P.F., on behalf of minor child, D.F. v. Board of Education of the High Point Regional High School District, Sussex County, 5/16/2023, (#144-23)

1
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 10889-22
Agency Dkt. No. 309-11/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
P.F., on behalf of minor child, D.F.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the High Point Regional
High School District, Sussex County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed and considered.1 The parties did not file exceptions.
In this matter, petitioner challenges the Board’s determination that her daughter was
not the victim of harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) when another student allegedly
grabbed her by the arm and would not let go. Petitioner also alleged that the student had
stolen D.F.’s Chromebook twice before turning it in, claiming that she had found it. Following
an investigation in accordance with the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et
seq., the Board found the incident was the result of a conflict between students that was not
motivated by a distinguishing characteristic of D.F., and therefore concluded that the incident
did not meet the definition of HIB. Nevertheless, to address the conflict, the Board had the
students sign a no-contact order and adjusted class schedules as necessary.
1 The Commissioner was not provided with a transcript of the February 10, 2023 hearing in this matter.
144-23

2
Following a hearing on the merits, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that
the petitioner had not met her burden of demonstrating that the Board’s determination
regarding the HIB allegations was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Upon review, the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that the Board did not act in an
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner in rendering its HIB determination, as the alleged
actions were not motivated by a distinguishing characteristic of D.F. Accordingly, the
Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition is
hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
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.
May 16, 2023
May 17, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10889-22
AGENCY DKT. NO. 309-11/22
P.F. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD, D.F.,
Petitioner,
v.
HIGH POINT REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION,
SUSSEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
P.F., petitioner, pro se
Eric L. Harrison, Esq., for respondent (Methfessel & Werbel, attorneys)
Record Closed: February 21, 2023 Decided: April 4, 2023
BEFORE KELLY J. KIRK, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, P.F., challenges the decision of the High Point Regional High School
District Board of Education (Board) that the incident complained of did not constitute
harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10889-22
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By letter dated October 27, 2022, the Board notified petitioner that “the incident in
question was properly determined to not have been a HIB.” On November 15, 2022,
petitioner filed with the New Jersey Department of Education (Department) a Pro Se
Petition of Appeal (Petition) alleging that her “daughter [D.F.] was being bullied during the
2020/21 school year which has now carried over into the 2022/23 school year” and that
the superintendent, administrators and board of education were not following policy, and
requesting the following relief: “Superintendent and BOE to admit that this is indeed HIB”;
“Have my daughter complete art work and a functional resume from the 2022/23 school
year”;1 “Enforce HIB laws, policies, and safety for all students”; and “Stop the HIB
incidences that are flowing over into the 2022/23 school year.” On December 1, 2022,
respondent filed its answer to the Petition.
The Department transmitted the case to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
under the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, and the act
establishing the office, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23, for a hearing under the Uniform
Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6, and the rules of procedure
established by the Department of Education to hear and decide controversies and
disputes arising under school laws, N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.1 to -1.17. The case was filed at the
Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on December 6, 2022. The hearing was held on
February 10, 2023. The record closed on February 21, 2023, after receipt of the parties
post-hearing submissions.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
Preliminary Facts
P.F. testified on behalf of petitioner. School anti-bullying specialist (ABS) James
Rice testified on behalf of respondent. Having had an opportunity to consider the
1 The matter transmitted to the OAL was a challenge to the Board’s HIB investigation and therefore this
relief falls outside the scope of the subject matter and is not addressed herein.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10889-22
3
evidence and to observe the witnesses and make credibility determinations based on the
witnesses’ testimony, I FIND the following preliminary FACTS:
High Point Regional High School (HPRHS) Harassment—Intimidation—Bullying
Report 33-21-22, initial referral date May 10, 2022 (May 2022 HIB Report), reflects that
there was an investigation into an incident between D.F. and another student, P.D., that
occurred in a school hallway on May 4, 2022.
James Rice, who previously worked as an active police officer for twenty-five
years, is employed at HPRHS as the director of safety and security and as the school
anti-bullying specialist (ABS). Rice was on vacation on May 4, 2022, so the incident was
initially handled by the school assistant principal. Upon his return from vacation, Rice
was directed by the school principal to conduct a HIB investigation. Rice prepared the
May 2022 HIB Report and summarized his factual findings as follows:
On 5/4/2022, it was reported to AP Schleer that an incident
involving [redacted] and [redacted] had occurred in the 400
wing hallway near Room 409 at the top of the ramp. AP
Schleer had conducted an investigation and reviewed video
tape of the incident which involved the two students
conversing, then [redacted] [“]grabbing” [redacted] left wrist
and pulling [redacted] toward [redacted]. AP Schleer
concluded that the arm pulling was an attempt by [redacted]
to pull [redacted] towards her. [Redacted] did not come to
school on 5/5/22, 5/6/22, or 5/9/22. The administration
contacted [P.F.] about the absences, at which time [P.F.] said
that she felt [redacted] was being bullied and that she was not
allowing [redacted] to return to school until “something is
done.”
On 5/10/2022, I was directed by Principal Tallamy to conduct
an HIB investigation in reference to the conflict between the
two students that had occurred on 5/4/2022 and what may
have been going on prior to that incident.
Myself, AP Schleer, and Mrs. Delaney (acting as Case
Manager) now spoke to a witness to the incident, [redacted]
who is [redacted] boyfriend.[2] [Redacted] told us that
[redacted] and [redacted] are friends, but that there was an
2 The boyfriend referred to herein is the boyfriend of D.F.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10889-22
4
issue previous to 5/4 where [redacted] took [redacted]
Chromebook. [Redacted] said that [redacted] brought the
Chromebook to the office and said she “found it.” [Redacted]
said that [redacted] was not talking to [redacted] because of
the Chromebook issue and planned to avoid her for 2 days.
[Redacted] said that on 5/4, [redacted] came up to talk to
[redacted] and that [redacted] wanted to hug [redacted] and
that [redacted] grabbed [redacted] arm to give her the hug.
[Redacted] said that he stepped between them and [redacted]
let go. [Redacted] provided a written statement about what
we talked about (see statement).
Myself, AP Schleer, and Mrs. Delaney (acting as Case
Manager) now spoke to [redacted] about the incident.
[Redacted] said that she took the Chromebook because
[redacted] left it in the lunchroom and that she turned it into
the Main Office so they could give it back to her. [Redacted]
said that [redacted] is her friend and that she wanted a hug.
[Redacted] said that [redacted] wouldn’t give her a hug so she
grabbed her arm to pull her towards her to get a hug.
[Redacted] said that [redacted] stepped in and she let go of
[redacted] arm. They all went to class after that.
At approximately 2:45 p.m., Myself and Mrs. Imhoff, (acting as
Case Manager per Mrs. Delaney) spoke to [P.F.] and
[redacted] via telephone in order to gather information from
[redacted] about this incident. [Redacted] told me that Last
week (Week of 5/2/22 through 5/6/22) that [redacted] “started
acting different (explained different as weird). [Redacted]
continued by saying that on Monday, [redacted] took her
Chromebook and that it wasn’t the first time. Then on
Wednesday, [redacted] came up to her and [redacted] while
they were walking in the hallway near Room 409. [Redacted]
said that they met, and [redacted] grabbed her left arm and
pulled her towards her. I asked [redacted] said anything,
[redacted] said yes, but she forgets exactly what it was. [P.F.]
added that someone should have talked to [redacted] sooner.
I asked [redacted] why she did not come to school since that
incident took place and [redacted] said that she was afraid that
[redacted] would do that again. I then asked [redacted] if that
incident made her feel uncomfortable, to which she replied
yes. [P.F.] added that [redacted] wasn’t uncomfortable, that
she was afraid. I asked [P.F.] to have [redacted] email me a
statement about the incident, to which she told me that
[redacted] would. No email was ever sent.
On 5/11/2022, a meeting took place with [P.F.], [redacted],
and School Administration. A No Contact Order was put in

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10889-22
5
place and signed by [redacted], [P.F.] and AP Schleer. I was
not present at this meeting.
On 5/13/2022, [redacted] came to school and she provided
me with a written statement about the incident at that time.
(see statement). Later this day, Myself, AP Schleer and
Mrs. Delaney (acting as Case Manager) met with [redacted]
signed the No Contact Order and Mrs. Delaney went over
everything with her. [Redacted] said she understood.
Based on the information gathered as part of this
investigation, I have concluded that this incident is the result
of a conflict between the two students and that no
distinguishing characteristic is present at this time. This
incident is classified as unfounded as a HIB. Report
submitted by ABS Rice.
[R-1.]
The May 2022 HIB Report reflects that Rice’s investigation found no substantial
disruption of or interference with operations of the school or rights of students, no actual
or perceived distinguishing characteristic, no physical or emotional harm or fear of harm
to a student or his or her property, no effect of insulting or demeaning a student or group
of students, and no creation of “hostile educational environment” interfering with a
student’s education. The handwritten questions on the last page of the May 2022 HIB
Report were from Superintendent Ripley and were answered by Rice and the assistant
principal and resulted in no changes to the May 2022 HIB Report.
By email dated May 10, 2022, P.F. advised that before she would allow D.F. to
return to school she required the following: P.D. to be removed from D.F.’s gym class;
P.D. to be removed from the adjoining art room; P.D. to sit in a different area/room during
lunch; D.F. to be allowed to use her cell phone or a school phone privately to immediately
inform her of issues with P.D.; and a member of HPRHS administration to immediately
advise her of any issue with P.D. (P-1.)
An HPRHS No-Contact Order, dated May 11, 2022, reflects that “[o]n the basis of
information obtained in statements, interviews and incident report at this time it is found
that there is reasonable cause to believe that the . . . students have been involved in a

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10889-22
6
dispute that requires action by the [HPRHS] District” and ordering, inter alia, that the
students: “shall have no contact of any nature, to include in person, by telephone, in
writing, through e-mails, instant messages or [otherwise],” “shall not personally or through
third parties (friends), threaten assault, stalk, attack, harass, bully, intimidate, or otherwise
abuse in any nature each other,” “shall be expected to keep a reasonable distance from
each other while attending school,” “shall avoid each other is [sic] the hallways, cafeteria,
and classrooms,” and “shall maintain distance from each other that will avoid any type of
physical confrontation.” (R-2.) The No-Contact Order reflects that it was effective
immediately and would remain in effect unless modified or terminated “by the Main
Office,” that “a party that violates this order faces immediate disciplinary action,” and that
“[v]iolation may occur even if the parties consent to contact” because only HPRHS
administration could release the parties from the No-Contact Order. (R-2.) P.F. and D.F.
signed the No-Contact Order on May 11, 2022, and D.P. signed the No-Contact Order on
May 13, 2022.
By email dated May 11, 2022, principal Jonathan Tallamy confirmed that P.D. had
been “changed to a different PE period.” (P-1.) By email dated May 15, 2022, P.F.
advised that D.F. had seen P.D. in gym class. (P-1.) By emails dated May 16, 2022, and
May 17, 2022, Principal Tallamy advised that the PE schedule is sometimes tricky with
activities and locations, and that it was an issue due to weather, but there was no
interaction between D.F. and P.D. and it would not be a problem in the future, regardless
of weather. (P-1.) By email dated May 22, 2022, P.F. alleged that D.F. had been the
victim of three HIB incidents and advised that if she did not receive written confirmation
that P.D. was removed from D.F.’s gym class she would keep D.F. out of school. By
email dated May 23, 2022, Superintendent Ripley advised that he was reviewing the May
2022 HIB Report and that he would contact her to discuss the process and management
of the issue. (P-1.)
By email dated June 2, 2022, P.F. advised that there was an incident in school on
June 1, 2022, wherein P.F. and her boyfriend were being made fun of and harassed in
the auditorium and another student, D.M., said to them they were “special education kids,”
and that contrary to her agreement with the District, she was not notified. P.F. further
advised that she was concerned about several enumerated changes in her daughter’s

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10889-22
7
demeanor. (P-1.) Superintendent Ripley replied, stating, inter alia, that he personally
communicates with the director, D.F.’s case manager, and other administrators several
times a week to monitor D.F.’s social, emotional, and academic health, and that a HIB
investigation would be initiated. (P-1.) Rice investigated the June 1, 2022, incident and
determined that it met the HIB criteria.
By letter dated July 1, 2022, Principal Tallamy notified petitioner that the District
did not find evidence that D.F. was involved in an act of HIB or any other Code of Conduct
violation with regard to the May 4, 2022,3 incident, that a follow-up session had been
conducted with D.F. and a school counselor, and that no administrative action was
necessary at that time. (R-3.) The July 1, 2022, letter further reflects that the following
services were offered for D.F.: “Met with ABS, Assistant Principal [and] Case Manager”;
“No contact order in place”; “Guidance Counselor follow up as needed”; and “Reminder
of student support resources.” (R-3.) The July 1, 2022, letter advised petitioner that she
could request a hearing before the Board. (R-3.) On July 13, 2022, petitioner emailed
Principal Tallamy in response to the July 1, 2022, letter stating that she “would like to
meet with the Board of Education regarding the incident” and that “[w]e can do it in
executive session; however, the public does need to know about situations like this being
swept under the carpet.” (R-4.) On July 13, 2022, superintendent Scott Ripley emailed
petitioner advising that she could present her concerns to the Board during public
comments at the next meeting on July 26, 2022. (R-4.) Shortly thereafter, Superintendent
Ripley again emailed petitioner, advising, “If however you are seeking an official appeal
to a HIB determination, please provide the request and the context regarding the case in
question.” (R-4.) Petitioner replied that “this is an official appeal request” of a
“harassment/assault incident” and subsequent emails confirmed that it was for the May
4, 2022, incident. (R-4.) The HIB appeal was scheduled for the Board’s July 21, 2022,
at 6:00 p.m. virtual meeting. (R-4.) Rice did not attend the Board meeting.
3 The letter incorrectly states, “the incident of 5/10/22” (the date on which Rice’s investigation was
commenced).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10889-22
8
A memorandum dated July 21, 2022, from anti-bullying coordinator Seamus
Campbell to Superintendent Ripley summarizes events related to two situations that were
investigated as possible HIB, to wit: 33-21-22 and 38-21-22.
33-21-22
On 5/4/22, [redacted] notified Assistant Principal Mr. Michael
Schleer of an incident involving herself and another student.
[Redacted] communicated an allegation to Mr. Schleer that
earlier that day, a student had physically assaulted her.
Mr. Schleer began to investigate [redacted] allegations
immediately. Mr. Schleer contacted High Point’s Security
Office in an attempt to obtain surveillance footage of the
alleged incident. Mr. Schleer attempted to make contact with
the student’s parent, [P.F.], by phone on 5/4/22, but was
unable to establish contact.
On 5/5/22, Mr. Schleer viewed the video footage in question,
and called and spoke with [P.F.] over the phone.
On 5/6/22, Mr. Schleer attempted to meet with [redacted], but
she was absent from school. Mr. Schleer spoke with
Mr. Tallamy and it was decided that [P.F.] should be invited to
attend a meeting at her earliest convenience with the High
Point Administration as well as Special Education Case
Manager, Ms. Tess Roman. Mr. Tallamy directed Mr. Rice
to conduct a H.I.B. investigation. Mr. Tallamy made several
attempts to schedule a meeting with [redacted] and her
mother, [P.F.] finally agreed to come in for a meeting on 5/9/22
at 3:30 p.m.
On 5/9/22, an in person meeting was held at High Point.
Attendees included [redacted], [P.F.], Mr. Tallamy,
Mr. Schleer, Ms. Roman and Mrs. Delaney (Supervisor of
Pupil Personnel Services).
On 5/13/22, Mr. Rice procured a written statement from
[redacted].
Additional Information and Context:
[Redacted] was absent from school on 5/6, 5/9, 5/10, 5/11.
An essential component of a H.I.B. investigation is obtaining
a written statement from the alleged victim. [Redacted]
persistent absences prolonged the time it took to complete
this investigation.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10889-22
9
NJ regulations stipulate that a “distinguishing characteristic”
must be a component of a conflict in order for it to be
considered a H.I.B. Mr. Rice’s investigation concluded that
no distinguishing characteristic existed, and thus the incident
and related incidents amounted to a “conflict” among students
and not a H.I.B.
As is always the case, High Point provides structured support
and proactive measures to remediate such conflicts. For this
conflict, a “no contact order” was developed and signed by
students and parents which facilitated preventing further
conflict. [Redacted] case manager, Ms. Roman, and other HP
staff, consulted with her regarding ways in which to avoid
future conflict. Other students involved in this conflict were
provided with similar support. Also, one or more student
schedules were changed in order to reduce contact between
students having a conflict and several teachers were notified
of the need to supervise specific students at specific times in
order to prevent subsequent conflicts.
On 5/15/22, [P.F.] lodged a complaint to Mr. Tallamy claiming
that [redacted] and another student might have been in the
same gym class despite schedule changes. Mr. Tallamy
responded to [P.F.] through email and explained that
inclement weather sometimes causes Phys. Ed. classes to
share facilities.
On 5/20/22, Mr. Tallamy signed Mr. Rice’s H.I.B. report and
forwarded it to Dr. Ripley.
On 5/23/22, Dr. Ripley signed the H.I.B. report affirming
Mr. Rice’s investigation.
This investigation was not completed in time to be submitted
for Board review at the June meeting.
On 6/28/22, the HPBOE affirmed the HIB report 33-21-22.
________________________________________________
38-21-22
On 6/2/22, Mr. Rice was directed by Mr. Tallamy to initiate a
HIB investigation into an incident that was reported to have
occurred in the Auditorium on 6/1/2022. The report involved
[P.F.], [redacted] mother, who alleged via email that
[redacted] and her boyfriend, [redacted], were “being made
fun of” “aka harassed” by another student who called them
“special education kids.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10889-22
10
The ensuing investigation involved numerous interviews and
meetings involving [redacted], several other students,
Ms. Schleer and Ms. Roman. Based on the evidence
reviewed as part of this investigation, Mr. Rice concluded that
[redacted] was a victim of a HIB.
On 6/215/22 [sic], Mr. Tallamy signed Mr. Rice’s H.I.B. report
and forwarded it to Dr. Ripley.
On 6/20/22, Dr. Ripley signed the H.I.B. report affirming
Mr. Rice’s investigation.
On 6/28/22, the HPBOE affirmed the HIB report 38-21-22.
[R-6.]
The HPRHS July 21, 2022, virtual-meeting minutes reflect, in pertinent part, the
following:
HIB Appeal
The Committee discussed an HIB incident and the parties
involved. The committee is scheduled to meet (virtually) with
the parent at 6:00 this evening. At 6:07, the committee heard
the appeal of the parent. At 6:55, the parent left the meeting.
[R-5.]
On July 25, 2022, petitioner emailed, among others, Superintendent Ripley and
various Board members. In the email, which was several pages long, petitioner
apologized for abruptly ending the July 21, 2022, meeting, noted her frustrations with the
meeting, and raised multiple concerns and complaints. (R-7.) Petitioner’s email also
stated that her daughter “is suffering emotionally, socially, and academically from this
incident.” (R-7.)
A letter dated October 27, 2022, from Superintendent Ripley to petitioner states as
follows:
Please accept this letter as an official notification and
resolution of the HIB Appeal about which you met with the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10889-22
11
Board of Education on Thursday July 21, 2022 at 6:05 p.m.
During that meeting you presented your belief that your
daughter had been “HIBed” by another student. It was your
stated belief, as communicated to the Board of Education, that
the district’s determination that it was not a HIB was in error.
During that meeting, you became frustrated that the Board
communicated their belief that the matter did not meet the
parameters of a HIB. Prior to resolving the matter your
agitation resulted in your stating that you were withdrawing
the HIB Appeal and then you promptly disconnected from the
meeting. Therefore, this letter shall serve as official notice of
the HIB Appeal meeting summary and Board determination
supporting the district’s determination that the incident in
question was properly determined to not have been a HIB.
Please let me know If you have any further questions.
[R-8.]
Testimony
P.F.
D.F. was definitely singled out. Her Chromebook was stolen twice and when she
asked the main office who found the Chromebook, she was told P.D. had found it both
times. P.D. and her friends are continually harassing D.F. and HPRHS does not provide
her with the required documentation. P.D. admitted that she also grabbed D.F.’s arm
because she was mad. D.F.’s boyfriend’s statement was that P.D. was told to stop five
times before he stepped between them. She kept D.F. home after the May 4, 2022,
incident because D.F. said she was afraid, not just uncomfortable. D.F. was smiling in
the video, but because of her communication and multiple handicaps, D.F. smiles when
she is in a stressful or uncomfortable situation.
Trooper Popeck, the school resource officer, told her in two separate
conversations that he was upset that D.F. was being harassed and bullied. Nothing is
being done to stop the HIB incidents. Since April 2022 there have been four HIB
incidents, not including several other incidents that P.F. has let slide. On the last day of
school there was an incident between D.F. and P.D. P.F. received a call from two
administrators who advised that P.D. had violated the No-Contact Order and approached

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10889-22
12
D.F., and that if it had not been the last day of school D.F. would have been given
detention because she answered P.D.’s question. So, somewhere along the line, we
eliminated the No-Contact Order because, due to her communication and multiple
handicaps, D.F. does not understand the No-Contact and had always been taught that if
someone talks to her, to talk back.
She is trying to protect D.F. D.F. is still on home instruction because she has
considered suicide and needs a safety plan, but no safety plan is being created. D.F. has
been involved in four HIB incidents with P.D. D.F. is aware that she has other rights, but
she is a single parent and has no money, so it is difficult for her.
James Rice
Rice determined that the May 4, 2022, incident was a student conflict as a result
of the Chromebook situation and not a HIB incident because it did not meet the HIB
criteria. P.F. had chosen to keep D.F. home, asserting that it was not a safe situation for
her, but he was not able to determine if D.F. was actually in fear or if that was a parent
choice. A no-contact order is entered for non-HIB situations for students involved in
conflicts to separate them, allow time to cool off, and to avoid interaction that would further
the incident. Students may choose to reenact a friendship, but, if not, it sets a clear
boundary or line not to cross so the students may coexist without creating further conflict.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
It was the intent of the Legislature in enacting the “Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act”
(ABR) to strengthen the standards and procedures for preventing, reporting, investigating,
and responding to incidents of harassment, intimidation, and bullying of students that
occur in school and off school premises. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.1; N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.2.
Notwithstanding any provision of N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et seq. or any other law to the
contrary, the commissioner may adopt such rules and regulations as the commissioner
deems necessary to implement the provisions of the ABR.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10889-22
13
“Harassment, intimidation or bullying” means any gesture, any written, verbal or
physical act, or any electronic communication, whether it be a single incident or a series
of incidents, that is reasonably perceived as being motivated either by any actual or
perceived characteristic, such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or a mental, physical or sensory
disability, or by any other distinguishing characteristic, that takes place on school
property, at any school-sponsored function, on a school bus, or off school grounds as
provided for in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15.3, that substantially disrupts or interferes with the
orderly operation of the school or the rights of other students and that:
a. a reasonable person should know, under the
circumstances, will have the effect of physically or emotionally
harming a student or damaging the student’s property, or
placing a student in reasonable fear of physical or emotional
harm to his person or damage to his property;
b. has the effect of insulting or demeaning any student or
group of students; or
c. creates a hostile educational environment for the
student by interfering with a student’s education or by
severely or pervasively causing physical or emotional harm to
the student.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.]
Each school district shall adopt a policy prohibiting harassment, intimidation or
bullying on school property, at a school-sponsored function or on a school bus. N.J.S.A.
18A:37-15(a); N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.7(a). School districts have local control over the content
of the policy, except that the policy must contain, at a minimum, the twelve components
enumerated at N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b). See also N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.7(a)(2). A school
district is not prohibited from adopting a policy that includes components that are more
stringent than the aforesaid components. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(f); N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.7(b).
The superintendent of schools shall appoint a district anti-bullying coordinator, and the
principal in each school in a school district shall appoint a school anti-bullying specialist.
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-20(a)–(b). The school anti-bullying specialist shall (1) chair the school
safety team; (2) lead the investigation of incidents of harassment, intimidation, and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10889-22
14
bullying in the school; and (3) act as the primary school official responsible for preventing,
identifying, and addressing incidents of harassment, intimidation, and bullying in the
school. Ibid.
All acts of harassment, intimidation, or bullying must be reported to the school
principal verbally the same day and in writing within two days of when the school
employee or contracted service provider witnessed or received reliable information
regarding any such incident. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(5). The written report must be on a
numbered form developed by the Department of Education and must be submitted
promptly by the principal to the superintendent of schools. Ibid. The school district must
provide a means for a parent or guardian to complete an online numbered form to
confidentially report an incident of harassment, intimidation, or bullying. Ibid. The
principal must inform the parents or guardians of all students involved in the alleged
incident, and keep a written record of the date, time, and manner of notification to the
parents or guardians. Ibid. A redacted copy of the form that removes all student
identification information shall be confidentially shared with the board of education after
the conclusion of the investigation, if a hearing is requested by a parent or guardian
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(d). Ibid.
An investigation shall be initiated by the principal or the principal’s designee within
one school day of the report of the incident and shall be conducted by a school anti-
bullying specialist. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(a). The investigation shall be completed as
soon as possible, but not later than 10 school days from the date of the written report of
the incident of harassment, intimidation, or bullying. Ibid. The results of the investigation
must be reported to the superintendent of schools within two school days of the
completion of the investigation, and in accordance with regulations promulgated by the
State Board of Education pursuant to the “Administrative Procedure Act,” P.L.1968, c.410
(C.52:14B-1 et seq.), the superintendent may decide to provide intervention services,
establish training programs to reduce harassment, intimidation, or bullying and enhance
school climate, impose discipline, order counseling as a result of the findings of the
investigation, or take or recommend other appropriate action. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-
15(b)(6)(b). The results of each investigation shall be reported to the board of education
no later than the date of the board of education meeting next following the completion of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10889-22
15
the investigation, along with information on any services provided, training established,
discipline imposed, or other action taken or recommended by the superintendent.
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(c).
Parents or guardians of the students who are parties to the investigation are
entitled to receive information about the investigation, in accordance with federal and
State law and regulation, including the nature of the investigation, whether the district
found evidence of harassment, intimidation, or bullying, or whether discipline was
imposed or services provided to address the incident of harassment, intimidation, or
bullying. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(d). This information must be provided in writing within
5 school days after the results of the investigation are reported to the board. Ibid. A
parent or guardian may request a hearing before the board after receiving the information,
and the hearing shall be held within 10 days of the request. Ibid.; N.J.A.C. 6A:16-
7.7(a)(2)(xi)(2). The board shall meet in executive session for the hearing to protect the
confidentiality of the students. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(d). At the hearing the board may
hear from the school anti-bullying specialist about the incident, recommendations for
discipline or services, and any programs instituted to reduce such incidents. Ibid. At the
next board of education meeting following its receipt of the report, the board shall issue a
decision, in writing, to affirm, reject, or modify the superintendent’s decision. N.J.S.A.
18A:37-15(b)(6)(e). The board’s decision may be appealed to the Commissioner of
Education, in accordance with the procedures set forth in law and regulation, no later than
90 days after the issuance of the board’s decision. Ibid.
The statutory definition of “bullying” does not include all violent
or aggressive conduct against a student. The definition, both
before and after adoption of the 2010 Anti-Bullying Act, refers
to conduct that is “reasonably perceived as being motivated”
by a “distinguishing characteristic” of the victim, such as,
“race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual
orientation, gender identity and expression, or a mental,
physical or sensory [disability].” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14. The
statute has not limited “distinguishing characteristic” to those
specifically enumerated, but it has consistently required such
a perceived motivation.
Thus, harmful or demeaning conduct motivated only by
another reason, for example, a dispute about relationships or

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10889-22
16
personal belongings, or aggressive conduct without
identifiable motivation, does not come within the statutory
definition of bullying.
[K.L. v. Evesham Tp. Bd. of Educ., 423 N.J. Super. 337, 350–
51 (App. Div. 2011) (footnote omitted).]
Thus, an incident may even be physically, psychologically, or socially harmful, but still not
meet the HIB criteria.
Petitioner argues that this is a HIB violation because of the language in the New
Jersey Guidance for Parents on the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (Guidance), which
reflects, “to set . . . apart from others . . . to single out,” and P.D. has singled out P.F. two
times prior—stole her Chromebook twice—and this third time grabbed her arm and did
not let go. Specifically, the Guidance petitioner refers to states:
The ABR does not explain the meaning of a “distinguishing
characteristic.” However, the dictionary (Webster’s Ninth
Collegiate Dictionary) defines the word “distinguish” as “. . . to
perceive a difference in . . . to mark as separate or different
. . . to separate into kinds, classes or categories . . . to set
above or apart from others . . . to single out. . .” The same
dictionary defines the word “characteristic” as “. . . something
that identifies a person or thing or class. . .”
After an investigation by the ABS, the Board determined that this incident was
ordinary student conduct—not HIB—as a result of a history of sporadic conflict between
the two students. It found no substantial disruption of or interference with operations of
the school or rights of students, no actual or perceived distinguishing characteristic, no
physical or emotional harm or fear of harm to a student or his or her property, no effect of
insulting or demeaning a student or group of students, and no creation of “hostile
educational environment” interfering with a student’s education. The Board thereafter
took action reasonably calculated to remediate and end the conduct—the students signed
a no-contact order, staff was alerted to the potential for conflict, and some schedule/class
changes were made.
The decision of a board acting within the scope of its authority is entitled to a
presumption of correctness and will not be upset unless there is an affirmative showing

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10889-22
17
that such decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Thomas v. Bd. of Educ.,
89 N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965). Similarly, the action of a board which lies within
the area of its discretionary powers may not be upset unless patently arbitrary, without
rational basis or induced by improper motives. Kopera v. Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super.
288, 294 (App. Div. 1960). Although petitioner contends that her daughter is being set
apart or singled out, the ABR nevertheless requires that it be the result of a distinguishing
characteristic—such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national original, sexual
orientation, gender identity and expression, mental disability, physical disability, sensory
disability—or other difference, and no such distinguishing characteristic or difference has
been identified for the May 4, 2022, incident.
In view of the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that the Board’s determination that the
incident complained of did not constitute harassment, intimidation, and bullying was not
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable and further CONCLUDE that the Petition should be
dismissed.
Additionally, it is noted that petitioner referenced social, emotional, and academic
issues, and submitted numerous additional emails (P-1) relative to, inter alia, D.F.’s
individualized education plan (IEP) and IEP meetings, an alleged November 2022 HIB
incident, an alleged “hit list,” home instruction, and a safety plan that post-date the May
4, 2022, incident. Petitioner also submitted text messages and social-media printouts (P-
2; P-3) which post-date the May 4, 2022, incident. This matter involves only an appeal of
the Board’s HIB determination as to the May 4, 2022, incident and therefore those emails,
text messages, and social-media printouts fall outside the scope of this hearing and are
not otherwise referenced herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that petitioner’s Petition is DISMISSED.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10889-22
18
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, 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.
April 4, 2023
_________________________ _______________________________
DATE KELLY J. KIRK, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: ____________________
Date Mailed to Parties: ____________________
db

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10889-22
19
APPENDIX
LIST OF WITNESSES
For Petitioner:
P.F.
For Respondent:
James Rice
LIST OF EXHIBITS
For Petitioner:
P-1 Emails
P-2 Personal notes and printouts
P-3 Message
For Respondent:
R-1 HPRHS HIB Report, dated May 10, 2022
R-2 HPRHS No-Contact Order, dated May 11, 2022
R-3 HPRHS letter to petitioner, dated July 1, 2022
R-4 Emails, dated July 2022
R-5 Virtual-meeting minutes, dated July 21, 2022
R-6 Memo, dated July 21, 2022
R-7 Email from petitioner, dated July 25, 2022
R-8 HPRHS letter to petitioner, dated October 27, 2022