Jason Manzella v. Board of Education of the Township of Wahington, Morris County, 3/24/25 (#106-25)

106-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 17066-24
Agency Dkt. No. 346-10/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Jason Manzella,
Petitioner,
v.
Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Township 	of
Washington, Morris County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by the Board of Education of the Township of Washington (Board) pursuant
to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and petitioner’s reply thereto, have been reviewed and considered.
Petitioner, a tenured teacher employed by the Board, contends that the Board violated
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.3 when it suspended him without pay absent an indictment or the filing of tenure
charges against him. He concedes that he has not reported to work since the start of the 2024-
2025 school year because he was arrested in Virginia and ordered not to leave the state until his
case has concluded. The Board filed a motion to dismiss the petition, which was converted to
motion for summary decision by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). 	Petitioner filed a cross-
motion for summary decision. The ALJ granted petitioner’s cross-motion upon concluding that,
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.3 and relevant case law, the Board could not suspend petitioner
without pay because he has not been indicted and no tenure charges have been filed against him.

2
Consequently, the ALJ recommended that petitioner receive all requisite back pay, benefits, and
attorney fees and costs.
In its exceptions, the Board argues that it never suspended petitioner and, thus, N.J.S.A.
18A:6-8.3 and N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10 are not applicable. Rather, the Board claims that petitioner failed
to report to work at the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year and has since been on an
unauthorized leave of absence. Consequently, the Board asserts that it need not pay petitioner
pursuant to Board Policy 3212 because he is not reporting to work. It denies that its failure to
pay petitioner constitutes a reduction in compensation in violation of the tenure laws, and it
maintains that it lacks authority to pay petitioner for services not rendered. Finally, the Board
disputes the award of attorney fees to petitioner and claims that the ALJ offered no legal
justification for same.
In response, petitioner argues that the Commissioner should adopt the Initial Decision in
its entirety. 	He maintains that the July 22, 2024, letter he received from the Interim
Superintendent unequivocally states that she suspended him effective the first day of the 2024-
2025 school year with the approval of the Board President, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:25-6 and
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.3. 	The letter further states that the suspension will be with pay unless he is
indicted or incarcerated. He argues that the ALJ correctly concluded as a matter of law that the
Board cannot refuse to pay him for failing to report to work because he has not been indicted,
he is not incarcerated, and the Board has not filed tenure charges.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that the Board violated N.J.S.A.
18A:6-8.3 when it withheld petitioner’s salary during his suspension. The statute provides that a
tenured Board employee suspended from employment “other than by reason of indictment,

3
pending any investigation, hearing or trial or any appeal therefrom, shall receive his full pay or
salary during such period of suspension.” N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.3. See Slater v. Bd. of Educ. of Ramapo-
Indian Hills Reg’l High Sch. Dist., 237 N.J. Super. 424, 426 (App. Div. 1989) (“[A] tenured employee
may be suspended without pay only if indicted or if tenure charges have been preferred and
certified to the Commissioner of Education. In all other circumstances, a suspension must be
with pay.”).
The Commissioner finds that the Board’s claim in its exceptions that it never suspended
petitioner is belied by the record. 	Petitioner received a letter (Petitioner’s Exhibit P-A in
evidence) from the Interim Superintendent dated July 22, 2024, which states:
This correspondence is to advise you that, as a result of allegations
reported to me by the Virginia Police that you have engaged in
inappropriate contact with minors, I am hereby suspending you
effective the first day of the 2024-2025 school year. 	The
suspension will be with pay unless you are indicted or incarcerated,
at which time it shall be without pay. 	This action is being taken
pending the outcome of the investigation into the allegations.
My action is being taken with the approval of the President of the
Board, pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 18A:25-6 and N.J.S.A.
18A:6-8.3. During the period of your suspension, you are not to be
present on any of the Washington Township School District’s
property for any reason without prior authorization from me. 	I
shall be reporting your suspension to the Board at its meeting on
August 13, 2024.
The Board’s discussion shall be conducted in closed executive
session to ensure that your privacy rights are protected. However,
if you wish to waive your privacy rights and have this discussion
held in public, you may do so by filing a written request with me no
later than 12:00 p.m. on August 9, 2024.
This letter fully supports the ALJ’s finding that on “July 22, 2024, the superintendent sent a letter
to Manzella informing him that he would be suspended with pay effective on the first day of

4
school for the 2024-2025 school year and that this suspension would be discussed by the Board
at its meeting on August 13, 2024.” Initial Decision, at 3.
The Commissioner rejects the Board’s suggestion—despite the clear and unambiguous
language contained in the Interim Superintendent’s letter—that petitioner was never suspended
because the Board did not take any action with respect to his employment at its meeting on
August 13, 2024. While the ALJ’s finding on page 3 of the Initial Decision that “the Board declined
to suspend Manzella” is technically correct, the Board did not need to take any action to
effectuate petitioner’s suspension. N.J.S.A. 18A:25-6 authorizes the superintendent of schools,
with approval of the Board president, to suspend any teaching staff member. See, e.g., Ott v. Bd.
of Educ. of Twp. of Hamilton, 160 N.J. Super. 333, 336 (App. Div. 1978) (explaining that
superintendent suspended tenured teacher with pay pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:25-6 following his
arrest on a drug charge). 	The statute’s plain language does not require the suspension to be
authorized or confirmed by the full Board. It only requires approval of the Board president, which
the Interim Superintendent obtained.1
The Commissioner also rejects the Board’s contention that Board Policy 3212 is relevant
to this matter. 	It states, in relevant part, that “[a] teaching staff member who . . . is absent
without authorization . . . may be subject to appropriate consequences, which may include the
withholding of a salary increment, dismissal, and/or certification of tenure charges.” Policy 3212,
Attendance, Washington Township Board of Education, adopted Oct. 10, 2006, rev. Apr. 28, 2015,
https://5il.co/15fce (last accessed March 11, 2025). This is not a case in which the Board withheld
1 The statute’s plain language provides that, after the suspension, the Board may take action by majority vote to
either restore or remove the suspended teaching staff member subject to applicable tenure laws. N.J.S.A. 18A:25-
6.

5
petitioner’s salary increment. Moreover, boards of education are not authorized to make rules
that are inconsistent with the provisions of Title 18A. See N.J.S.A. 18A:27-4 (stating that boards
of education “may make rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of this title” which govern
“salaries and time and mode of payment thereof of teaching staff members”). Thus, the Board
cannot interpret Policy 3212 to allow it to suspend petitioner without pay in violation of tenure
laws.
However, the Commissioner agrees with the Board that petitioner is not entitled to
attorney fees and costs. The Commissioner is not authorized by statute to award attorney fees.
Balsey v. N. Hunterdon Reg’l Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 117 N.J. 434, 442-43 (1990); J.A. v. Bd. of Educ.
for Dist. of S. Orange & Maplewood, 318 N.J. Super. 512, 526 (App. Div. 1999). Consequently, the
Commissioner rejects the ALJ’s conclusion that petitioner is entitled to attorney fees and costs as
contrary to law.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision, as modified, is adopted as the final decision in this
matter, and the petition of appeal is hereby granted. The Board is directed to resume payment
of petitioner’s salary effective September 18, 2024.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	March 24, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	March 26, 2025
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
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17066-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 346-10/24
JASON MANZELLA,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP
OF WASHINGTON, MORRIS COUNTY,
Respondent.
Ronald J. Ricci, Esq. for petitioner (Ricci & Fava, LLC, attorneys)
Stacey Cherry, Esq., for respondent (Fogarty & Hara, attorneys)
Record Closed: January 9, 2025 	Decided: January 17, 2025
BEFORE PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Jason Manzella, a tenured teacher, did not report to work since the start
of the new school year because he was arrested in Virginia and ordered not to leave the
state. 	Washington Township Board of Education (Board) has refused to pay petitioner
alleging he is absent without authorization. 	Must respondent pay petitioner? 	Yes. 	A
school board cannot reduce a tenured teacher’s salary unless the teacher is indicted,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17066-24
2
subject to tenure charges or a collective bargaining agreement authorizes it. 	Slater v.
Board of Education of Ramapo-Indian Hills, 237 N.J. Super. 424, 426 (App. Div. 1989).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 24, 2024, petitioner, Jason Manzella, filed a Verified Petition of Appeal
with 	the 	Commissioner 	of 	Education, 	Office 	of 	Controversies 	and 	Disputes. 	On
November 15, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer. 	On
November 19, 2024, the case was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law as a
contested case under N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23.
On December 19, 2024, I held a prehearing conference, and the parties failed to
appear. A second prehearing conference was scheduled, and petitioner was directed to
respond to the Motion to Dismiss. The parties were also directed to be prepared to argue
the Motion to Dismiss at the second prehearing conference. 	On December 11, 2024,
petitioner filed his opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On January 3, 2025, respondent
filed its reply.
On January 7, 2025, I held the second prehearing conference, but petitioner’s
counsel requested a brief adjournment. 	On January 8, 2025, I held a third prehearing
conference and the oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss. At the conference the parties
requested that I convert the Motion to Dismiss and its opposition into Cross Motions for
Summary Decision because no genuine issues of material fact existed. 	I granted the
request, and on January 8, 2025, I held oral argument and closed the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the documents the parties submitted in support of and in opposition
to the Motion to Dismiss, I FIND the following FACTS:
1. 	Jason Manzella is a tenured teacher with the Washington Township Board of
Education.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17066-24
3
2. 	On 	July 	22, 	2024, 	the 	Morris 	County 	Prosecutor 	notified 	the 	Interim
Superintendent of Schools, Marybeth Kopacz, that Manzella was arrested for
indecent liberties with a child and sexual offense with a child by computer.
3. 	On July 22, 2024, the superintendent sent a letter to Manzella informing him
that he would be suspended with pay effective on the first day of school for the
2024-2025 school year and that this suspension would be discussed by the
Board at its meeting on August 13, 2024.
4. 	On August 13, 2024, the Board declined to suspend Manzella. The Board did
not send any correspondence to Manzella informing him of its decision.
5. 	On September 18, 2024, the Board informed Manzella’s attorney that Manzella
had not reported to work, was considered absent without authorization, and
was not going to be paid. The Board agreed to continue his benefits provided
Manzella pay his proportionate contribution.
6. 	On September 20, 2024, the Board informed Manzella’s attorney that Manzella
was not suspended but that he had not reported to work and was considered
absent without authorization.
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 law.”
N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). This rule is substantially like the summary judgment rule embodied
in the N.J. Court Rules, 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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17066-24
4
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).
No tenured teacher can be dismissed or reduced in compensation except for
inefficiency, incapacity, unbecoming conduct, or other just cause, and only after a
hearing. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-18. Also, a teacher who is suspended from employment, other
than by reason of indictment, shall receive his full pay during the suspension. N.J.S. A.
18A:6-8.3. The Appellate Division has held that a tenured employee can be suspended
without pay only if indicted or if tenure charges have been proffered, and if not, the
suspension must be with pay. Slater v. Board of Education of Ramapo-Indian Hills, 237
N.J. Super. 424, 426 (App. Div. 1989). The Court went on further to state that even when
the school board suspends a tenured teacher upon arrest, a suspension without pay is
invalid if the teacher had not been indicted. Id. at 427-428.
Respondent argues that Manzella was not suspended but that he failed to show
up for work and was therefore absent without approval. 	I disagree. 	Respondent was
informed that the Manzella was detained in Virginia and could not report to work.
Manzella is a tenured teacher and is subject to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-18. Respondent did not
present any collective bargaining agreement authorizing its actions, only arguing that
Manzella 	was 	not 	entitled 	to 	pay 	because 	he 	did 	not 	work. 	This 	argument 	is
unpersuasive. As Slater makes plain, a school board cannot reduce a tenured teacher’s
salary unless the teacher is indicted, subject to tenure charges or a collective bargaining
agreement authorizes it. 	Since Manzella has not been indicted, is not subject to tenure
charges, and no collective bargaining agreement otherwise authorizes it, I CONCLUDE
that respondent may not withhold his salary.
ORDER
I ORDER that respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision is DENIED, that
petitioner’s Cross-Motion for Summary Decision is GRANTED, and that Manzella is
AWARDED all requisite back pay, benefits, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17066-24
5
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.
January 17, 2025
DATE 	PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	January 17, 2025
Date Mailed to Parties: 	January 17, 2025
PEH/lsr

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17066-24
6
APPENDIX
Moving Papers
Moving Papers for Petitioner:
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss dated December 11, 2025, with Exhibit A
Moving Papers for Respondent:
Motion to Dismiss In Lieu of Answer with Certification of Marybeth Kopacz and Exhibits
A-D, dated November 15, 2024
Respondent’s Reply, dated January 3, 2025
Exhibits
For Petitioner
P-A 	Respondent’s letter to Manzella dated 7/22/24
For Respondent:
Certification of Marybeth Kopacz with Exhibits:
R-A 	Hampton 	General 	District 	Court 	Traffic/Criminal 	Case 	Details 	dated
11/13/24
R-B 	Recognizance dated 7/24/24 from Hampton District Court Virginia
R-C 	Respondent’s letter to petitioner dated 9/18/24
R-D 	Respondent’s letter to petitioner dated 9/20/24