex, marriage, race, religion or political affiliation. Id. at ¶22.
4. The District violated petitioner’s “seniority and non-discrimination rights”
when it “transferred them out of a category of employment and permitted

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02462-21
4
younger teachers with less seniority and experience to remain in their
original elementary category.” Id. at ¶28.
5. The District “temporarily abolished the master teacher positions held by the
petitioners for the purpose of replacing petitioners with younger and less
senior teachers.” Id. at ¶29.
6. Petitioners seek reinstatement to the position of master teacher.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
The following facts are undisputed and, therefore, I FIND the following as FACT:
Petitioners are current and former2 teachers employed by respondent. Before the
2020−2021 school year, they were assigned to serve as master teachers within the Perth
Amboy Public School District (District). Master teachers are teachers whose roles include
coaching and classroom support for classroom teachers. They are required to have
teacher certifications and are not entitled to additional salary or benefits that are not
available to all other teachers employed by respondent. Cert. of Delvis Rodriguez,
November 19, 2024, (“Rodriguez Cert.”) at ¶¶11−16.
Prior to the start of the 2020−2021 school year, petitioners’ assignments were
changed from master teacher to other positions. Respondent subsequently appointed
other teachers to master teacher positions.
At the time the petition was filed, petitioners’ ages were:
1. Alfano 58 years old
2. Dalton 54 years old
3. Luna 56 years old
2 Dalton retired on August 31, 2021; Raslowsky and Santa retired from the District on May 1, 2021.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02462-21
5
4. Molina-Matta 49 years old
5. Raslowsky 61 years old
6. Santa 60 years old
As of April 16, 2021, the age of the employees who were appointed to the master
teacher positions previously held by petitioners ranged from thirty-four to forty-six years
old. Rodriguez Cert. at ¶46.
The reassignments were made in response to staffing needs caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic. As of July 1, 2020, prior to the start of the 2020−2021 school year,
there were approximately 117 open teaching assignments. Rodriguez Cert. at ¶17. To
respond to this teacher shortage, the District determined that it must reassign certified
staff members to ensure it had certified teachers for each of its classes. Id. at ¶¶18−19,
¶24. This included reassigning those staff members who were not teaching in a
classroom with students, which included petitioners, to classrooms with students. Id. at
¶24. Thus, it was determined that master teachers who were not teaching students in
classrooms would be assigned to classroom teaching positions within the scope of their
certifications. Id. at ¶25. On August 24, 2020, the Board advised petitioners that, during
its August 27, 2020, meeting, it would approve their transfers from master teacher
positions to new, specified positions for the 2020−2021 school year. Cert. of Isabel
Machado, Esq. (“Machado Cert.”), R-E.
On August 27, 2020, the Board voted to approve the transfer and/or changed
assignments of approximately 110 staff members, including petitioners. Rodriguez Cert.
at ¶20. The meeting minutes include an August 18, 2020, memorandum from Director of
Personnel Yolanda Gómez to Superintendent Dr. David Roman in which transfers or
changes of assignment are recommended for multiple staff members for the 2020−2021
school year. Machado Cert., R-D. The staff members included:
• Forty-five intervention teachers to classroom teachers.
• Fourteen reading specialists to classroom teachers.
• Five math specialists to classroom teachers.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02462-21
6
• Three Deans of Students to classroom teachers.
• Four coaches to classroom teachers.
• One bilingual specialist to classroom teacher.
• Two ISS/IDS teachers to classroom teachers.
• Seven master teachers to classroom teachers.
[Ibid., Rodriguez Cert. at ¶22.]
The District did not abolish the master teacher positions. Rodriguez Cert. at ¶23.
Petitioners’ salaries and benefits were not impacted as a result of their reassignments.
Id. at ¶27. Petitioners were transferred within the scope of their tenure category and
endorsements. Id. at ¶25.
After the reassignments, State guidance directed the District to fill the master
teacher assignments. Id. at ¶26, Machado Cert., R-F. The District concluded that in order
to avoid an unnecessary and unwarranted interruption to the continuity of education for
its students, it would assign six staff members3 from within the preschool program to serve
as master teachers. Id. at ¶28. It was determined that moving teachers from other than
preschool classrooms would be more disruptive to the continuity of education of its
students. That is because upper-grade teachers taught more complex lessons. Id. at
¶¶29−30. Also, preschool classes could be merged so as to enable the District to assign
the preschool teacher to a master teacher position. Id. at ¶42. Neither petitioners’ age
nor that of the newly assigned master teachers was a factor in making these decisions.
Id. at ¶37.
Alfano was serving as an English as a second language (ESL) teacher; Lunda was
serving as a Spanish teacher; Santa was serving as a special education teacher. Had
they been reassigned to master teacher positions, there would have been an
unnecessary and unwarranted interruption to the continuity of education for their students.
Id. at ¶¶32−34.
3 Due to lower student enrollment, one less master teacher was required. Rodriguez Cert. at ¶45.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02462-21
7
By assigning Sara Stopek to a master teacher position, the District permitted a
substitute-certified paraprofessional to remain with the class until a teacher was hired. Id.
at ¶36.
By assigning Lauren Carmon to a master teacher position, a certified teacher who
was covering a class for a teacher who was on leave could serve as the teacher. Id. at
¶37.
By assigning Renee Sullivan and Mary Gonzalez to master teacher positions,
paraprofessionals with substitute certificates could cover their classes. Id. at ¶¶38−39.
By assigning Johanna Roman to a master teacher position, an employee who
previously served as a full-year temporary replacement could be assigned to her class.
Id. at ¶40.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Summary decision may be granted “if the papers and discovery which have been
filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.”
N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995).
Summary decision is appropriate here because none of the material facts are disputed.
A. Timeliness of petitioners’ claims
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i) requires that appeals from final decisions of district boards of
education must be filed with the Commissioner within ninety days:
The petitioner shall file a petition no later than the 90th day
from the date of receipt of the notice of a final order, ruling, or
other action by the district board of education, individual party,
or agency, that is the subject of the requested contested case
hearing. This rule shall not apply in instances where a specific
statute, regulation, or court order provides for a period of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02462-21
8
limitation shorter than 90 days for the filing of a particular type
of appeal.
The ninety-day rule has been strictly followed and applied almost without
exception. D.Q. o/b/o S.Q. v. Sch. Dist. of Newark, 2009 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 640 (Jan. 21,
2009). In Dreher v. Jersey City Bd. of Educ., a petition filed only two days after the
ninety-day period was dismissed as untimely. 1987 S.L.D. 1706, aff’d, 1988 S.L.A. 2439
(State Bd. of Educ. 1988), rev’d on other grounds, A-6120-82 (App. Div. 1989), cert.
denied, 117 N.J. 138 (1989). Hendrickson v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Rahway, Union
Cnty. and Ray Lopez, Bd. Member, 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 164, *8 (March 5, 2018),
adopted, Comm’r, (April 13, 2018), Commissioner of Education Decision (rutgers.edu).4
Relaxation of the rule may be permissible if exceptional circumstances have been
demonstrated.
The rules in this chapter shall be considered general rules of
practice to govern, expedite and effectuate the procedure
before, and the actions of the Commissioner in connection
with, the determination of controversies and disputes under
the school laws. Where such rules do not reflect a specific
statutory requirement or an underlying rule of the OAL, they
may be relaxed or dispensed with by the Commissioner, in the
Commissioner's discretion, in any case where a strict
adherence thereto may be deemed inappropriate or
unnecessary or may result in injustice.
[N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.16.]
However, this relief has been rarely granted.
“Such authority is rarely invoked unless strict adherence to the
rule would be inappropriate, unnecessary or where injustice
would occur, or where the Commissioner finds the presence
of a substantial constitutional issue or other issue of
fundamental public interest beyond that of concern only to the
parties themselves.” [Snow v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of
Moorestown, 2007 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 312 (April 20, 2007).] In
4 This decision and other unpublished and administrative decisions cited here are not binding. They are
referenced because they provide relevant guidance.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02462-21
9
fact, this extraordinary relief has been reserved only for those
situations where a substantial constitutional issue is
presented or where a matter of significant public interest is
involved, beyond that of concern only to the parties. AAA
School LLC v. Passaic Cnty. Educ. Servs. Comm'n, Passaic
Cnty, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 397 (June 18, 2014).
[Hendrickson v. Bd. of Educ., 2018 N.J. AGEN LEXIS at *8.]
Here, the Board advised petitioners of its intent to assign them to new positions on
August 24, 2020, and voted to approve the transfers on August 27, 2020. Petitioners filed
their petition on February 5, 2021, 162 days after the Board’s official action. Petitioners
have not asserted that extraordinary circumstances warrant an extension of the
ninety-day limitations period, and none can be ascertained from the record. Accordingly,
the petition was not filed in compliance with N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i), and summary decision
in favor of respondent with respect to each of petitioner’s claims is appropriate.
B. Inadequacy of relief
The only remedy sought by petitioners is reinstatement to the position of master
teacher. They did not assert that they lost salary or benefits due to the position transfer.
Two petitioners, Dalton and Raslowsky, are no longer employed by the District.
Consequently, there is no available remedy that could be awarded to them. For this
reason, summary decision is appropriate with respect to petitioners Dalton and
Raslowsky.
C. Whether petitioners assert valid violations of the school law.
Respondent argued that petitioners earned tenure in the position of teacher but
not of master teacher because the master teacher position is not separately tenurable. It
thus argues that it properly exercised its managerial prerogative to reassign petitioners to
other assignments within the scope of their endorsements on their certificates.
A teaching staff member “is entitled to tenure if (1) she works in a position for which
a teaching certificate is required; (2) she holds the appropriate certificate; and (3) she has

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02462-21
10
served the requisite period of time.” Spiewak v. Rutherford Bd. of Educ., 90 N.J. 63, 74
(1982). Under N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5, “all teaching staff members employed . . . in the
positions of teacher . . . shall be under tenure during good behavior and efficiency and
they shall not be dismissed or reduced in compensation except for” enumerated reasons.
“[T[enure is achieved in a specific ‘position,’ and the scope of the tenured position
is initially limited by the ‘certificate’ the teaching staff member must hold to satisfy the
prerequisite of qualifications for his or her employment.” Ellicott v. Frankford Twp. Bd. of
Educ., 251 N.J. Super. 342, 348 (App. Div. 1991). N.J.S.A. 18A:26-2 provides that
teaching staff members shall hold a “valid certificate to teach, administer, direct or
supervise the teaching, instruction, or educational guidance of, or to render or administer,
direct or supervise the rendering of nursing service to, pupils in such public schools and
of such other certificate, if any, as may be required by law.” See also N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-5.3
(providing three categories of educational certificates: instructional, administrative, and
educational services). The regulations enumerate endorsements under each certificate
and identify the categories of positions for which each endorsement is required.
A teacher may be transferred within their tenured position. The Appellate Division
explained, “A school board has the managerial prerogative to transfer teacher staff
members by a majority vote of the Board. N.J.S.A. 18A:25-1. ‘Transfer’ refers to the right
of the school board to assign a teacher to a position within the scope of his or her
certification. A tenured teacher may be involuntarily transferred to another position within
his or her certification where no loss of salary or other reduction in employment is suffered
and the teacher is not singled out for the transfer on a prohibited basis.” Carpenito v. Bd.
of Educ. of the Boro of Rumson, Monmouth Cnty., 322 N.J. Super 522, 529 (App. Div.
1999). “Seniority rights are not triggered when a school board merely transfers or assigns
its tenured teaching staff members to other positions within the teachers’ appropriate
certification.” Id. at 534. See also Williams v. Plainfield Bd. of Educ., 176 N.J. Super.
154 (App. Div. 1980), certif. denied, 87 N.J. 306 (1981) (transfer within the same tenured
position, even without the employee’s consent, is appropriate as long as compensation
was not reduced); Rodriguez v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of New Brunswick, Middlesex
Cnty., OAL Dkt. No. EDU 11645-15, aff’d, Comm’r, #401-15 (December 9, 2015).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02462-21
11
Master teachers5 are only required to hold teacher certifications. N.J.A.C.
6A:13A-4.2. There is not a separate tenure category for master teachers. Consistent
with the cases and law cited above, they may be involuntarily transferred within the scope
of their tenure category and endorsements. Dennery v. Bd. of Educ. of the Passaic Cnty.
Reg’l High Sch. Dist. #1, 131 N.J. 626, 634 (1993). It is undisputed that petitioners were
transferred within the scope of their tenure category and endorsements.
With respect to petitioners’ claim that respondent violated the law governing
dismissals and reductions of force (RIF), it is undisputed that they were neither dismissed
nor subject to a RIF. A RIF occurs when a board of education determines that “it is
advisable to abolish . . . positions for reasons of economy or because a reduction in the
number of pupils or of change in the administrative or supervisory organization of the
district or for other good cause[.]” N.J.S.A. 18A:28-9. Had there been a RIF that impacted
petitioners’ positions, their seniority would have been relevant. N.J.S.A. 18A:28-12.
However, the protections afforded teaching staff who have been adversely impacted by
a RIF are inapplicable here because the master teacher positions were not abolished.
Rather, it is undisputed that petitioners were reassigned within their positions to respond
to a teacher shortage and that they did not lose their employment or their employment
benefits.
With respect to petitioners’ claim that respondent violated their “seniority and
non-discrimination rights” when it “transferred them out of a category of employment and
permitted younger teachers with less seniority and experience to remain in their original
elementary category[,]” they have not cited a statute or regulation that addresses
“non-discrimination” rights in the context of transfers.6 Moreover, as noted, they were not
transferred out of their category of employment for which they were tenured, and, as there
was not a RIF, seniority is not relevant.
5 The term “master teacher” was replaced by “preschool instructional coach.” See 53 N.J.R. 1421(a), 54
N.J.R. 1595(b). “Master teacher” is used here to be consistent with the language used in the pleadings and
summary decision motion.
6 And they did not plead violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination or related statutes.
N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02462-21
12
Petitioners also asserted that respondent improperly abolished the master teacher
position, as it is required to fill the position pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-4.3. This section
does not impose this requirement. Rather, it requires that, for preschool programs, there
“shall be one appropriately certified teacher and one appropriately qualified teacher
assistant[.]” Assistants are not master teachers, as they are only required to have a high
school diploma or equivalent. N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-4.3(e). To the extent N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-4.2
requires master teachers in preschool classrooms,7 it does not mandate or suggest the
remedy petitioners seek: reinstatement to the position of master teacher.
As it is undisputed that the transfers at issue were necessitated by staffing
shortages, petitioners have presented no evidence of improper motive, and petitioners’
seniority rights were not triggered because there was not a RIF, summary decision in
favor of respondent, with respect to each of petitioners’ claims, is appropriate.
7 This subchapter also permits alternative methods for the provision of these services under certain
circumstances. N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-4.2(a)1-3.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02462-21
13
ORDER
I ORDER that respondent’s motion for summary decision is GRANTED.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. If the Acting 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 ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Exceptions may be filed
by email to ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of
Controversies 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.
December 2, 2024
DATE JUDITH LIEBERMAN, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
JL/mg

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02462-21
14
APPENDIX
List of Exhibits
For petitioner:
None
For respondent:
March 13, 2023, Brief
March 13, 2023, Certification of Isabel Machado, Esq.
November 19, 2024, Certification of Delvis Rodriguez
R-A June 14, 2019, Memorandum of Agreement
R-B February 3, 2022, supplemental discovery responses
R-C January 19, 2023, supplemental discovery responses
R-D August 27, 2020, Board of Education minutes
R-E Letters to petitioners
R-F October 8, 2020, letter from Carry A. Booker
R-G July 14, 2021, Certification of Delvis Rodriguez
R-H April 16, 2021, letter
R-I through R-K Unpublished decisions