Marcella Simadiris v. Board of Education of the City of Paterson, Passaic County, 12/19/2024, (#458-24)

458-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Marcella Simadiris,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Paterson,
Passaic County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
In February 2023, the petitioner appealed the withholding of a portion of her pay by the respondent Board
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-14 following the filing of tenure charges against petitioner in June 2019; those
charges are the subject of a tenure hearing which is still in progress. The Board began withholding pay from
petitioner in January 2023, after the tenure matter had been held in abeyance during related litigation. The
petitioner filed a motion for emergent relief and a subsequent motion for summary decision, both of which
were denied. A hearing was held in this matter on May 6, 2024.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: on May 22, 2019, the Board adopted a resolution certifying tenure charges
against the petitioner and suspending her, without pay, effective May 23, 2019, in connection with the
certification of tenure charges to the Commissioner; subsequent litigation and the disruption caused by the
Covid-19 epidemic caused the tenure matter to be held in abeyance until September 2021, when an
arbitrator was appointed to conduct the tenure proceeding; 	the petitioner’s argument that the Board
violated N.J.S.A. 18A:6-14 and acted without legal authority when it waited more than 440 calendar days
before implementing its salary withholding is without merit, as the plain and unambiguous language of
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-14 does not support petitioner’s position; the Board’s actions were consistent with the
statutory directive; further, it is well settled that actions within a school board’s authority are entitled to a
presumption of validity and will not be overturned in the absence of an affirmative showing that the
decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The ALJ concluded that the Board had the authority to
implement petitioner’s suspension through salary deductions, and the Board’s actions regarding the
implementation of her statutorily authorized suspension were not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Accordingly, the ALJ dismissed petitioner’s appeal with prejudice.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusions and adopted the
Initial Decision as the final decision in this matter. Accordingly, the petition of appeal was dismissed with
prejudice.
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.

458-24
OAL Dkt. No. 01360-23
Agency Dkt. No. 35-2/231
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Marcella Simadiris,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Paterson,
Passaic County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law have been
reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that respondent
had the authority to enforce petitioner’s suspension through salary deductions. 	The Commissioner
further concurs with the ALJ that the actions respondent utilized in implementing petitioner’s suspension
were not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 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.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	December 19, 2024
Date of Mailing: 	December 20, 2024
1 The Initial Decision incorrectly lists the agency docket number as 25-2/23 due to a typographical error at the time
of transmittal.
2 -This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1. Under
N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date of mailing
of this decision.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01360-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 25-2/23
MARCELLA SIMADIRIS,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CITY OF PATERSON, PASSAIC
COUNTY,
Respondent.
___________________________
Alfred F. Maurice, Esq., for petitioner (Springstead & Maurice, attorneys)
Karen A. Murray, Esq., for respondent (The Murray Law Firm, attorneys)
Record Closed: August 30, 2024 	Decided: October 1, 2024
BEFORE MARGARET M. MONACO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner Marcella Simadiris (Simadiris) challenges the withholding of a portion
of her pay by respondent Board of Education of the City of Paterson (the Board).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01360-23
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 14, 2023, Simadiris filed a Verified Petition of Appeal with the
Commissioner of Education (the Commissioner), accompanied by a motion for emergent
relief. The Department of Education (the Department) transmitted the matter to the Office
of Administrative Law for determination as a contested case. On March 8, 2023, I issued
an Order denying Simadiris’s motion for emergent relief, which the Acting Commissioner
adopted on March 23, 2023. 	Subsequently, Simadiris filed a motion for summary
decision, which I denied by Order dated November 28, 2023. 	The hearing was held on
May 6, 2024, after which the record remained open pending the receipt of a transcript of
the hearing and post hearing submissions. The parties submitted briefs and reply briefs
in support of their respective positions, and the record closed upon receipt of the last
submission.1
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
At the hearing, the parties submitted a Stipulation of Undisputed Material Facts.
(J-1.) No witnesses testified on behalf of Simadiris, and the Board offered testimony by
its Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, Luis Rojas (Rojas).
Based upon a review of the testimony and the documentary evidence presented,
including the parties’ Stipulation of Undisputed Material Facts (Stip.), and having had the
opportunity to observe the demeanor and assess the credibility of the witness who
testified, I FIND the following pertinent FACTS and accept as FACT the testimony set
forth below.
1 Simadiris attached several exhibits to her brief that were not introduced in evidence at the hearing, and
these exhibits will not be considered. Similarly, Simadiris’s submissions will not be considered to the extent
that they address the recoupment of perfect attendance stipends, which is beyond the scope of Simadiris’s
Petition of Appeal. Indeed, as memorialized in my Order denying Simadiris’s motion for emergent relief,
“[t]he parties agree[d] that the Board’s recoupment of . . . [perfect attendance stipends] is a matter subject
to the [collective bargaining] contract’s grievance procedure and is not before this forum.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01360-23
3
On May 22, 2019, the Board adopted a resolution certifying tenure charges against
Simadiris and “suspend[ing] [her], without pay, effective May 23, 2019, in connection with
the Certification of Tenure Charges to the Commissioner[.]” (R-1; see Stip. at ¶ 1.) 	On
June 3, 2019, the certified tenure charges were filed with the Commissioner. (Stip. at ¶
1.) Consistent with the Board’s resolution, Simadiris was suspended without pay for the
month of June 2019. (See R-4.)
Simadiris filed an action in Lieu of Prerogative Writ in the Superior Court, Law
Division, seeking to set aside the Board’s resolution based upon an alleged violation of
the Open Public Meetings Act. (Stip. at ¶ 2.) The Office of Controversies and Disputes
held the tenure case in abeyance pending the resolution of the court litigation. (Stip. at ¶
3.)
On August 21, 2019, the Honorable Ernest M. Caposela, A.J.S.C., issued an Order
invalidating the Board’s May 22, 2019 resolution. (See J-2; Stip. at ¶ 4.)
By letter dated August 26, 2019, Rojas informed Simadiris that she was suspended
with pay effective September 2, 2019, and until such time that a decision is rendered in
the Board’s appeal of Judge Caposela’s decision. (R-3.) In September 2019, the Board
refunded Simadiris the month's salary deducted in June 2019. (See R-5.)
On September 13, 2019, the Board filed a Notice of Appeal with the Appellate
Division regarding Judge Caposela’s order. 	(Stip. at ¶ 6.) 	At the Board’s request, and
with Simadiris’s consent, the Department continued to hold the tenure case in abeyance
pending the Board’s appeal. (Stip. at ¶ 5.)
On January 21, 2021, the Appellate Division issued a decision in which the court
reversed Judge Caposela’s order and “remanded for the entry of an order dismissing . . .
[Simadiris’s] complaint.” (See J-3; Stip. at ¶ 7.)
Simadiris filed a petition for certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which
the Court denied on September 9, 2021. (See J-4; Stip. at ¶ 8.) At this point in time, the
litigation was concluded, and the Board’s initial resolution reinstated. (Stip. at ¶ 8.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01360-23
4
On or about September 12, 2021, the Board’s attorney advised the Office of
Controversies and Disputes of the results of the above litigation and requested that the
tenure case proceed. (Stip. at ¶ 9.) On September 27, 2021, the Department appointed
Arbitrator James Mastriani to conduct the tenure proceeding. 	(Stip. at ¶ 10.) 	Arbitrator
Mastriani scheduled the tenure hearing to begin on December 13, 2022, and the hearing
is still in progress. (Stip. at ¶¶ 11, 14.)
Apart from the June 2019 pay that was withheld and then refunded, Simadiris
remained on the Board’s payroll throughout the years of litigation and through December
2022. 	On December 12, 2022, the Board’s attorney e-mailed a letter to Simadiris’s
attorney which advised that Simadiris’s salary would be reduced by $2,000 gross per
paycheck, beginning with her first paycheck in January 2023, to reimburse the District for
compensation 	erroneously 	paid 	relating 	to 	her 	120-day 	suspension 	and 	perfect
attendance incentives. (See R-2; Stip. at ¶ 12.) On January 15, 2023, the Board began
withholding $2,000 per pay period, which ended after Simadiris’s May 31, 2023 paycheck
when the assessed overpayment was collected in full. (See R-7; Stip. at ¶ 13.)
Rojas has been involved with Human Resources since 2006 and has served as
the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources since 2017. 	Rojas offered credible
testimony 	regarding 	the 	facts 	surrounding 	the 	District’s 	recoupment 	of 	monies
erroneously paid to Simadiris.
Simadiris’s suspension was not implemented in September 2021, after the
Supreme Court’s denial of certification on September 9, 2021. Rojas testified about the
various issues the District faced in reopening the schools after being closed for the 2020–
2021 year due to COVID. He described that during this timeframe the District was in the
process of reopening the schools, and the District was then having “issues” with the
teachers’ union that was “pushing back on . . . [the] reopening of schools,” which
“occupied a lot of . . . [the District’s] time through that period of . . . legal battles going
back and forth[.]” The District also had to navigate the return to school of approximately
25,000 students and approximately 4,000 staff. 	The Human Resources Department,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01360-23
5
which was responsible for implementing Simadiris’s suspension, had a major role in the
reopening of schools.
In or around the Fall of 2022, Rojas discovered that Simadiris had not been placed
back on suspension without pay after the Supreme Court’s decision. 	Rojas determined
to start the recoupment in January 2023. He explained that “it’s the human part of Human
Resources,” he “didn’t want to start deducting her pay through the Christmas holiday and
through the winter break,” and the recoupment started “after the holidays and gave her
that extra month in order to have . . . a nice holiday with her family.” Rojas also made the
decision to utilize the original calculation from May 23, 2019, resulting in forty-one days,
instead of calculating the full 120 days from the date of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Utilizing this calculation, Simadiris was overpaid for seven days in May 2019, twenty days
in June 2019, and fourteen days in September 2019 for a total of forty-one days equaling
$16,643.54. (See R-6.)2 Rojas explained that when a teacher is suspended without pay,
the summer months count towards the 120-day suspension even though the teacher does
not receive a paycheck in July and August. 	It was also determined that $2,000 per
paycheck, rather than Simadiris’s full salary, would be withheld. Rojas explained that “it
had to be a number that . . . satisfied the District enough to get the money back, but we
were able to spread it out long enough where it wouldn’t take that huge of a hit on
somebody’s paycheck, where they wouldn’t receive a paycheck at all.”
In his role as the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, Rojas has
routinely dealt with salary adjustments, including the recoupment of monies. He has done
recoupments “hundreds of times in [his] career[.]” 	Rojas explained that “if there is an
overpayment or if someone was paid erroneously, we recoup the money as quickly as we
can . . . within reason [and] [u]sually we try to spread it out as much as we can, allowing
the staff member to continue to live and pay his or her bills, yet the District recouping the
funds that it paid out erroneously.” 	In making salary adjustments, including the
recoupment of monies, Rojas has never gone to the Board for a resolution to take that
2 The overpayment also included $3,000 relating to payment of perfect attendance stipends during years
that Simadiris was on paid suspension.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01360-23
6
action, and he did not obtain a resolution regarding the recoupment of monies from
Simadiris.
LEGAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-14:
Upon certification of any charge to the commissioner, the board
may suspend the person against whom such charge is made,
with or without pay, but, if the determination of the charge by
the arbitrator is not made within 120 calendar days after
certification of the charges, excluding all delays which are
granted at the request of such person, then the full salary
(except for said 120 days) of such person shall be paid
beginning on the one hundred twenty-first day until such
determination is made. Should the charge be dismissed at any
stage 	of 	the 	process, 	the 	person 	shall 	be 	reinstated
immediately with full pay from the first day of such suspension.
Should the charge be dismissed at any stage of the process
and the suspension be continued during an appeal therefrom,
then the full pay or salary of such person shall continue until
the determination of the appeal . . . . 	Should the charge be
sustained on the original hearing or an appeal therefrom, and
should 	such 	person 	appeal 	from 	the 	same, 	then 	the
suspension 	may 	be 	continued 	unless 	and 	until 	such
determination is reversed, in which event he shall be reinstated
immediately with full pay as of the time of such suspension.
[Emphasis added.]
The Legislature’s intent in enacting the statute was “to alleviate ‘the economic hardship
endured by teachers . . . suspended without pay pending the outcome of charges filed
against them and certified for [a] hearing[.]’” Pugliese v. State-Operated Sch. Dist. of City
of Newark, 454 N.J. Super. 495, 505 (App. Div. 2018) (quoting In re Grossman, 127 N.J.
Super. 13, 35-36 (App. Div. 1974)).
Simadiris 	does 	not 	dispute 	the 	salary 	withholding 	calculation. 	She 	also
acknowledges that the Board was authorized to begin withholding her salary for the 120-
calendar day period after the denial of certification by the Supreme Court on September
9, 2021. The crux of Simadiris’s position is that the Board violated N.J.S.A. 18A:6-14 and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01360-23
7
acted ultra vires when it waited more than 440 calendar days before implementing its
salary withholding. 	According to Simadiris, the Board had 120 calendar days from
September 9, 2021 to begin withholding her pay, and the Board is without the power to
begin the assessment more than 120 calendar days from the date that all restrictions
were lifted. Simadiris also alleges that the Board had no statutory authority to modify the
amount of the assessment by collecting $2,000 per pay period.
The principles governing statutory construction are well settled. 	The “overriding
objective in determining the meaning of a statute is to ‘effectuate the legislative intent in
light of the language used and the objects sought to be achieved.’” McCann v. Clerk of
Jersey City, 167 N.J. 311, 320 (2001) (citation omitted). 	The Supreme Court explained
in Murray v. Plainfield Rescue Squad, 210 N.J. 581, 592 (2012) (citations omitted):
The objective of all statutory interpretation is to discern and
effectuate the intent of the Legislature. 	To achieve that
objective, we begin by looking at the statute’s plain language,
ascribing to the words used “their ordinary meaning and
significance.” We do not view the statutory words in isolation
but “in context with related provisions so as to give sense to
the legislation as a whole.” If the Legislature’s intent is clear
on the face of the statute, then we must apply the law as
written. It is not our function to rewrite a plainly written statute
or to presume that the Legislature meant something other
than what it conveyed in its clearly expressed language.
“If the plain language leads to a clear and unambiguous result, then [the] interpretive
process is over.” 	Richardson v. Bd. of Trs. Police & Firemen’s Ret. Sys., 192 N.J. 189,
195 (2007). It is not the function of this forum “to ‘rewrite a plainly-written enactment,’ or
to presume that the drafter intended a meaning other than the one ‘expressed by way of
the plain language.’” 	U.S. Bank, N.A. v Hough, 210 N.J. 187, 199 (2012) (citation
omitted).
Succinctly stated, the plain and unambiguous language of N.J.S.A. 18A:6-14 does
not support Simadiris’s position. 	By its terms, a board of education possesses the
statutory right to suspend an employee without pay upon certification of tenure charges,
provided that the suspension may not exceed 120 calendar days. The statute does not

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01360-23
8
purport to establish a strict timeline for when the employee’s pay can be withheld. Rather,
the 120-day limit refers to the maximum number of days that pay can be withheld pending
the arbitrator’s determination.
Simadiris’s reliance on Pugliese is misplaced. That case dealt with the effect of a
prior 	Appellate 	Division 	decision 	vacating 	and 	remanding 	for 	reconsideration 	an
arbitrator’s award sustaining tenure charges against two teachers. 	Specifically, the
Appellate Division was “asked to construe N.J.S.A. 18A:6-14 and determine what impact
[its] decision to remand had on the suspended educators’ entitlement to back pay while
the remand was pending.” 	Pugliese, 454 N.J. Super. at 499. 	The court explained that
“[t]he statute provides for an educator’s suspension without pay for 120 days or until the
issuance of a final determination of the disputed tenure charges, whichever is sooner
[and,] [i]f the matter is not resolved within 120 days, compensation must resume until a
determination is reached.” Id. at 499-500. The court held that “compensation continues
under the statute despite the fact there has been an initial award terminating employment
that was vacated and remanded, without a dismissal of the tenure charges.” Id. at 500.
The court concluded that its “vacating of the arbitrator’s determinations meant there was
no final decision made that terminated . . . [the teachers’] right to compensation once it
resumed after 120 days of their suspensions.” Id. at 507. In other words, unlike here, the
teachers in that case had already been subject to a 120-day suspension.
I CONCLUDE that the Board acted consistent with the statutory directive. 	The
Board complied with N.J.S.A. 18A:6-14 when it adopted a resolution on May 22, 2019,
certifying the tenure charges against Simadiris and “suspend[ing] [her], without pay,
effective May 23, 2019, in connection with the Certification of Tenure Charges to the
Commissioner[.]” 	(R-1.) 	Simadiris cites no statute, regulation, or other authority to
support her stance that a second Board resolution was required to implement her
suspension. In short, there is no legal requirement that the Board must revote on tenure
charges and a tenure suspension after the Appellate Division reinstated the Board’s May
23, 2019 resolution. 	No ruling invalidated the suspension portion of the Board’s
resolution. And, just as the tenure charge portion of the resolution is valid as evidenced
by the ongoing tenure arbitration proceedings, the suspension without pay contained in
the same resolution also remains valid and enforceable. 	Further, in implementing

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01360-23
9
Simadiris’s suspension, the Board withheld forty-one days’ worth of pay, which is
significantly less than the 120 calendar days authorized by N.J.S.A. 18A:6-14.
Additionally, it is well settled that actions within a school board’s authority are
entitled to a presumption of validity and will not be overturned in the absence of an
affirmative showing that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Thomas
v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965), aff’d, 46 N.J. 581
(1966). Stated differently, the exercise of a school board’s discretionary powers may not
be disturbed unless shown to be “patently arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by
improper motives.” Kopera v. West Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App.
Div. 1960). 	I CONCLUDE that the Board’s actions cannot be said to be arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable.
Rojas credibly described the many issues that his office faced relative to the
reopening of the District’s schools following their closure due to the COVID pandemic,
along with his lack of awareness until the Fall 2022 that Simadiris had not served the
tenure suspension. 	At that point, the Board had the right, if not the duty, to implement
the suspension and recover the salary erroneously paid to Simadiris. Clearly, Simadiris
sustained no harm due to the delayed implementation of her suspension. 	Simadiris
further sustained no financial harm that she should not have anticipated. 	Plainly,
Simadiris was aware of the Board’s May 22, 2019 resolution suspending her without pay,
which could not be implemented due to the trial court’s order and until after the completion
of the litigation regarding the validity of that resolution. Simadiris was also aware that she
had not served the imposed suspension and had received a refund of the monies that
had been withheld in June 2019. 	Beyond this, by following the original suspension
timetable, rather than the date of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Board imposed the
suspension for only forty-one days instead of the allowable 120 days. 	The Board also
waited until after the holidays to start the suspension and provided Simadiris with advance
notice in December 2022 of the salary deductions. 	And the Board accommodated
Simadiris by spreading the forty-one-day suspension over a period of months so that only
a portion of her pay would be withheld every two weeks, rather than withholding her full
salary for a consecutive forty-one-day suspension.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01360-23
10
In sum, I CONCLUDE that the Board had the authority to implement Simadiris’s
suspension through the salary deductions, and the Board’s actions regarding the
implementation 	of 	Simadiris’s 	statutory 	authorized 	suspension 	were 	not 	arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, I ORDER that petitioner's Petition of Appeal be and hereby
is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. If the Acting Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify, or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed 	to 	the 	parties, 	any 	party 	may 	file 	written 	exceptions 	with 	the 	ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Exceptions may be filed
by email to ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of
Controversies and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton,
New Jersey 08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the
other parties.
October 1, 2024
DATE 	MARGARET M. MONACO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
jb

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01360-23
11
APPENDIX
List of Witnesses
For Petitioner:
None
For Respondent:
Luis Rojas
List of Exhibits in Evidence
Joint:
J-1 	Stipulation of Undisputed Material Facts
J-2 	Order dated August 21, 2019
J-3 	Appellate Division decision dated January 21, 2021
J-4 	Order dated September 9, 2021
For Petitioner:
P-1 	Paycheck statements
P-2 	Order dated October 13, 2020
For Respondent:
R-1 	Board Resolution dated May 22, 2019
R-2 	E-mail dated December 14, 2022, and letter to Marcella Simadiris from Karen
Murray, Esq., dated December 12, 2022
R-3 	Letter to Marcella Simadiris from Luis Rojas, Jr., dated August 26, 2019
R-4 	Payroll record from March 15, 2019 through June 30, 2019
R-5 	Payroll record from September 15, 2019 through October 15, 2019
R-6 	Salary overpayment calculation
R-7 	Salary recoupment schedule
R-8 	Salary information