Jill Mortenson v. Board of Education of the Borough of Hopatcong, Sussex County, 7/27/26 (#269-26)

269-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 10101-20
Agency Dkt. No. 179-8/20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Jill Mortenson,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Hopatcong,
Sussex 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.
This matter arises out of two separate reductions in force (RIF) implemented by the
Hopatcong Board of Education (Board). Petitioner began employment with the Board as a health and
physical education (PE) teacher in 2005. On May 7, 2018, petitioner was approved for a maternity
leave of absence for the upcoming 2018-2019 school year. On May 14, 2018, the Board implemented
its first RIF. Petitioner was not terminated, but three other teachers, including fellow PE teacher Gary
Andolena, were terminated. On June 25, 2018, the Board re-hired Andolena.
In May 2019, petitioner was approved to extend her maternity leave for the upcoming 2019-
2020 school year. In May 2020, the Board implemented its second RIF, and petitioner’s employment
was terminated, effective June 30, 2020. She was placed on the Board’s preferred eligibility list for
rehiring, and she was re-hired when another PE teacher resigned from the district, with an effective
date of March 21, 2021.

2
Petitioner appealed, arguing that when Andolena was re-hired in 2018, it was as her
maternity leave replacement. 	According to petitioner, N.J.S.A. 18A:16-1.1 does not allow
replacement teachers to earn seniority credit, and if Andolena’s employment during the 2018-2019
and 2019-2020 school years did not count towards his seniority, then he would have been less senior
than petitioner at the time of the May 2020 RIF, and he should have been terminated rather than
petitioner. 	Petitioner sought reinstatement, as well as back pay, benefits, and emoluments
retroactive to June 30, 2020. Because petitioner was re-hired during the course of the proceedings
and continues to be employed by the Board, the remedy now at issue is solely back pay, benefits, and
emoluments for the period from June 30, 2020 through March 21, 2021.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted a thorough review of the Board’s actions and
found that the Petitioner was not entitled to back pay, benefits, and emoluments for the period from
June 30, 2020 through March 21, 2021 based upon the appropriate seniority analysis. Importantly, a
review of the record also demonstrated that the petitioner’s maternity leaves did not have any
impact on the two RIFs that were implemented by the Board.
First, the ALJ reviewed the Board’s hiring practices earlier in petitioner’s career, when she
was approved for a leave of absence during the 2014-2015 school year. In that instance, the ALJ
noted that the Board hired teacher Meghan Tobin as petitioner’s replacement. 	In doing so, the
Board’s meeting minutes showing Tobin’s appointment specifically stated that Tobin was designated
as a replacement for petitioner, and they listed a start and end date for her employment. When the
Board approved an extension of petitioner’s leave for the 2015-2016 school year, it again appointed
Tobin, and its meeting minutes specifically designate Tobin as petitioner’s replacement, with a start
and end date for her employment. 	The meeting minutes for both years also reflect other

3
appointments of replacement teachers for different employees taking leaves of absence, all
specifically designating the hired teachers as replacements.
The ALJ found these designations significant, because when Andolena was re-hired for the
2018-2019 school year, there is no indication in the Board’s meeting minutes that he was being hired
as a replacement for petitioner or any other teacher, nor was there any end date listed for his
employment. Furthermore, when petitioner extended her maternity leave of absence for the 2019-
2020 school year, Andolena was not mentioned in the minutes. The ALJ found that the Board was
diligent in specifying when someone is hired as a replacement teacher and if Andolena was
petitioner’s replacement, the Board’s minutes would have reflected that – but they did not. While
petitioner argued that she was told Andolena was her replacement, the ALJ found that petitioner
provided no testimony or evidence to support that claim. Based on these findings, the ALJ concluded
that Andolena was not re-hired as a replacement for petitioner. He, therefore, earned service credit
for the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school years, and he had more service credit than petitioner at the
time of the second RIF.
Additionally, the ALJ concluded that even if Andolena was petitioner’s maternity leave
replacement, the statute that petitioner relied on did not bar him from earning service credit as a
replacement teacher. N.J.S.A. 18A:16-1.1 provides that a person designated as a replacement may
not “acquire tenure” in the position, but it does not state that a person who is already tenured may
not earn service credit in a replacement position. Because Andolena was already tenured, he was
entitled to the protection of the tenure laws, and the Board was statutorily required to award him
service credit.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that Andolena was not hired as a
maternity leave replacement for petitioner. The New Jersey Supreme Court held in Bridgewater-

4
Raritan Educ. Assn’n v. Bd. of Educ. of Bridgewater-Raritan Sch. Dist., 221 N.J. 349, 361 (2015) that a
board of education is required to make an employee aware that they are being employed as a
replacement to ensure that they are aware that their time in service will not count towards the
acquisition of tenure. 	A detailed review of the Board’s minutes demonstrates that it regularly
complied with this requirement, specifically designating many appointments as replacements 	-
including replacements for petitioner earlier in her career. The Board’s action in re-hiring Andolena
in 2018 did not bear any such designation, neither referring to him as a replacement nor listing an
end date for his employment to coincide with the end of petitioner’s maternity leave. Furthermore,
the ALJ correctly concluded that even if Andolena had been a maternity leave replacement for
petitioner, he still would have earned service credit for the years at issue because he was already
tenured at the time, and N.J.S.A. 18A:16-1.1 only applies to the acquisition of tenure, not the earning
of service credit. For both of these reasons, Andolena was more senior to petitioner at the time of
the second RIF.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition
of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	July 27, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	July 27, 2026
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.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10101-20
AGENCY DKT NO. 179-8/20
JILL MORTENSON,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
BOROUGH OF HOPATCONG,
SUSSEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
Kathleen Naprstek Cerisano, Esq., for petitioner (Zazzali, P.C., attorneys)
Richard H. Bauch, Esq., for respondent (Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, P.C.,
attorneys)
Record Closed: April 1, 2026 	Decided: April 27, 2026
BEFORE PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Andolena, a tenured teacher terminated under a reduction in force (RIF), was
rehired by the Board of Education of the Borough of Hopatcong (respondent) while

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10101-20
2
petitioner, Jill Mortenson, was on leave. 	Was Andolena rehired to replace Mortenson,
and does he earn service credit? An employer must notify any prospective employee that
they are being hired as a temporary replacement employee under N.J.S.A. 18A:16-1.1.
and tenured employees rehired after a RIF continue to earn service credit under N.J.S.A.
18A:28-12.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 26, 2020, Mortenson, who was on an approved maternity leave of absence
and scheduled to return in September 2020, was notified by the respondent that she was
a RIF instructor, subject to recall if there was an opening. On August 21, 2020, petitioner
filed a timely appeal. On October 14, 2020, respondent filed their answer to the appeal.
On October 16, 2020, the case was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
under N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15 and the act establishing the OAL, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1
to -13, for a hearing as a contested case under the Uniform Administrative Procedure
Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to 21.6 and N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15. The case was assigned to
the Honorable Leslie Celentano. On January 23, 2025, Judge Celentano retired, and the
case was transferred to me. 	Several status conferences were held, and on February
9, 2026, the parties agreed to a briefing schedule for joint motions for summary decision.
On March 4, 2026, the parties submitted their motions. 	On April 1, 2026, the parties
submitted their oppositions, and, on that date, I closed the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the documents the parties submitted in support of and in opposition
to the motions for summary decision, I FIND the following FACTS:
Mortenson has held a standard instructional certificate with endorsements in
physical education since 2006 and health and physical education since October 2010.
(J-1.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10101-20
3
School Years 2006-2014
On September 1, 2005, Mortenson began employment with respondent as a
full-time teacher of health and physical education at the Tulsa Trail Elementary School.
She remained in that position from 2005 through 2009 and accumulated four years of
service credit.
Gary Andolena began working at Hopatcong High School as a health and physical
education teacher in 2007.
From 2009 through the end of the 2013−2014 school year, Mortenson taught
physical education at Tulsa Trail Elementary School, Hopatcong Middle School, Hudson
Maxim Elementary School and Hopatcong High School. Andolena was also continuously
employed by respondent.
At the end of the 2013−2014 school year, Mortenson had accumulated nine years
of service credit, and Andolena had accumulated seven years of service credit.
School Years 2014−2018
In November of the 2014−2015 school year, Mortenson was approved for a
maternity leave of absence. Respondent hired Meghan Tobin as Mortenson’s designated
maternity leave replacement teacher. (J-2.) The respondent’s board minutes state that
Tobin was hired as the maternity leave replacement for Mortenson. These minutes detail
Tobin’s salary, date of hire and last date of employment. They also list the employment
of Whittaker replacing Motyka (J-2 at 12(f)), Vincent replacing Jaksetic (J-2 at 12(g)), and
Ward substituting for the absence of Murray (J-2 at 12(i)). While Mortenson was on leave,
she earned six-tenths of a year of service credit because she had utilized her accrued
sick time.
Respondent approved an extension of Mortenson’s maternity 	leave for the
2015−2016 school year. 	(J-3.) 	Respondent hired Tobin as Mortenson’s designated
maternity leave replacement teacher. (J-4.) The respondent’s board minutes state that

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10101-20
4
Tobin was hired as the maternity leave replacement for Mortenson. These minutes detail
Tobin’s salary, date of hire and last date of employment. 	They also state that Blazier
replaced Fersch (J-4 at 13(f)), Meyer-Pflug replaced Sienkiewicz (J-4 at 13(g)), Melekos
replaced Rodriguez (J-4 at 13(i)), Moschella was hired as maternity leave replacement
for Martin (J-4 at 13(k)), and Canizaro replaced Ibaceta (J-4 at 13(m)). While Mortenson
was on leave, she earned one-tenth of a year of service credit because she had utilized
her accrued sick time. 	Mortenson returned to teach physical education for respondent
for the 2016−2017 and 2017−2018 school years.
May 7, 2018
Mortenson was approved for a maternity leave of absence for the 2018−2019
school year. (J-5.)
May 14, 2018
On May 14, 2018, Mortenson was involuntarily transferred to Hopatcong Middle
School. 	(J-6.) 	On that same date, respondent terminated employees under N.J.S.A.
18A:28-9, permitting a RIF for economic reasons. 	The RIF terminated Andolena and
three other teachers, including another physical education teacher. The employees were
terminated with an effective date of June 30, 2018. At that time, Mortenson had already
been approved for maternity leave and was not placed on the list of RIF employees. RIF
employees are placed on a priority list for rehire if a position becomes available.
June 25, 2018
On June 25, 2018, Mortenson was involuntarily transferred from Hopatcong Middle
School to Hopatcong Middle School and Hopatcong High School. 	(J-7.) 	Mortenson
stated that she spoke with the superintendent’s administrative assistant and the interim
superintendent 	regarding 	the 	appointment 	of 	her 	maternity 	leave 	replacement.
Mortenson stated that she was told that her maternity leave replacement was Andolena.
There were no minutes, resolutions or testimony to support that statement.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10101-20
5
At the June 25, 2018, board meeting, the respondent’s board minutes state that
Andolena was approved for full-time reemployment at Hopatcong High School and
reappointed as a physical education teacher for the 2018−2019 school year with an
effective date of September 1, 2018. 	(J-7.) 	These minutes do not state that Andolena
was hired as the maternity leave replacement for Mortenson. These minutes only list his
date of rehire and salary. 	At the time of Andolena’s reappointment, he was on the RIF
list, subject to recall based on seniority. The other physical education teacher who was
terminated under the 2018 RIF was not recalled.
As of June 30, 2018, Mortenson had accumulated eleven and seven-tenths years
of service credit, and Andolena had accumulated eleven years of service credit.
School Year 2018−2019
As of April 29, 2019, Mortenson was still on her maternity leave. 	On that date,
respondent approved a contract renewal for Mortenson and Andolena for the 2019−2020
school year. (J-11.) On May 6, 2019, Mortenson was approved for a leave of absence
for the 2019-2020 school year. 	(J-12.) 	Mortenson stated that respondent advised her
that they were not hiring a maternity leave replacement for her. On May 16, 2019, Brian
Collins and Art DiBendetto exchanged emails confirming that Mortenson was not
returning for 2019−2020. 	(J-13.) 	DiBendetto stated in the email that they did not need
an extra physical education teacher for the 2018−2019 school year and, therefore, would
not be replacing her for the 2019−2020 school year.
Mortenson earned an additional three-tenths of a year of service credit because
she had utilized her accrued sick time. Andolena earned a year of service credit.
As of June 30, 2019, both Mortenson and Andolena had accumulated twelve years
of service credit.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10101-20
6
School Year 2019−2020
On May 4, 2020, Mortenson was still on her maternity leave. 	On that date,
respondent’s board minutes approved a contract renewal for tenured teachers, including
Mortenson and Andolena, for the 2020−2021 school year. (J-14.) These minutes do not
indicate that any maternity leave replacement teachers were hired for the 2020−2021
school year.
On May 18, 2020, respondent rescinded its employment of Mortenson for the
2020−2021 school year. 	(J-15.) 	On May 26, 2020, DiBendetto wrote to Mortenson
notifying her that respondent did not need a physical education teacher for the 2020−2021
school year and that she would be placed on the RIF list, subject to recall. 	(J-16.) 	On
September 28, 2020, respondent eliminated the position of physical education teacher at
the Middle School, which resulted in her termination as part of a 2020 RIF. 	Mortenson
was placed on the respondent’s preferred eligibility list. (J-17.)
Mortenson earned one-tenth of a year of service credit because she had utilized
her sick time. Andolena earned a year of service credit.
As of June 30, 2020, Mortenson had accumulated twelve and one-tenth years of
service credit because she had utilized her accrued sick time, and Andolena had
accumulated thirteen years of service credit.
On January 25, 2021, respondent approved the resignation of a physical education
teacher at the Hopatcong High School. 	(J-18.) 	On February 22, 2021, respondent
approved the recall and reappointment of Mortenson as a health and physical education
teacher at Hopatcong High School, effective March 21, 2021. (J-19.)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Summary decision “may be rendered 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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10101-20
7
law.” 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). 	This rule is substantially like the summary judgment rule
embodied in R. 4:46-2. 	See Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J.
67, 74 (1954). All inferences of doubt are drawn against the party filing the motion and in
favor of the party against whom the motion is directed. Id. at 75. The judge’s function is
to determine whether there are genuine issues of fact to be adjudicated. Brill v. Guardian
Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520 (1995).
Having read the briefs and certifications and having reviewed the exhibits, I
CONCLUDE that no issues of material fact exist and that the case is ripe for summary
decision.
New Jersey Tenure Laws
The tenure laws, N.J.S.A. 18A:28-1 to -18 (Act), define the conditions under which
teaching staff members are entitled to the security of tenure. Tenure has been described
as a “statutory right” imposed upon a teaching staff member’s contractual employment
status. Zimmerman v. Newark Bd. of Educ., 38 N.J. 65, 72 (1962). The objective of the
tenure statutes is to protect competent and qualified teaching staff members, after a
probationary period, from removal for “unfounded, flimsy, or political reasons.” 	Id. at
71. They are “designed to aid in the establishment of a competent and efficient school
system by affording to principals and teachers a measure of security in the ranks they
hold after years of service.” 	Viemeister v. Prospect Park Bd. of Educ., 5 N.J. Super.
215, 218 (App. Div. 1949). 	Teachers who have satisfied the statutory conditions for
tenure are entitled to tenure unless they come within the explicit exceptions, such as
N.J.S.A. 18A:16-1.1. Spiewak v. Bd. of Educ., 90 N.J. 63, 81 (1982).
Under the Act, teachers who are tenured must not be dismissed or reduced in
compensation except for specific reasons such as inefficiency, incapacity, or conduct
unbecoming. N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5(a) and (b). However, a board of education can reduce
the number of teaching staff members employed in the district whenever it is advisable to
abolish any such positions for reasons of economy or for other good cause. 	N.J.S.A.
18A:28-9. 	Dismissals resulting from any such reduction are commonly referred to as a
reduction in force (RIF) and must not be made by reason of residence, age, sex, marriage,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10101-20
8
race, religion or political affiliation, but rather are made based on seniority. 	N.J.S.A.
18A:28-10. After a RIF, a teaching staff member’s right to recall is governed by N.J.S.A.
18A:28-11 and N.J.A.C. 6A:32-5.1. Under N.J.S.A. 18A:28-12, a teaching staff member
who has been terminated under a RIF must remain on a preferred eligibility list and be
reemployed whenever a vacancy occurs in a position for which such person shall be
qualified. “A vacancy exists when the teacher leaves the position permanently, as in the
case of a resignation or a retirement.” Lammers v. Bd. of Educ., 134 N.J. 264, 268 (1993).
If any teaching staff member is dismissed because of a RIF and is on the preferred
eligible list in order of seniority for reemployment when a vacancy occurs, that employee
will be given full recognition for previous years of service. N.J.S.A. 18A:28-12; See also,
N.J.A.C. 10A:15-2.5.
The district can designate another person to act in place of any employee during
an absence, subject to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 18A:17-13. 	This replacement is legal
and binding as if done and performed by the employee on leave, but in performing the
replacement duties, the replacement will not acquire tenure in that position. 	N.J.S.A.
18A:16-1.1. An absence is the place of “another which that other will reclaim when the
period of absence is over.” 	Sayreville Educ. Ass’n v. Bd. of Educ., 193 N.J. Super
424, 474 (1984).
A person who is offered specific employment as a replacement does not have the
normal 	expectation 	that 	their 	time 	in 	service 	will 	count 	towards 	tenure.
Bridgewater-Raritan Educ. Ass’n v. Bd. of Educ. of Bridgewater-Raritan Sch. Dist.,
221 N.J. 349, 361 (2015). 	The school board must provide notice to that employee that
they are being employed as a “replacement.” Id. This decision was revisited in 2022 in
Parsells v. Bd. of Educ. of Borough of Somerville, 472 N.J. Super. 369 (App. Div. June
6, 2022). In Parsells, a tenured, full-time teacher accepted a part-time position to spend
time with her family. She had intended to return full-time when her family’s needs were
less demanding. The board approved her transfer from full-time to part-time but did not
inform her that she relinquished her rights as a full-time teacher. 	The Court concluded
that the board must inform teachers of adverse job consequences before they are
reassigned to a replacement teaching assignment. Id. at 380.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10101-20
9
2005−2015
Mortenson began her employment with the respondent in 2005 and began earning
service credit. 	Andolena began his employment with respondent in 2007 and began
earning service credit. 	On June 30, 2014, Mortenson had nine years of service credit,
and Andolena had seven years. 	At the end of the 2013−2014 school year, Mortenson
took her first leave of absence. Tobin was appointed by respondent to replace Mortenson
during this leave of absence. 	On June 30, 2015, Mortenson extended her leave of
absence for the 2015−2016 school year. 	Tobin was again appointed by respondent to
replace Mortenson during this leave of absence.
I CONCLUDE that Mortenson was absent for the school years 2014−2015 and
2015−2016, Tobin was hired as her maternity leave replacement in her absence, and
Tobin was not filling a vacant spot. I further CONCLUDE that under the Act, Tobin’s two
school years as the maternity leave replacement would not be counted as service credit
so that she could acquire tenure under N.J.S.A. 18A:16-1.1.
2016-2018
Mortenson and Andolena were employed by respondent for the school years
2016−2017 and 2017−2018, and they each earned two years of service credit. 	As of
June 30, 2018, Mortenson had accumulated eleven and seven-tenths years of service
credit, and Andolena had accumulated eleven years of service credit. There is no dispute
that, on June 30, 2018, Mortenson had seven-tenths more years of seniority than
Andolena.
2018−2019
On May 7, 2018, respondent approved Mortenson’s requested leave of absence.
On May 14, 2018, Andolena was terminated under a RIF and placed on the recall list.
Mortenson was not terminated under that RIF. 	She was on leave. 	On June 25, 2018,
more than a month later, Andolena was rehired as a physical education teacher, with an
effective date of September 1, 2018.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10101-20
10
The gravamen of Mortenson’s appeal is that when Andolena was rehired in
2018, he was hired as her maternity leave replacement, and therefore, he would not earn
any service credit for the 2018−2019 school year. Mortenson argues that she and others
spoke to members of the board who assured her that Andolena was, in fact, her
replacement for her maternity leave. 	There is no evidence or testimony to support this
claim. 	None of the respondent’s board minutes for 2018 indicate that a replacement
teacher was being hired. Rather, the minutes demonstrate that Mortenson was approved
for leave and that Andolena and three other teachers, including a physical education
teacher, were terminated under a RIF. The minutes also demonstrate that Andolena was
the only teacher who was recalled for the 2018−2019 school year and was rehired as a
permanent teacher.
I CONCLUDE that Mortenson was absent for the school year 2018−2019, and
Andolena was not rehired as a maternity leave replacement for Mortenson for the
2018−2019 school year. Andolena had been rehired as a permanent physical education
teacher to fill a vacant spot.
2019−2020
Mortenson argues that Andolena continued to fill the role as her maternity leave
replacement teacher for the 2019−2020 school year and that when she was slated to
return in the fall of 2020, she should have resumed her role as health and physical
education teacher. 	If she had resumed her teaching role, Andolena would have been
terminated by the 2020 RIF. 	Respondent argues that the regulations are clear. 	If the
respondent replaces an employee during an absence, the respondent must specifically
state who the employee is replacing and the term of the replacement.
I agree. There is no dispute that in 2014 and 2015, the respondent hired Tobin as
Mortenson’s replacement. In both sets of the respondent’s board minutes, the respondent
specifically designated Tobin as Mortenson’s replacement and detailed her salary, the
beginning date, and the ending date of her employment. 	In 2019, when Mortensen
extended her leave of absence, Andolena was not mentioned in the minutes. Andolena
did not have a temporary position; he had been rehired to a vacant position in 2018. More

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10101-20
11
importantly, on May 4, 2020, the respondent’s board minutes approved contract renewals
for tenured teachers for the 2020−2021 school year, which included Mortenson and
Andolena. If Andolena had been retained as the continued maternity leave replacement
for Mortenson for the 2019−2020 school year, he would not have been listed on the
contract renewal for tenured teachers for the 2020−2021 school year. When Mortenson
took two successive years of leave, the 2014−2015 school year and 2015−2016 school
year, respondent stated explicitly in their board minutes that Tobin was her replacement.
Likewise, if Andolena had been designated as Mortenson’s maternity leave replacement
for the 2019−2020 school year, it would have been stated explicitly in the minutes. The
minutes were silent as to any leave replacement for Mortenson. In fact, a review of the
relevant portions of the respondent’s board minutes demonstrates that the respondent
diligently specifies when someone is hired as a replacement for another person and when
someone is hired as a maternity leave replacement. (See J-2 at 12(f), (g) and (l) and J-4
at 13(f), (g), (i), (j), (k) and (m).)
Finally, respondent must inform a teacher of adverse job consequences before
being assigned to a replacement teaching assignment. Here, the respondent has shown
by a preponderance of the evidence that they do provide such notice to any teacher whom
they hired as a replacement. The respondent’s minutes for October 27, 2014, and July
27, 2015, specifically detail all employees who are hired as replacements.
Respondent has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Andolena was
not a maternity leave replacement for Mortenson in 2019−2020. Further, respondent has
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that if Andolena were indeed a replacement
for 	Mortenson, 	he 	would 	have 	been 	explicitly 	designated 	as 	a 	maternity 	leave
replacement for Mortenson.
I CONCLUDE that Mortenson was absent for the school year 2019−2020 and
Andolena was not hired as a maternity leave replacement for Mortenson for the
2019−2020 school year. Andolena had been rehired as a permanent physical education
teacher to fill a vacant spot.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10101-20
12
Service Credit
When Mortenson was slated to return in 2020, she was told that there was a
position for her. However, respondent stated that they did not, in fact, have a position for
Mortenson. 	Respondent rescinded her employment, and she was placed on the
2020 RIF list. 	Mortenson argues that Andolena did not earn any service credit for
2018−2019 or 2019−2020 because he was her maternity leave replacement. Mortenson
further argues that since he would not have earned these additional two years of service
credit, she would have been more senior to Andolena, and therefore, he should have
been terminated by the 2020 RIF. 	Respondent argues that even if Andolena had been
hired as her replacement for those years, which respondent adamantly denies, he was a
tenured teacher rehired after a RIF and would continue to earn service credit upon being
rehired.
Assuming arguendo that Andolena was a maternity leave replacement teacher,
would he have earned any service credit for school years 2018−2019 and 2019−2020? I
CONCLUDE that he would. The regulations state how and when tenure is acquired, and
they also specify the exceptions to obtaining tenure. 	As Spiewak explained, a teacher
who satisfies the statutory conditions for tenure is entitled to tenure unless it falls within
an exception such as N.J.S.A. 18A:16-1.1. Spiewak at 81. Petitioners argue that N.J.S.A.
18A:16-1.1 applies to Andolena because he was hired as her replacement. 	However,
N.J.S.A. 18A:16-1.1 states explicitly that teachers do not acquire tenure if they are
designated as a replacement. (Emphasis added.) N.J.S.A. 18A:16-1.1 is not applicable
to Andolena because he has already attained tenure. That regulation is applicable only
to teachers who are seeking to acquire tenure. Simply put, replacement teaching years
are not service years for teachers who are not tenured. Andolena was a tenured teacher
prior to his termination under the RIF. When he was rehired, respondent was statutorily
required to credit him with his eleven years of seniority because he was terminated under
a RIF.
In addition, when he was rehired, he was rehired as a permanent teacher and was
subject to the Act. Moreover, the respondent’s board minutes regarding rehiring Andolena
do not state that he was a maternity leave replacement. 	Nor do these minutes list a

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10101-20
13
specified period for employment as they did for Tobin. 	Stated otherwise, Andolena was
rehired as a permanent physical education teacher to fill a vacant spot effective
September 1, 2018. 	As a permanent, tenured teacher, rehired after a RIF, Andolena
retained his prior years of service and was eligible to continue to earn service years for
his employment from 2018−2019 to 2019−2020. 	No evidence or testimony was
presented regarding any partial service credit that Mortenson earned while she was on
leave in 2018−2019 or 2019−2020. 	However, the evidence presented for her prior
absences demonstrates that any service credit she earned for those school years would
have been less than one year per school year of absence, and therefore less than
Andolena.
Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and discussion above, I must
CONCLUDE 	that Andolena 	was 	not 	hired 	as 	a 	maternity 	leave 	replacement 	for
Mortenson, that Andolena was properly credited with service years for the school years
2018−2019 and 2019−2020, that Andolena was more senior to Mortenson at the time of
the 2020 RIF, and that Mortenson’s appeal must be DISMISSED.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, I ORDER that respondent’s motion for summary
decision is GRANTED and that petitioner’s motion for summary decision is DENIED. 	I
further ORDER that the petitioner’s appeal is DISMISSED.
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 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 under N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10101-20
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. 	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.
April 27, 2026
DATE 	PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	April 27, 2026
Date Mailed to Parties: 	April 27, 2026

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10101-20
15
APPENDIX
Documents
Moving papers for petitioner:
Motion for Summary Decision, dated March 4, 2026
Opposition to Summary Decision, dated April 1, 2026
Moving papers for respondent:
Motion for Summary Decision, dated March 4, 2026
Opposition to Summary Decision, dated April 1, 2026
Joint Exhibits
J-1 	Teacher certification from the Department of Education for Jill Mortenson
J-2 	Relevant portions of the minutes of the BOE meeting on October 27, 2014
J-3 	Relevant portions of the minutes of the BOE meeting on May 11, 2015
J-4 	Relevant portions of the minutes of the BOE meeting on July 27, 2015
J-5 	Relevant portions of the minutes of the BOE meeting on May 7, 2018
J-6 	Relevant portions of the minutes of the BOE meeting on May 14, 2018
J-7 	Relevant portions of the minutes of the BOE meeting on June 25, 2018
J-8 	Job description for the administrative assistant to the superintendent
J-9 	Relevant portions of the minutes of the BOE meeting on July 23, 2018
J-10 	Relevant portions of the minutes of the BOE meeting on January 28, 2019
J-11 	Relevant portions of the minutes of the BOE meeting on April 29, 2019
J-12 	Relevant portions of the minutes of the BOE meeting on May 6, 2019
J-13 	Emails between Collins and DiBenedetto, dated May 16, 2019
J-14 	Relevant portions of the minutes of the BOE meeting on May 4, 2020
J-15 	Relevant portions of the minutes of the BOE meeting on May 18, 2020
J-16 	Letter from Superintendent DiBenedetto to Mortenson, dated May 26, 2020
J-17 	Relevant portions of the minutes of the BOE meeting on
September 28, 2020

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10101-20
16
J-18 	Relevant portions of the minutes of the BOE meeting on January 25, 2021
J-19 	Relevant portions of the minutes of the BOE meeting on February 22, 2021