Justin Ginion v. New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Student Protection, 7/12/2023, (#205-23)

205-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Justin S. Ginion,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education, Office of
Student Protection,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner appealed the decision of the respondent New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Student
Protection (OSP), permanently disqualifying him – pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 – from performing roofing
work at public school facilities after a background check revealed that he was convicted of multiple
disqualifying drug-related offenses. 	Petitioner contended that N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 is inapplicable to him
because his roofing work does not involve regular contact with pupils; therefore, his criminal history does
not permanently disqualify him from work at public school facilities. The OSP filed a motion to dismiss,
which was denied, and a hearing was held on December 1, 2022.
The ALJ found that: petitioner is employed by a roofing company that contracts with school districts
throughout the State of New Jersey; between 2008 and 2021, petitioner worked on many school roofing
projects in New Jersey; in 2021, petitioner sought employment on a contract with the Sayreville School
District and a fingerprint search on petitioner was conducted which revealed petitioner’s criminal
convictions in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; petitioner did not challenge the accuracy of his criminal
history record and admits that his criminal convictions would disqualify him under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1, which
requires that any person with a history of disqualifying criminal convictions cannot be employed by a
New Jersey school in a position involving regular contact with pupils; in this case, based on testimony from
petitioner and his employer, petitioner did not and would not have regular contact with pupils while
performing roofing work on school grounds. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that petitioner is not barred
from employment on school roofing projects and should not be permanently disqualified from working for
his employer on such projects.
Upon review, the Commissioner adopted the ALJ’s well-reasoned Initial Decision as the final decision in this
matter. In so doing, the Commissioner noted that determining whether a third-party contractor such as
petitioner has regular contact with pupils while working on school grounds is a fact-sensitive inquiry that
must be evaluated carefully on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s holding in this matter
is limited to the unique facts presented herein. The respondent’s determination permanently disqualifying
petitioner from performing roofing work at school facilities was reversed.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It
has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

OAL Dkt. No. 07977-21
Agency Dkt. No. 118-8/21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Justin S. Ginion,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education, Office of
Student Protection,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by respondent pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and petitioner’s reply thereto,
have been reviewed and considered.
This dispute concerns whether N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 permanently disqualifies petitioner
from performing roofing work at public school facilities after a background check revealed that
he was convicted of multiple disqualifying drug-related offenses.1 The crux of the matter is
whether petitioner’s roofing work “involves regular contact with pupils” as contemplated by
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1. The statue provides, in relevant part:
A facility, center, school, or school system under the supervision
of the Department of Education and board of education which
cares for, or is involved in the education of children under the age
1 Although the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found—and respondent maintains—that petitioner was also
convicted of conspiracy to commit criminal mischief (charged in December 1999) and resisting arrest (charged in
November 2011), the record lacks final disposition information regarding those charges. However, petitioner has
not disputed the ALJ’s findings in this regard.
205-23

2
of 18 shall not employ for pay or contract for the paid services of
any teaching staff member or substitute teacher, teacher aide,
child study team member, school physician, school nurse,
custodian, school maintenance worker, cafeteria worker, school
law enforcement officer, school secretary or clerical worker or any
other person serving in a position which involves regular contact
with pupils unless the employer has first determined consistent
with the requirements and standards of this act, that no criminal
history record information exists . . . which would disqualify that
individual from being employed or utilized in such capacity or
position.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1.]
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 mandates that covered individuals convicted of certain enumerated
offenses “shall be permanently disqualified from employment or service under this act.” Ibid.
Those enumerated offenses include drug-related offenses. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1(b), (c), (d).
Respondent determined that petitioner’s convictions, all of which occurred in
Pennsylvania, permanently disqualified him from working at public school facilities pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1. Petitioner has never disputed the accuracy of his criminal record; he
concedes that if N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 is applicable to him, then he would be permanently
disqualified from work at public school facilities based upon his criminal history. However,
petitioner contends that N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 is inapplicable to him because his roofing work does
not involve regular contact with pupils and, as such, his criminal history does not permanently
disqualify him from work at public school facilities.
Following a contested hearing, the ALJ issued an Initial Decision in petitioner’s favor and
recommended reversal of respondent’s determination permanently disqualifying petitioner
from employment at public school facilities. The ALJ agreed with petitioner that he does not
have regular contact with pupils while performing roofing work on school grounds. In support

3
thereof, the ALJ cited: (1) credible testimony from petitioner that he has never had contact
with pupils during his prior school roofing work between 2008 and 2021;2 (2) credible
testimony from petitioner’s employer who asserted that school roofing projects are typically
completed during the summer months and that work areas are “off limits” to pupils for safety
reasons; and (3) the ordinary meaning of “regular contact” as utilized in the statute. The ALJ
rejected respondent’s position that petitioner’s “mere presence” on school grounds would
create “an opportunity for contact” with pupils tantamount to the “regular contact” with pupils
discussed in N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1.
In their exceptions, respondent argues that the Commissioner should reject the Initial
Decision because the ALJ erred when concluding that N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 does not apply to
petitioner. Respondent maintains that petitioner necessarily has regular contact with pupils
while working on school grounds when pupils are also present.3 In reply, petitioner argues that
the ALJ’s well-reasoned Initial Decision should be upheld because it is amply supported by the
testimony in the record and that respondent’s interpretation of N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 is overbroad
and discriminatory.
Upon review, the Commissioner adopts the ALJ’s comprehensive, well-reasoned Initial
Decision as the final decision in this matter. The sufficient, credible evidence in the record—in
2 Petitioner was not permanently disqualified until 2021 despite his criminal history because of a glitch in
respondent’s computerized tracking system which did not properly identify construction workers (Initial Decision
at 5-6).
3 Alternatively, respondent contends that the ALJ should have granted its motion to dismiss the matter as moot
because the school roofing project that petitioner was working on in Sayreville prior to his permanent
disqualification was completed during the OAL proceedings. The Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that the
matter is not moot. Respondent’s determination permanently disqualifies petitioner from future employment at
all public school facilities—not just from the prior roofing project. Moreover, the legal issue raised herein
implicates the public’s interest in school safety and is likely to recur. See State v. Cassidy, 235 N.J. 482, 491 (2018)
(holding that courts will entertain cases that have become moot “when the issue is of significant public importance
and is likely to recur”).

4
particular, the credible testimony from petitioner and his employer—amply supports the ALJ’s
legal conclusion that N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 is inapplicable to petitioner because he does not have
regular contact with pupils during his roofing work at school facilities. That said, the
Commissioner notes that determining whether a third-party contractor such as petitioner has
“regular contact” with pupils while working on school grounds is a fact-sensitive inquiry that
must be evaluated carefully on a case-by-case basis. The Commissioner’s holding in this matter
is limited to the unique facts presented herein.
Accordingly, respondent’s determination permanently disqualifying petitioner from
performing roofing work at school facilities is reversed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.4
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
4 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.
July 12, 2023
July 13, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07977-21
AGENCY DKT. NO. 118-8/21
JUSTIN S. GINION,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, OFFICE OF STUDENT
PROTECTION,
Respondent.
Robert L. Grundlock, Jr., Esq., for petitioner (Rubin, Ehrlich, Buckley & Przekop,
P.C., attorneys)
Sydney Finkelstein, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (Matthew J.
Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
BEFORE WILLIAM T. COOPER, III, ALJ:
Record Closed: March 1, 2023 Decided: May 30, 2023
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Justin S. Ginion, an employee of Strober-Wright Roofing, Inc. (Strober
Roofing) who sought to work on a public school roofing project for the Sayreville School

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07977-21
2
District (Sayreville) appeals the determination of the New Jersey Department of
Education, Office of Student Protection, Criminal History Unit, (OSP) issued on June 7,
2021, to permanently disqualify him from serving in any position, which is under the
supervision of the Department of Education.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 7, 2021, the OSP issued a notice disqualifying petitioner from working at
any educational institution under the supervision of the Department of Education (DOE).
A timely appeal was filed, and the matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) where it was filed as a contested case on September 23, 2021. N.J.S.A. 52:14
B-1 to-15; N.J.S.A. 52:14 F-1 to-13.
On February 17, 2022, the petitioner moved for summary decision. On March 11,
2022, the respondent cross-moved for summary decision, and on March 22, 2022, the
petitioner filed a reply brief. The motions for summary decision were denied by this
tribunal on May 2, 2022.
On July 6, 2022, the respondent moved to dismiss the petition claiming it was moot
because the Sayreville school project was completed. A status conference was
conducted on July 14, 2022. After respondent was given an opportunity to respond to the
motion, oral argument was conducted on August 5, 2022. The motion to dismiss was
denied on August 23, 2022.
A hearing was conducted on December 1, 2022. The record remained open until
March 1, 2023, for the parties to provide written summations and on that date the record
closed.1
1 An order of extension for filing an initial decision was issued on April 17, 2023, extending the filing of the
initial decision to May 30, 2023.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07977-21
3
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
TESTIMONY
For petitioner
Michael Strober (Strober) is a commercial roofing contractor and the owner of
Strober Roofing. He testified that forty to fifty percent of the work performed by Strober
Roofing is on public school buildings. According to Strober, Strober Roofing tries to
complete school projects over the summer months when school buildings are empty, and
no pupils are attending. Strober testified that work on public school projects are more
lucrative for his employees as they are entitled to “prevailing” rate on such projects. He
has approximately forty or more employees working at any given time.
Strober testified that the petitioner had been employed by Strober Roofing for ten
plus years. During that time the petitioner has worked his way up the ranks from an
apprentice to a supervisor. Strober characterized the petitioner as a model employee.
Strober noted that petitioner’s disqualification from school projects has had a negative
effect on the petitioner’s income and he is currently working on jobs that are below his
skill level.
Strober testified that Strober Roofing employees are not in contact with pupils on
school projects. He explained that there are several reasons for this: safety standards
require that the areas where they are working are off limits to pupils, the projects are done
in the summer months while pupils are on vacation, regulations require the installation of
a “portable latrine” so the employees are not entering the school building to use the
facilities, the location of the work site is on the roof and not inside the building, and a
supervisor directs the employees so they know where they are permitted to go. Strober
Roofing has never received a complaint of an employee having contact with a pupil.
Justin Ginion (Ginion) testified he is forty-two years of age and lives in Bensalem,
Pennsylvania with his fiancé and two daughters. He has been employed at Strober
Roofing for fourteen years. General work on school buildings moves quickly because

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07977-21
4
they have a limited time to complete the projects. Typically, the work area is taped off,
then ladders go up, the old roof is removed, and the crew installs the new roof.
According to Ginion, the workers never have contact with pupils during
construction. Petitioner offered several reasons for this: first, the roofing materials used
by Strober Roofing includes chemicals that non-employees are prevented from coming
into contact and precautions are taken to ensure this; second, the removal of older roofs
often involves asbestoses and there are strict guidelines on handling such materials
which include securing the area from entry by non-employees; the materials used in the
construction of new roofs generally require the air conditioning to be turned off so that
dirt, fumes and unknown particles are not introduced into the school building. According
to Ginion he has never had contact with a pupil while working on school projects.
Strober was awarded a contract to perform roofing work on a public-school building
located in the Sayreville School District (Sayreville). Petitioner sought to work on the
Sayreville School District project, and he submitted to a fingerprint search pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.2.
The fingerprint search revealed that Ginion had the following criminal convictions
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: (a) Conspiracy (Criminal Mischief) in December
1999; (b) a violation of the Controlled Substance Abuse Act and resisting arrest in
November 2001; (c) a violation of the Controlled Dangerous Substance Act (two counts)
in January 2004; (d) a violation of the Controlled Dangerous Substance Act (two counts)
in March 2005; (e) a violation of the Controlled Dangerous Substance Act in July 2006;
and (f) a violation of the Controlled Substance Act (two counts) in December 2007. Ginion
does not challenge the accuracy of his criminal history record or that his criminal
convictions would disqualify him under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1.
Ginion indicated that he was in his twenties when he faced criminal charges and
blamed his past behavior on a difficult and troubled childhood. He admitted to being in
prison, however, he viewed it in a positive manner indicating that he learned how to read
and write while incarcerated. Further, he became involved in Alcoholic Anonymous and
Narcotics Anonymous, organizations which he is still involved with. Ginion noted that the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07977-21
5
greatest positive change in his life occurred when he became a father. Ginion testified
he has had no further criminal convictions since 2007.
Ginion advised that he has worked on numerous school projects for Strober
without any issues from 2008 to 2021. Since June 7, 2021, after he was advised he could
not work on school projects, and his income was cut by fifty percent. Based upon the
permanent ban he is still unable to work on school projects.
For respondent
James Scaringelli (Scaringelli) has been employed with the New Jersey
Department of Education, Office of Student Protection, as an investigator for fourteen
years. Scaringelli testified to his responsibilities and his day-to-day work at OSP. He
explained that OSP oversees the criminal history background check process for new
applicants that are coming to seek employment either in school facilities or with
contractors who provide services to school districts throughout the state.
Scaringelli advised that an applicant’s criminal history is reviewed to determine if
they have any convictions for the disqualifying crimes enumerated in N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1.
If an applicant has a conviction for a disqualifying crime, then that individual is ineligible
for employment. Scaringelli further testified that disqualification notifications are sent to
the applicant as well as the prospective employer and to The Motor Vehicle Commission
so that those agencies can take whatever action they deem appropriate.
According to Scaringelli, Ginion was deemed to be permanently disqualified from
his desired employment on a school roofing project due to his prior criminal history.
Ginion was notified of this permanent disqualification as were the “two perspective
employers,” Jackson Township and Sayreville School Districts.
Scaringelli advised that OSP started to track individuals who identified themselves
as construction workers within the last eighteen months. The OSP found that construction
workers, such as roofers or employees of third-party service contractors were not being
identified properly in the OSP system. School districts did not have a specific code entry

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07977-21
6
for construction workers, and often would use a “custodial position” or “other” code when
identifying them. School districts would assume that construction workers were
employees of third-party contractors and were not direct school district employees, so
that disqualification notices did not apply. To correct this issue a new position code,
“construction workers” was added to the OSP system. Since this change was
implemented, approximately 2,000 people have been identified as construction workers
in the OSP system.
Scaringelli admitted that he had no knowledge if Ginion would have contact with
pupils while preforming his job but insisted that Ginion’s “mere presence” on school
grounds would establish contact with pupils if the school “was open and pupils were
present.” It was his opinion that the intent of the legislation was to keep individuals with
criminal records from working on or in public schools.
Dr. Jamar Purnsely (Purnsely) is employed by the Department of Education as
the Director of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance. He testified to his responsibilities
and how N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 is enforced. He testified that the unit looks at the
backgrounds of individuals seeking employment if there were any criminal convictions at
which point, they were reviewed to determine if the offense was one of the enumerated
offenses under the statute. If the conviction includes one of the enumerated offenses,
then the individual is disqualified, and the parties were notified.
FINDINGS
For testimony to be believed, it must not only come from the mouth of a credible
witness, but it also must be credible. It must elicit evidence that is from such common
experience and observation that it can be approved as proper under the circumstances.
See Spagnuolo v. Bonnet, 16 N.J. 546 (1954); Gallo v. Gallo, 66 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div.
1961). A credibility determination requires an overall assessment of the witnesses’ story
in light of its rationality or internal consistency and the manner in which it “hangs together”
with other evidence. Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718, 749 (9th Cir. 1963). Also, “the
interest, motive, bias, or prejudice of a witness may affect his credibility and justify the
[trier of fact], whose province it is to pass upon the credibility of an interested witness, in

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07977-21
7
disbelieving his testimony.” State v. Salimone, 19 N.J. Super. 600, 608 (App. Div.), certif.
denied, 10 N.J. 316 (1952) (citation omitted).
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).
There was no indication that any of the witnesses in this matter had any interest,
motive or bias that would affect their testimony. As such I accept all four of the witnesses
as credible.
Based upon the testimony heard and documents entered in evidence, I FIND the
following as FACT:
1. Ginion is employed by Strober Roofing, as a roofer/supervisor. Strober
Roofing contracts with numerous schools and Board of Educations
throughout the State of New Jersey. From 2008 to 2021 Ginion worked on
many such school projects.
2. Strober Roofing was awarded a contract to perform roofing work on a
public-school building located in the Sayreville School District (Sayreville).
Petitioner sought to work on the Sayreville School District project, and he
submitted to a fingerprint search pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.
3. The fingerprint search revealed that Ginion had the following criminal
convictions out the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: (a) Conspiracy
(Criminal Mischief) in December 1999; (b) a violation of the Controlled
Substance Abuse Act and resisting arrest in November 2001; (c) a violation
of the Controlled Dangerous Substance Act (two counts) in January 2004;
(d) a violation of the Controlled Dangerous Substance Act (two counts) in
March 2005; (e) a violation of the Controlled Dangerous Substance Act in

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07977-21
8
July 2006; and (f) a violation of the Controlled Substance Act (two counts)
in December 2007.
4. Ginion does not challenge the accuracy of his criminal history record or that
his criminal convictions would disqualify him under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1.
5. Based upon his criminal history Ginion was notified that he was
“permanently disqualified” from serving in any position, paid or unpaid, with
any educational institution under the supervision of the Department of
Education, or any contracted service provider under contract with any
“school or educational facility.” (R-1.)
6. In an email dated June 7, 2021, Scaringelli notified Sayreville that Ginion
has been disqualified from “school employment,” and directed to ensure that
Strober Roofing did not assign Ginion to work at any school facility. (R-2.)
7. Strober has never received a complaint of an employee having contact with
a pupil because several factors preclude pupil contact: Safety standards
require that the areas where they are working be off limits to pupils; the
projects are done in the summer months while pupils are not in school;
regulations require the installation of a “portable latrine” so the employees
were not entering the school building; the location of the work site is on the
roof and not the interior; and a supervisor directs the employees where and
where not to be.
8. From 2008 to 2021 Ginion never had interactions with pupils while working
on school projects for Strober Roofing.
9. Ginion has had no further criminal involvement since 2007.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07977-21
9
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The issue here is the applicability of N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 to an employee of a third-
party contractor, and whether such an employee is in a position that involves regular
contact with students.
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1, provides in part as follows:
A facility, center, school, or school system under the
supervision of the Department of Education and board of
education which cares for, or is involved in the education of
children under the age of 18 shall not employ for pay or
contract for the paid services of any teaching staff
member or substitute teacher, teacher aide, child study
team member, school physician, school nurse,
custodian, school maintenance worker, cafeteria worker,
school law enforcement officer, school secretary or
clerical worker or any other person serving in a position
which involves regular contact with pupils unless the
employer has first determined consistent with the
requirements and standards of this act, that no criminal
history record information exists on file in the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, Identification Division, or the State
Bureau of Identification which would disqualify that
individual from being employed or utilized in such
capacity or position. (Emphasis added).
Petitioner’s argument
Petitioner argues that the OSP misapplied N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 to his position as a
roofer for a third-party employer. The statute expressly limits job place discrimination
based upon criminal history to employees of the school system “for pay or contract for
paid services of any teaching staff member, substitute teacher, teacher aide, child study
team member, school physician, school nurse, custodian, school maintenance worker,
cafeteria worker, school law enforcement officer, school secretary or clerical worker or
any other person serving in a position which involves regular contact with pupils.” The
petitioner claims that the OSP improperly adds “construction worker” to the list of
employees identified. Further, even if the statute were applicable to him petitioner claims

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07977-21
10
that there is no evidence that a roofer would have “regular contact” with pupils on the
Sayreville project, or any other roofing job.
Additionally, the petitioner contends that the statutory list of employees does not
include employees of a third-party entity such as Strober. The category of employees
and workers identified are those who would necessarily encounter pupils as part of their
job, or regularly work inside of schools and thereby encounter pupils as part of their job.
According to the petitioner he does not fit into any of these categories.
Finally, petitioner submits that the actions by the OSP are contrary to the
provisions and intent of N.J.S.A. 34:6B-11 “Opportunity to Compete Act” and
N.J.S.A.10:5−12 “New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.”
Respondent’s argument
Respondent argues that N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 applies to employees of a third-party
contractor since it includes the following phrase, “any other person serving in a position
which involves regular contact with pupils.” Respondent offers that petitioner’s mere
presence on school grounds creates the potential that petitioner would have access to
pupils.
Respondent further argues that petitioner has not presented any evidence that
there would be “barriers or obstacles” that would prevent him from “getting in contact with
pupils” and that he has numerous criminal convictions that require his permanent
disqualification. Respondent notes that the stated intent of the statute was to protect
pupils from individuals who were convicted of specific criminal offenses and, therefore,
no leniency can be afforded to him.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07977-21
11
Finally, respondent argues that N.J.S.A. 34:6B-11 “Opportunity to Compete Act”
and N.J.S.A.10:5-12 “New Jersey Law Against Discrimination” are inapplicable in light of
the plain language and intent of N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1.
The statute clearly directs local school districts to “not
employ for pay or contract for the paid services of any
teaching staff member or substitute teacher, teacher
aide, child study team member, school physician, school
nurse, custodian, school maintenance worker, cafeteria
worker, school law enforcement officer, school secretary
or clerical worker or any other person serving in a
position which involves regular contact with pupils.”
Here, petitioner is not employed by a local school district in any of the positions
enumerated in the statute, therefore, the focus is whether he is “a person serving in a
position which involves regular contact with pupils.” Respondent’s argument is that
petitioner’s mere presence on school grounds provides an opportunity for contact and
thus he should be permanently disqualified from such projects. This position is rejected
as it overlooks the plain language of the statute which requires regular contact with pupils.
Merriam-Webster defines “regular” as: (a) a recurring, or functioning at fixed,
uniform, or normal intervals; regular income, a regular churchgoer; (b) Orderly,
Methodical; regular habits. Vocabulary.com defines “regular” as 1. conforming to a
standard or pattern; 2. in accordance with fixed order or procedure or principle; 3. in
accordance with regular practice or procedure; 4. not deviating from what is normal; 5.
relating to a person who does something regularly; 6. officially full-time; 7. a regular
patron; 8. a dependable follower; 9. Occurring at fixed intervals. From the foregoing it is
clear that the definition of regular contact would not include “mere presence,” or “an
opportunity for contact.”
The statutory list of employees does not include employees of a third-party entity
such as Strober Roofing. The category of employees and workers identified in the statute
are those who would necessarily encounter pupils as part of their jobs, or those who
regularly work inside of schools and thereby encounter pupils as part of their jobs. Ginion
does not fit into any of these categories.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07977-21
12
Roofing projects are typically completed during the summer months while students
are not in attendance. The work sites are off limits to all but the roofers. Scaringelli
testified that he has never received a complaint from an employee having contact with a
pupil. The petitioner testified that in his fourteen years working on such projects he has
never had contact with a pupil. Applying the law to the facts, I CONCLUDE that the
petitioner, as an employee of a roofing contractor, is not in a position to have regular
contact with pupils.
Petitioner also argues that respondent’s actions in this matter run counter to the
Opportunity to Compete Act, N.J.S.A. 34:6B-11. That act prohibits an employer from
requiring an employee to complete an application that inquiries about criminal records
and prohibits the employer from seeking such information from a third party during the
initial application process. However, N.J.S.A. 34:6B-16 provides exceptions to the
prohibited actions by employers. N.J.S.A. 34:6B-16(b) provides the following:
The employment sought or being considered is for a position
where a criminal history record background check is required
by law, rule or regulation, or where an arrest or conviction by
the person for one or more crimes or offenses would or may
preclude the person from holding such employment as
required by any law, rule or regulation, or where any law, rule,
or regulation restricts an employer’s ability to engage in
specified business activities based on the criminal records of
its employees.
Petitioner’s argument is unpersuasive as a criminal background check is required
by law for certain individuals working in or for school districts. Accordingly, I CONCLUDE
that the Opportunity to Compete Act does not apply here. I further CONCLUDE that as
the petitioner has no regular contact with pupils or the opportunity to have regular contact
with pupils when working as a roofing contractor at public school facilities while pupils are
not present, he is not barred from such employment. Therefore, he should not be
permanently disqualified from working for Strober Roofing on school projects.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07977-21
13
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination by the New Jersey Department of
Education, Office of Student Protection issued on June 7, 2021, to permanently disqualify
Justin Ginion from working for Strober-Wright, Inc. on school roofing projects is
REVERSED.
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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07977-21
14
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATTN: BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES AND
DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-
0500, marked “Attention: Exceptions.” A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the
judge and to the other parties.
May 30, 2023
DATE WILLIAM T. COOPER, III, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date E-Mailed to Parties:
WTC/am

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07977-21
15
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For petitioner
Michael Strober
Justin Ginion
For respondent
James Scaringelli
Jamar Purnsley
EXHIBITS
For petitioner
P-1 written summation
For respondent
R-1 June 7, 2021, letter to Justin Ginion
R-2 June 7, 2021, email to Sayreville School District
R-3 N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1
R-4 Bucks County Court Summary
R-5 Proposed statement of undisputed facts
R-6 Petitioner’s responses to Interrogatories