B.N. and S.O., on behalf of minor child, B.U. v. Board of Trustees of the North Star Academy Lincoln Park High School, Essex County, 9/12/2025 (#443-25)

443-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 16572-24
Agency Dkt. No. 367-11/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
B.N. and S.O., on behalf of minor child, B.U.,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Trustees of the North Star Academy Lincoln
Park High School, Essex 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.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that the Board’s
decision to suspend B.U. for thirty days following a physical assault of another student was not arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable. The Commissioner also concurs with the ALJ that the Board’s harassment,
intimidation, and bullying (HIB) investigation related to the incident, and its conclusion that HIB did not
occur, were not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter. The Board’s motion
for summary decision is granted, and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	September 12, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	September 15, 2025
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 16572-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 367-11/24
B.N. & S.O. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD B.U.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD 	OF 	TRUSTEES 	OF 	THE 	NORTH
STAR 	ACADEMY 	LINCOLN 	PARK 	HIGH
SCHOOL, ESSEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
______________________________________
B.N. and S.O., petitioners, appearing pro se (parents of B.U.)
Jaryda A. Gonzalez, Esq., appearing on behalf of the respondent (Johnston Law
Firm LLC, attorneys)
Record Closed: June 30, 2025 	Decided: July 16, 2025
BEFORE NANCI G. STOKES, ALJ:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16572-24
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Suspension
Respondent suspended four ninth-grade students, including B.U., after a physical
altercation on October 18, 2024, stemming from peer conflict. B.U. and another student
received longer suspensions for physical contact with an administrator and injuries.
Was the suspension supported? 	Yes. 	Student conduct policies justify long-term
suspensions when there is potential danger to others or risk of disruption, and a school
district’s disciplinary decision stands unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying (HIB)
In December 2024, the respondent investigated a HIB allegation by petitioners
regarding the altercation that did not reveal a distinguishing characteristic of B.U. that
led to the peer conflict. 	Did the incident meet the HIB criteria? 	No. 	To qualify as HIB,
the conduct must be “reasonably perceived as being motivated either by any actual or
perceived [distinguishing] characteristic.” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 15, 2024, B.N. and S.O. filed a petition seeking emergent relief
returning B.U. to his high school, North Star Academy Lincoln Park (North Star), and
challenging 	the discipline imposed by North Star’s suspension committee. 	Yugo
Certification (Yugo Certif.), Exhibit M.
On November 22, 2024, the Department of Education, Office of Controversies
and Disputes, transmitted this case to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as a
contested case for hearing as a contested case and resolution of petitioner’s motion for
emergency relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, 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 under the Uniform
Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6. 	The OAL scheduled oral
argument on the emergent application for December 10, 2024.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16572-24
3
On December 4, 2024, I conducted a conference on petitioners’ request for
emergent 	relief. 	Following 	the 	conference, 	petitioners 	withdrew 	their 	emergent
application on December 9, 2024.
On 	December 	12, 	2024, 	North 	Star 	concluded 	its 	investigation 	into 	the
petitioners’ assertion that B.U. was a victim of HIB on October 18, 2024, finding that no
HIB occurred. The Board upheld that determination.
On 	February 	13, 	2025, 	petitioners 	filed 	an 	amended 	petition 	of 	appeal,
acknowledging the removal of the emergent application, and sought to address North
Star’s “failure to apply equitable disciplinary procedures, their neglect in addressing
bullying concerns, and their unjustified decision to suspend B.U. for an extended
period.” Yugo Certif., Exhibit N.
At a pre-hearing conference following the conclusion of discovery, North Star
requested leave to file a summary judgment motion, maintaining that the material facts
were not in dispute. I granted leave and set a motion schedule.
On May 22, 2025, North Star filed its motion, and on June 18, 2025, the
petitioners responded. On June 30, 2025, North Star replied, and I closed the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon a review of the documentary evidence presented, I FIND the
following 	undisputed 	FACTS 	when 	viewed 	in 	the 	most 	favorable 	light 	to 	the
non-movants:
North 	Star 	is 	a 	charter 	school 	in 	New 	Jersey. 	North 	Star 	supplies 	the
Certification of Nick Yugo, regional superintendent of operations for North Star, to
support its motion.
On October 18, 2024, B.U. was a ninth-grader at North Star in classroom 620
when the incident began, under the supervision of substitute teacher Ms. Meghai. Yugo

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16572-24
4
Certif., Exhibit B. 	After the altercation, North Star interviewed the students present that
day. 	The student statements from October 18, 2024, corroborate that B.U. engaged in
a fight. 	Yugo Certif., Exhibit G. 	However, no student or staff member statement,
including B.U.’s, mentions gangs or gang activity. 	Ibid. 	Accepting B.U.’s statement
regarding the incident, the following occurred:
I got back from class after writing an incident involving [T] [D] from
yesterday 	and 	when 	I 	got 	seated 	down 	there 	was 	already
something going on with [N] and a teacher so I got seated and
[K.W.] started talking to [R] to use artificial intelligence to do her
math homework So, I told her you can’t be doing that she said shut
up and to mind my business, so I told her ight [sp.] but she can’t be
doing that. So she said shut up before I slapped you and I told her
you’re not slapping me so she came up to me and slapped me so I
slapped her back and she punched me so I punched her back and
we started fight and [S.F.] joined and started fighting me to and
after all that [K.W.] got someone to fight me [R.G.] and when we
was fighting I was backed up on something and when he got off me
I punched him on the side of his face.
[Id. at 2.]
Notably, petitioners suggest B.U. meant the word “assault,” not “fight,” as his
statement reflects, to support their position that B.U. was a targeted victim. 	However,
B.U. stated, “we started [to] fight” and “we was fighting,” which I FIND supports the plain
meaning of a fight rather than an assault upon B.U.
Students alerted Dean Hughes to the fight, and she provided the following
statement regarding her involvement:
I heard some commotion in the hallway coming from around the
corner. 	I heard kids saying fight. 	I yelled where and started
running to the classroom. 	There were so many students in the
hallway I had to move some of them out of the way. When I got to
the classroom students were trying to tell [B.U.] and [R.G.] to stop
fighting. 	I grabbed [R.G.] to break them up. 	I kept yelling [R.G.]
stop because I didn’t know the other student’s name. [S] was also
holding onto him asking him to stop. 	I guess at some point [R.G.]
noticed it was me holding him back and stopped. 	He was coming
with me when [B.U.] punched him in his face from behind. 	That
made [R.G.] mad all over again and he turned around and started

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16572-24
5
swinging, I had to duck. 	I lost my grip on [R.G.] and had to grab
him again. We were tussling over chairs and desks. I finally got a
hold of [R.G] again and some students assisted with holding
[B.U.]. 	[P] and [S] assisted me with getting [R.G.] out of the
classroom. 	I saw the Para whose name he says is KC and told
him to grab the other student, [B.U.]. 	Then I walked [R.G.] to the
dean’s office. 	I forgot to mention when I arrived at the room Ms.
Meghai was just standing there.
[Yugo Certif., Exhibit B.]
North Star issues a Student and Family Handbook (Handbook) to all students
and parents each school year (SY). 	Yugo Certif., Exhibit A. 	The 2024−25 SY
Handbook informs students and their families of North Star’s policies, including the
Code of Conduct, its disciplinary procedures, and prohibitions against harassment,
discrimination, and bullying. Ibid.
The Handbook’s disciplinary procedures outline a series of consequences that
the 	school 	uses 	to 	ensure 	a 	safe, 	equitable, 	respectful, 	and 	supportive 	school
environment. Id.
When administering discipline, the school will consider several factors:
a. 	the type and severity of the conduct;
b. 	the harm or potential harm of the conduct (including
the 	disturbance 	of 	education 	processes, 	physical
harm, 	or 	emotional 	harm 	to 	others, 	damage 	to
property, etc.);
c. 	the student’s prior disciplinary and academic record;
d. 	the student’s age;
e. 	deterrence;
f. 	the 	student’s 	honesty 	and 	cooperation 	when
confronted with the violation; and the future protection
of persons and property
[Id.]
For serious offenses, the school may impose long-term suspensions of over ten
days and expulsions, including, in relevant part, open defiance of the Code of Conduct

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16572-24
6
that threatens safety, physical contact, fighting, or physical assault of another student,
teacher, or staff member. Id. B.U. suffered head injuries during the altercation. P-10.
Following North Star’s investigation, the school notified petitioners on October 21,
2024, that B.U. would receive a minimum ten-day suspension, and the discipline
committee would convene to determine if it would recommend additional disciplinary
consequences to the Board. 	Yugo Certif., Exhibit C.1 	The letter stated that the
following 	conduct 	occurred: 	“physical 	altercation 	with 	multiple 	peers, 	resulting 	in
physical contact with a school leader.” Ibid. Notably, the description of the event states
that the school leader was injured, but this is inaccurate. 	Instead, Dean Hughes
restrained R.G. during the altercation with B.U., e.g., physical contact, and reported
having to duck to avoid being struck. Yugo Certif., Exhibit B.
Further, North Star’s letter stated that it scheduled a Board hearing for October 28,
2024. 	Id. 	The notice advised petitioners that B.U. could be present at that meeting,
obtain counsel, present witnesses, and cross-examine any witnesses presented by
North Star. Id.
Before 	the 	meeting, 	North 	Star 	advised 	petitioners 	via 	email 	that 	the
administration would recommend a thirty-day suspension.
October 27, 2024, petitioners prepared a response to the suspension notice,
asserting that the incident involved gang activity. 	They also confirmed that B.U. and
R.G. had not met before the altercation. P-6.
Petitioners and B.U. attended the October 28, 2024, hearing. 	Principal Dowling
presented the administration’s recommendations to the Board.
On October 30, 2024, North Star notified petitioners that the Board agreed with the
administration’s recommendation that the suspension should continue for a total of
thirty school days through December 4, 2024. 	Yugo Certif., Exhibit D. 	Notably, the
1 Petitioners take issue with the lack of signatures on the notices certified by Mr. Yugo. However, they
supply signed letters and do not dispute the receipt of the letters or their contents.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16572-24
7
letter corrected the nature of the October 18, 2024, events to reflect only physical
contact with a school leader, not injury to the school leader. 	Id. 	North Star incorrectly
dated the letter October 21, 2024, and initially noted a twenty-day suspension, but
North Star acknowledged the error and corrected the suspension period. Id.
During the Board’s meeting on December 9, 2024, the Board reviewed the
Student Hearing Committee’s findings and voted to uphold its recommendations. Yugo
Certif., Exhibit L.
The 	administration 	recommended 	ten-day 	suspensions 	for 	the 	two 	female
students, S.F. and K.W., which the Board also upheld. 	The administration also
recommended a thirty-day suspension for the other male student, R.G., which the
Board 	also 	upheld. 	Yugo 	Certif., 	Exhibit 	B. 	R.G. 	had 	a 	previous 	three-day
out-of-school suspension and a half-day in-school suspension. 	B.U. had a prior one-
day in-school suspension. 	Ibid. 	At the time of the incident, R.G. had a 504 plan,
developed 	under 	Section 	504 	of 	the 	Rehabilitation 	Act 	of 	1973, 	to 	provide
accommodations and supports for a disability. Id. Notably, S.F. and K.W.’s actions did
not inflict significant physical injury or involve a staff member, and neither had a
disciplinary record. Id.
B.U. received home instruction during his long-term suspension. 	He returned to
school on December 5, 2024. Yugo Certif., Exhibit E.
In 	December 	2024, 	Petitioners 	requested 	a 	HIB 	investigation 	regarding 	the
altercation on October 18, 2024, maintaining that the other students committed HIB
against B.U. 	Yugo Certif., Exhibits I and J. 	Although all students were in the ninth
grade, petitioners maintain the other students were “retained” and thus, older and more
established than B.U. 	The HIB investigator issued a report on December 12, 2024,
concluding that no HIB occurred:
After reviewing the statements from all students involved as well as
this HIB Investigation Report, the evidence does not meet the
criteria 	for 	HIB 	related 	to 	Motivation, 	therefore 	HIB 	is 	not
established due to the lack of evidence indicating the act was

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16572-24
8
motivated 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. 	I 	am
attaching the HIB No Outcome letter for your records & to provide to
[B.U.’s] 	family. 	The 	consequences 	for 	all 	students 	seem
appropriate given the egregious nature of the incident and I do not
have any recommendations for any additional consequences at this
time. 	The school may decide to engage in mediation between
students should they decide it is necessary.
[Yugo Certif., Exhibit K.]
Although the petitioners suggest the HIB report makes no mention of R.G.,
whom they assert was the “main” aggressor, the last paragraph of the incident’s
description states that, “Despite the intervention of a school leader, [B.U.] continued to
engage in the altercation, ultimately involving a second peer who initiated physical
contact by hitting [B.U.] first.” 	By all accounts, this describes R.G. and acknowledges
that R.G. initially struck B.U.
On December 16, 2024, North Star advised petitioners of its failure to establish
HIB. Yugo Certif., Exhibit L.
Still, 	petitioners 	argue 	that 	the 	other 	students 	bullied 	B.U. 	as 	a 	younger
ninth-grader and that he was a victim who North Star unfairly suspended for an
extended period. 	At the same time, the original instigators, K.W. and S.F., only
received 	ten-day 	suspensions. 	For 	purposes 	of 	this 	motion 	and 	the 	favorable
inferences required towards movants, this tribunal accepts that the other ninth-grade
students were older than B.U. However, petitioners supply no supporting evidence of
this fact.
Petitioners also argue that B.U. was assaulted “for expressing his freedom and
foreign nationality.” 	Yugo Certif., Exhibit N. 	Petitioners rely upon Ms. Meghai’s
statement that reports R.G. entered the classroom from the hallway and assaulted B.U.
Yugo Certif., Exhibit B. 	Still, based on B.U.’s statement, the initial conflict with K.W.
arose after B.U. told K.W. that he disagreed with her instructions to another student to

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16572-24
9
“cheat” on her homework through artificial intelligence or “AI.” 	Further, B.U. reported
that R.G.’s involvement was at K.W.’s request after her altercation with B.U.
In other words, no evidence exists that R.G. fought with B.U. to bully him or that
R.G.’s interaction was premeditated, that K.W.’s dispute with B.U. was related to a
distinguishing characteristic of B.U., that the event involved gang activity, or related to
B.U.’s expression of his foreign nationality. Ibid. Instead, I FIND that a preponderance
of the evidence supports that a peer conflict led to the unfortunate events on October
18, 2024, involving these four students. 	Still further, B.U.’s statement also indicates
that while fighting R.G., R.G. was restrained or “off” B.U., and B.U. punched R.G. R.G.
then broke free of his restrainers, including a school leader, and attempted to retaliate.
Yugo Certif., Exhibits B and G. In other words, I FIND that R.G. and B.U. continued to
fight after a staff member intervened and physically restrained R.G. 	Indeed, B.U. may
not have initiated the conflict, but he undeniably participated in the aggression.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Summary Decision Standard
A party may move for summary decision upon all or any substantive issues in a
contested case. 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a). 	The motion shall be served with briefs, with or
without affidavits. 	When the filed papers, discovery and any affidavits show that no
genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a
matter of law, the judge may grant the motion. 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). 	When such a
motion is made and supported, an adverse party, to prevail, must submit an affidavit
setting forth specific facts showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists that can
only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding. Ibid.
To determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists that precludes
summary judgment, the motion judge must consider whether the competent evidential
materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
are sufficient to demonstrate that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). The “judge’s function is not

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16572-24
10
to . . . weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine
whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id.
When a motion for summary decision is made and supported, the burden shifts
to the adverse party to set forth, by affidavit, specific facts showing there is a genuine
issue resolvable only by an evidentiary proceeding. 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). 	Given this
burden shift, a party opposing a summary-judgment motion “who offers no substantial
or material facts in opposition to the motion cannot complain if the court takes as true
the uncontradicted facts in the movant's papers.” 	Burlington Cnty. Welfare Bd. v.
Stanley, 214 N.J. Super. 615, 622 (App. Div. 1987). 	Failure of the opponent to make
such a showing entitles the moving party to summary judgment. Brill, 142 N.J. at 529.
Even though a statute calls for a “hearing,” where a motion for summary decision
is made and the objector submits no evidence to demonstrate that a genuine issue of
material fact exists, the motion procedure constitutes the hearing, and no trial-type
hearing is necessary. 	Contini v. Newark Bd. of Educ., 286 N.J. Super. 106, 120–21
(App. Div. 1995), certif. denied, 145 N.J. 372 (1996).
Further, when the non-movant comes forward with some evidence, the court
still must grant summary judgment if the evidence is “so one-sided that [the movant]
must prevail as a matter of law.” 	Ibid. at 536 (citation omitted). 	If the non-moving
party’s evidence is “merely colorable or is not significantly probative,” the judge should
not deny summary judgment. 	Bowles v. City of Camden, 993 F. Supp. 255, 261
(D.N.J. 1998). 	Indeed, courts recognize that liberalizing the summary judgment
standard allows disposition of more cases sooner because we live in “a time of great
increase in litigation and one in which many meritless cases are filed.” 	Brill, 142 N.J.
at 539 (citation omitted).
In this case, no genuine issue exists as to the material facts, and the only
question presented is whether North Star acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably
in suspending B.O. for thirty days and in failing to consider the incident HIB against B.U.
More pointedly, no genuine issue exists that B.U. was involved in a physical altercation
on October 18, 2024, at North Star with three other students, which required a staff

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16572-24
11
member’s intervention to “break it up,” who was nearly struck during the fight. 	R.G.’s
involvement in the fight arose when K.W. requested that R.G. intervene in her peer
conflict with B.U., not because of premeditation or any distinguishing characteristic of
B.U., such as his age. K.W. and S.F. fought with B.U. after he commented on using AI
to do homework, not because of any distinguishing characteristic of B.U. 	Moreover,
although 	petitioners 	suggested 	the 	incident 	was 	gang-related, 	they 	supplied 	no
evidence to support that assertion.
Furthermore, there is no dispute that North Star has disciplinary policies that
permit long-term suspensions for serious offenses involving fighting or threats to safety.
North Star also afforded B.U.’s parents a hearing as to the disciplinary actions it
proposed.
Since these facts are clear and undisputed, I CONCLUDE that this case is ripe
for summary decision.
Suspension
The right to education is not without certain restrictions. 	Pupils must submit to
the authority of their teachers; they must pursue their prescribed courses of study and
comply with the rules established to govern the schools. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-1. 	Under
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-2, a school district may expel or suspend a student for good cause.
Good cause includes, in relevant part, physical assault upon another pupil, open
defiance of authority, or harassment, intimidation, or bullying. 	School districts must
develop 	a 	student 	code 	of 	conduct, 	establishing 	clear 	standards, 	policies, 	and
procedures that promote positive student development and behavioral expectations.
N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.5. Indeed, school districts have wide discretion in determining student
discipline. N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1−7.10.
Although petitioners question Principal Dowling's involvement at the hearing,
when the Board votes on a student's suspension, it must review the case in consultation
with school administrators. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.3. 	Thus, I CONCLUDE that Principal
Dowling's presentation to the Board was not inappropriate or evidence of bias. Still, that

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16572-24
12
a school district may expel or suspend a student for good cause is settled in the Board's
favor.
Indeed, when a local board of education acts within its discretionary authority, its
decision is entitled to a presumption of correctness that will not be disturbed unless
there is an affirmative showing that the decision was “patently arbitrary, without rational
basis or induced by improper motives.” 	Kopera v. W. Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J.
Super. 288, 294 (App. Div. 1960). 	To overcome that presumption, the petitioner must
prove that the board “acted in either bad faith or in disregard to the circumstances.”
T.B.M. v. Moorestown Bd. of Educ., EDU 2780-07 (February 6, 2008), aff’d, Comm’r
(April 25, 2013) (citing Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327, 332
(App. Div. 1965), aff’d, 46 N.J. 581 (1966)). 	Furthermore, “where there is room for two
opinions, action is not arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due
consideration[,]” and the Commissioner will not substitute his judgment for that of the
board. 	Bayshore Sewerage Co. v. Dep’t. of Envtl. Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199 (Ch.
Div. 1973), aff’d, 131 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1974); C.M. o/b/o J.M. v. Bd. of Educ. of
the Boro. of Bergenfield, Bergen Cnty., EDU 11504-24, Initial Decision (February 24,
2025), 	adopted, 	Comm’r 	(April 	21, 	2025), 	https://www.nj.gov/education/
legal/commissioner/2025/143-25.pdf. In other words, petitioners’ burden is a substantial
one.
Still, 	the 	Board’s 	factual 	determinations 	require 	such 	deference 	only 	when
supported by appropriate credible evidence, e.g., having a rational basis. 	Quinlan v.
Bd. of Ed. of N. Bergen Twp., 73 N.J. Super. 40 (App. Div. 1962); Schinck v. Bd. of Ed.
of Westwood Consol. Sch. Dist., 60 N.J. Super. 448 (App. Div. 1960). 	Additionally, the
reviewing tribunal may reject the findings of fact if the evidentiary record does not
support them. 	In re Suspension of License of Silberman, 169 N.J. Super. 243, 255−56
(App. Div. 1979), aff’d, 84 N.J. 303 (1980).
Students in public educational institutions facing severe disciplinary measures
such as suspension or expulsion have the right to due process of law. 	R.R. v. Bd. of
Ed., Shore Reg. H.S., 109 N.J. Super. 337, 346−47 (Ch. Div. 1970). 	The fundamental
requirements of due process of law are notice and a hearing. 	Id. at 349 (quoting from

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16572-24
13
Dixon v. Alabama St. Bd. of Educ., 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961), certif. denied, 368 U.S.
930 (1961)). Here, petitioners received notices, attended a hearing, and presented their
arguments. See N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.3(c).
Nonetheless, it remains undisputed that B.U. was involved in a physical assault
against another pupil, prohibited by the Code of Conduct. 	Once B.U.'s aggressor was
"off" him, he punched him again. 	Indeed, B.U. and R.G. continued to fight after staff
attempted to intervene, and both received thirty-day suspensions. 	North Star also
suspended S.K. and K.W., recognizing that their behavior also violated the Code of
Conduct. 	Still, S.K. and K.W. did not cause the same level of injury to others and did
not continue their actions after a staff member intervened. 	Further, S.K. and K.W. also
had no disciplinary history, unlike R.G. and B.U. 	R.G. also had a 504 plan, requiring
different procedures and considerations for long-term discipline. 	34 CFR §104.35(c).
Thus, I CONCLUDE that a rational basis exists to penalize S.K. and K.W. differently
than R.G. and B.U. under North Star's Code of Conduct.
While petitioners may be dissatisfied with North Star's disciplinary actions in
addressing the events of October 18, 2024, I CONCLUDE that they present insufficient
evidence 	to 	show 	that 	North 	Star 	or 	the 	Board 	acted 	improperly, 	arbitrarily, 	or
unreasonably. 	On the contrary, I CONCLUDE that the administration and the Board
provided a reasonable basis to support their disciplinary conclusions and afforded the
petitioners 	and 	B.U. 	with 	notice 	and 	opportunity 	to 	challenge 	the 	disciplinary
determination.
HIB
The 	Legislature 	designed 	the 	Anti-Bullying 	Rights 	Act 	(ABRA), 	N.J.S.A.
18A:37-13 to -37, “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(f). 	Each
school district must adopt a policy that prohibits HIB and provides “a procedure for
prompt investigation of reports of violations and complaints.” 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16572-24
14
The District's HIB policy binds every student, and the District is required to investigate
HIB complaints and enforce its HIB policies, as it did here. Id.
Under the ABRA, “harassment, intimidation or bullying” (HIB) is defined as:
[A]ny 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 	section 	16 	of
P.L.2010, c.122 (C.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]
Thus, a HIB finding requires demonstrating three elements, assuming the alleged
incident or incidents occur on school property, at a school-sponsored function, on a
school bus, or off school grounds as provided for in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15.3. 	Undeniably,
the incident took place on school grounds and is subject to the HIB statutory directives.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16572-24
15
Initially, the conduct must be reasonably perceived as motivated by any actual or
perceived enumerated characteristic or other distinguishing characteristics. 	Secondly,
the conduct must also substantially disrupt or interfere with the rights of other students
or the orderly operation of the school. The third condition is that one of the three criteria
enumerated in the Act regarding the effect of the conduct must also be satisfied.
Wehbeh v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of Verona, Essex Cnty., EDU 10981-18, Initial
Decision 	(December 	29, 	2019), 	http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal, 	rejected 	and
remanded, Comm’r Decision No. 51-20 (February 4, 2020), 2020 N.J. Agen. Lexis. 50.
Regarding the first HIB element, the statute defines HIB as an action “that is
reasonably 	perceived 	as 	being 	motivated 	either 	by 	any 	actual 	or 	perceived
characteristic.” 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14. 	Notably, the statute requires an analysis of the
victim's perception of the actor's motivation and whether that perception is reasonable.
Wehbeh, at *8 (emphasis added). 	Yet, an analysis of the actual motivation of the actor
is 	not 	required. 	Id. 	Here, 	I 	CONCLUDE 	it 	was 	not 	arbitrary, 	capricious, 	or
unreasonable for the HIB investigator or Board to conclude that a reasonable person
would not consider the peer conflict as related to a distinguishing characteristic of B.U.
The HIB investigator found that the incident met other HIB criteria. 	However, B.U.'s
statement provides the genesis of the fight: his calling out another student's improper
conduct. To be sure, the reaction of that student to slap B.U. and involve other students
was inappropriate, but no evidence suggests that her actions, or those of R.G., were
reasonably related to a distinguishing characteristic of B.U. or premeditated. 	Indeed,
petitioners only suggest that the other ninth-grade students were “retained” and older
than B.U. Still, I CONCLUDE there is NOT a preponderance of evidence to support that
this factor played a role in the altercation or was its motivation.
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that the Board is entitled to summary judgment as a
matter of law, and the amended petition is hereby DISMISSED.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16572-24
16
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that the Board be
GRANTED 	summary 	decision 	and 	that 	the 	amended 	petition 	be 	and 	is 	hereby
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 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.
July 16, 2025
DATE 	NANCI G. STOKES, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	July 16, 2025
Date Mailed to Parties: 	July 16, 2025
ljb