In the Matter of the Revocation of the Certificates of Leslie Etheridge by the State Board of Examiners, 10/28/21, (#273-21) NJ State Board of Examiners Appeal

State Board of Examiners Docket No. 1718-170
Agency Dkt. No. 5-4/21A
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of the Revocation
of the Certificates of Lesley Etheridge
by the State Board of Examiners.
Order of Revocation by the State Board of Examiners, April 1, 2021
For the Respondent-Appellant, Lesley Etheridge, pro se
For the Petitioner-Respondent State Board of Examiners, Colin G. Klika,
Deputy Attorney General (Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General of
New Jersey)
Appellant challenges the determination of the New Jersey State Board of
Examiners (Board) that her actions warranted the revocation of her Teacher of Electronic
Technology Certificate of Eligibility and Teacher of Electronic Technology Standard Certificate.
In this matter, appellant was a teacher in the Passaic County Vocational School
District (PCVS). PCVS certified tenure charges against appellant for inefficiency and
unbecoming conduct, alleging that appellant falsified students’ grades and engaged in
inappropriate grading practices, failed to appear at several co-teaching assignments or hall duty,
left campus without authorization, engaged in unprofessional conduct with parents and
administration, and disregarded her corrective action plan (CAP) requirements. Following an
arbitration, the Arbitrator found that appellant was “notably uncooperative” with PCVS’ efforts
to improve her teaching; further, her failure to comply with instructions and recommendations
273-21

2
“reflects an inability and/or unwillingness to perform as befits a tenured teacher.” (Arbitrator’s
Opinion and Award at 14). The Arbitrator also considered appellant’s “‘outrageously
inappropriate behavior,’ combined with lack of ‘remorse or contrition’ and a likelihood of
repeating the behavior.” Id. at 15. Accordingly, the Arbitrator found just cause to terminate
appellant.
Following issuance of an Order to Show Cause as to why appellant’s certificates
should not be revoked, the Board transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) for a hearing. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that collateral estoppel
precludes relitigation of the facts proven during the tenure hearing, which demonstrate that
appellant engaged in conduct unbecoming a teacher. However, appellant was granted a hearing
as to whether the penalty of revocation was appropriate. At the hearing, appellant challenged the
accuracy of the grade falsification charge and had her husband – who was also an employee of
PCVS – attempt to take the blame. The ALJ agreed with the Arbitrator that appellant’s conduct
was “outrageously inappropriate” and found that appellant’s “pattern of unbecoming conduct and
insubordination, coupled with her complete lack of remorse and failure to take any responsibility
for her woefully inappropriate actions and poor judgment” constitutes just cause for the
revocation of her certificates. (Initial Decision at 7). Thereafter, the Board adopted the Initial
Decision of the ALJ and ordered the revocation of appellant’s certificates.
On appeal, appellant argues that her husband created the final exam at issue and
admitted that he had falsified students’ grades. According to appellant, PCVS filed tenure
charges against her in retaliation for a whistleblower complaint. Appellant lists a number of
interactions with political figures, dating back 40 years to when appellant was a teenager, that
she contends contributed to PCVS’ actions in this matter. Appellant takes issue with portions of

3
the Arbitrator’s decision, claiming that it includes false statements, and with the Arbitrator’s
alleged failure to admit appellant’s exhibits into evidence and to allow appellant to review
PCVS’ evidence. Appellant also alleges that Board member Melissa Pearce is formerly the
executive superintendent at PCVS, creating a conflict of interest that required her recusal from
the Board’s vote, thereby preventing a quorum and making the Board’s vote invalid.
In reviewing appeals from decisions of the State Board of Examiners, the
Commissioner may not substitute her judgment for that of the Board so long as the appellant
received due process and the Board’s decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the
record. Further, the Board’s decision should not be disturbed unless the appellant demonstrates
that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a).
After a comprehensive review of the record, the Commissioner finds that the
record adequately supports the Board’s determination that appellant engaged in unbecoming
conduct and that revocation of her teaching certificates is the appropriate penalty. Appellant’s
arguments reiterate those that she made during the tenure proceedings and at the OAL and fail to
demonstrate that the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The majority
of appellant’s arguments on appeal take issue with the decision of the Arbitrator regarding the
tenure charges. However, as the ALJ correctly concluded, the doctrine of collateral estoppel
precludes appellant from relitigating the issue of unbecoming conduct, as appellant had a full and
fair opportunity to contest those charges during the tenure proceeding.
The only issue regarding the Board’s decision raised by appellant is based on the
appointment of the former executive superintendent at PCVS to the Board. The Commissioner
does not find this argument persuasive. The conduct of appellant at issue in this case occurred in
2013-2015, with tenure charges filed in 2015 and the arbitrator’s decision issued in 2016.

4
Ms. Pearce, according to appellant, became the executive superintendent at PCVS in 2018, well
after those events, and would have had no involvement in the filing or litigation of the
tenure charges. Furthermore, PCVS is not a party to the current action. Accordingly, the
Commissioner finds that Ms. Pearce was not required to recuse herself from the Board’s vote.
Additionally, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the Board’s decision to
revoke appellant’s certificates – based on the nature of the unbecoming conduct proven during
the hearing at the OAL – was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Accordingly, the decision of
the State Board of Examiners is affirmed. Appellant’s Teacher of Electronic Technology
Certificate of Eligibility and Teacher of Electronic Technology Standard Certificate are hereby
revoked.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 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.
October 28, 2021
October 28, 2021