Adrian Tooley-Lester v. Board of Education of the Township of Irvington, Essex County, and April Vauss, Superintendent, 9/2/2025 (#427-25)

427-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 08223-2023
Agency Dkt. No. 189-7/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Adrian Tooley-Lester,
Petitioner,
v.
Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Township 	of
Irvington, 	Essex 	County, 	and 	April 	Vauss,
Superintendent,
Respondents.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
and the exceptions filed by the petitioner (Mrs. Lester) pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4 have been
reviewed and considered. Respondents did not file reply exceptions.
Mrs. Lester, a former nontenured teacher employed by the Irvington Board of Education
(Board), appeals the Board’s nonrenewal of her employment contract. It is undisputed that the
Board hired petitioner in 2019 to work as an English Language Arts teacher (ELA) at the Union
Avenue Middle School (middle school). On March 3, 2023, Mrs. Lester received a text message
from her husband, prompting her to call him over the phone during class time. 	Mr. Lester
informed petitioner that the wife of her colleague Penelope Giordano had approached him at his
place of employment to address Mrs. Lester’s in-school behavior towards Ms. Giordano. While
still on the phone with her husband, Mrs. Lester left her classroom, went to Ms. Giordano’s

2
classroom, and knocked on the door. Ms. Giordano, also teaching a class at the time, answered
the door. Mrs. Lester proceeded to inform Ms. Giordano that her wife had visited Mr. Lester at
his place of work. Mrs. Lester returned to Ms. Giordano’s classroom later that day during lunch,
when no students were present, to further discuss the matter.
The incident between their spouses resulted in Mrs. Lester filing an eight-page
harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) and discrimination complaint against Ms. Giordano.
Mrs. Lester’s complaint was investigated by the Board’s HR manager and Affirmative Action
Officer, Farrah Irving, who treated the matter as an affirmative action complaint since HIB could
only be filed by students. As part of the investigation, Irving asked both parties to provide the
names of witnesses. Mrs. Lester provided no witnesses, whereas Ms. Giordano produced the
names of four colleagues. Irving’s investigation included reviewing the documents provided by
the parties and speaking to Ms. Giordano, the witnesses identified by Ms. Giordano, and the
Administrator on duty on the day of the incident – Shelley Pettiford.
On March 14, 2023, Irving issued an Affirmative Action Committee Decision concluding
that no affirmation action violation had occurred. The decision noted that Ms. Giordano could
not be held responsible for her spouse’s behavior and that there was no indication that Mrs.
Lester’s employment was affected by her interactions with Ms. Giordano. 	In addition, the
witness interviews indicated that Mrs. Lester had engaged in behaviors that had caused problems
with her colleague and students. 	Irving’s report concluded that by all witness accounts, Ms.
Giordano was uncomfortable working with Mrs. Lester. The report also noted several instances
where Ms. Giordano reported Mrs. Lester’s behavior to Building Administrators. 	Lastly, the
report recommended that Mrs. Lester “be made to submit to diversity, equity, and inclusion

3
training. . . to maintain the culture of the school environment.” Affirmative Action Committee
Decision at 3. (Exhibit R-20).
On March 20, 2023, Irving issued Mrs. Lester a reprimand, finding that she violated the
following district policies on March 3, 2023, when she left her classroom and confronted Ms.
Giordano: 3211 Code of Ethics; 3280 Liability of Pupil Welfare; and 3322 Staff Member’s Use of
Cellular Telephones during work hours. On March 30, 2023, Mrs. Lester emailed Irving a 33-page
rebuttal to the Affirmative Action Decision alleging that the Board’s superintendent, Dr. April
Vauss, conspired against her along with Ms. Giordano, her wife, and the witnesses. The rebuttal
further alleged that there were “teams of folks” plotting against her and that their actions were
“equivalent to a marching legion of enemies coming for my employment as they knew I was up
for tenure, actually 45 days away from a contract.” Rebuttal at 3. (Exhibit P-82).
On May 8, 2023, the Board served Mrs. Lester a nonrenewal notice from the
Superintendent for the 2023-2024 school year. Upon petitioner’s request, the Board provided
petitioner with a statement of reasons for nonrenewal. See N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.2. The reasons
listed were as follows:
1. 	Violated District policy and placed scholars in harm’s way by
leaving her class unattended to confront a colleague in front of
scholars.
2. 	Engaged in inappropriate verbal altercations with students who
were not in her class.
3. 	Does not have a cooperative relationship with colleagues;
engages in behaviors that alarm and/or offend. (Exhibit R-25).
On June 14, 2023, a hearing was held before the Board at petitioner’s request; thereafter, the
Board affirmed the nonrenewal. Mrs. Lester appealed the determination to the Commissioner
of Education.

4
Hearings at the OAL were held on October 28, 2024, and November 25, 2024, during
which Mrs. Lester testified on her own behalf, and called as witnesses her husband, Roger Lester;
in-house consultant for the New Jersey Education Associate (NJEA), Dr. Christopher Tamburro;
and president of the Irvington Education Association, Michael Byock. 	The Board called the
following witnesses: Irving; Ms. Giordano; Dr. April Vauss; the principal of the middle school,
Mueller Pierre; Vice Principal of the middle school, Shakeena Hill; and Director of School
Counselors, Shelley Pettiford. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the testimony of all the
Board’s witnesses to be highly credible. 	Specifically, the ALJ found Ms. Giordano to be a
“reluctant and deeply credible witness” who came to the hearing “without an agenda.” Initial
Decision at 10-11. 	The ALJ noted that she believed Ms. Giordano when she testified that Mrs.
Lester’s behavior at school made her uncomfortable on a regular basis and that she had felt
bullied by Mrs. Lester for the last two years. 	Accordingly, the ALJ afforded Ms. Giordano’s
testimony “enormous weight.” Ibid.
The ALJ found Mr. Lester, Mr. Tamburro, and Mr. Byock to be credible witnesses but did
not give their testimony much weight since Mr. Lester had not attended work with his wife and
therefore did not have personal knowledge of her behavior at the middle school; regarding Mr.
Tamburro and Mr. Byock, the judge found that they only knew what Mrs. Lester had told them
and that they lacked personal knowledge of the March 3, 2023 incident and her subsequent
actions and communications. The ALJ found that Mrs. Lester did a “very good job” representing
herself at the hearing but noted that she doubled down when confronted with some of her most
egregious words and actions. 	Id. 	Furthermore, the ALJ found that Mrs. Lester’s inability to
understand the gravity and effects of her actions further supported the Board’s claim that Mrs.

5
Lester behaved inappropriately with staff and students and that she did not have a cooperative
relationship with her colleagues.
Ultimately, the ALJ concluded that the Board’s nonrenewal of Mrs. Lester’s employment
was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. In reaching her determination, the ALJ found that
the March 3, 2023, incident was the main incident leading to Mrs. Lester’s nonrenewal. As to the
Board’s first reason for nonrenewal, the ALJ rejected Mrs. Lester’s argument that her students
were not left unattended because there were adults in her classroom at that time. Citing to Dr.
Vauss’s testimony, the ALJ explained that when a teacher needs to leave their classroom, they
are supposed to get permission to have certified staff watch their students. The ALJ found that
Mrs. Lester did not follow this procedure. As to the Board’s second reason for nonrenewal, the
ALJ found that the record and testimony indicated that Mrs. Lester often engaged in verbal
altercations with students who were not in her class, and that at times, Mrs. Lester escalated
these confrontations. Concerning the Board’s third reason for nonrenewal, the ALJ found that
the record and testimony clearly showed that Mrs. Lester was unable to maintain cooperative
and professional relationships with her colleagues and that her behavior offended and alarmed
faculty and administration.
The ALJ also concluded that the Board and Dr. Vauss did not discriminate against Mrs.
Lester or violate her constitutional or statutory rights. 	The ALJ explained that Mrs. Lester
provided no evidence to support her claim that the Board violated her constitutional rights. The
ALJ also noted that Mrs. Lester provided no evidence that the Board or Dr. Vauss retaliated or
conspired against her for filing what Mrs. Lester characterized as “mandated reporter” reports.
The ALJ further explained there was no evidence that Mrs. Lester ever filed said reports, nor was

6
there evidence of an orchestrated attack. As such, the ALJ found that the Board and Dr. Vauss
did not retaliate against petitioner.
In her exceptions,1 Mrs. Lester reiterates arguments that were considered and rejected
by the ALJ, including that the Board and Dr. Vauss retaliated against her by conspiring with Ms.
Giordano, her wife, and the witnesses to sabotage her tenure; that she was denied due process
throughout the 	affirmation action 	investigation; 	that she did not 	leave 	her classroom
unattended; that she was placed in the reassignment room out of retaliation; and that she did
not have poor rapport with her colleagues. 	In addition, Mrs. Lester claims that the ALJ
“demonstrated 	clear 	bias 	throughout 	the 	process,” 	Exceptions 	at 	2, 	and 	went
“to the extreme to conjure up anything negative about me.” 	Id. at 14. 	Mrs. Lester further
contends that the ALJ (1) failed to wholeheartedly assess the reliability of respondents’
witnesses; 	(2) 	disregarded 	material 	facts 	and 	crucial 	evidence; 	and 	(3) 	repeatedly
mischaracterized her statements and the witnesses’ statements. Mrs. Lester requests that the
Commissioner further review this matter considering the ALJ’s alleged bias.
Upon review, and for the reasons thoroughly detailed in the Initial Decision, the
Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that Mrs. Lester has failed to meet her burden of
demonstrating that the Board acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner when it
affirmed the Superintendent’s recommendation of nonrenewal. 	A board of education’s non-
renewal decision is afforded discretion and will only be overturned if it is arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable, or if it violates constitutional or legislatively conferred rights. N.J.S.A. 18A:27-4.1;
1 Petitioner’s inclusion of numerous exhibits not entered into evidence at the OAL hearings is improper
per N.J.A.C. 1:1- 18.4(c). Therefore, these materials were not considered.

7
Dore v. Bedminster Twp. Bd. of Educ., 185 N.J. Super.447, 456 (App. Div. 1982). The ALJ correctly
concluded that, considering the documentary evidence and the corroborative and credible
testimony, the Board had just reason not to renew Mrs. Lester’s contract.
The Commissioner does not find Mrs. Lester’s exceptions to be persuasive. 	First, Mrs.
Lester contends that the ALJ demonstrated clear bias against her throughout the process, which
manifested in the ALJ’s failure to properly assess the reliability of the Board’s witnesses,
particularly Ms. Giordano. Mrs. Lester argues that Ms. Giordano was not truthful about the role
she played in orchestrating an attack on petitioner’s employment and therefore is not a credible
witness. 	Mrs. Lester further argues that the ALJ “ignored challenging Giordano’s credibility”
because Ms. Giordano is white. Exceptions at 17. The Commissioner notes that the ALJ had the
opportunity to assess the credibility of the various witnesses who appeared before her and make
findings of fact based upon their testimony. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c), the Commissioner
“may not reject or modify any findings of fact as to issues of credibility of lay witness testimony
unless it is first determined from a review of the record that the findings are arbitrary, capricious
or unreasonable or are not supported by sufficient, competent, and credible evidence in the
record.” The Commissioner finds no basis in the record to disturb the ALJ’s credibility assessment
regarding Ms. Giordano’s testimony. The ALJ did not demonstrate bias against Mrs. Lester, and
Ms. Giordano admitted under oath that she told four people that she was uncomfortable working
with Mrs. Lester. 	Furthermore, the Affirmative Action Report corroborates Ms. Giordano’s
testimony regarding her discomfort with Mrs. Lestor. The Commissioner also finds no basis in
the record to disturb the ALJ’s credibility assessments regarding the Board’s remaining witnesses.

8
Next, Mrs. Lester alleges that the ALJ displayed bias by ignoring material facts from the
matter, including her claims that she received satisfactory evaluations during her four years of
employment at the middle school, that she outperformed her colleagues, and that her students
outperformed the other teachers’ students. 	Contrary to Mrs. Lester’s exceptions, the ALJ did
address her positive performance reviews and feedback in the Initial Decision. See Initial Decision
at 3. However, the fact that Mrs. Lester received good performance reviews and some positive
feedback is not dispositive. The Initial Decision reflects that the ALJ carefully reviewed the record
and rendered findings of fact and legal conclusions based on the totality of the evidence and
witness testimony. The Commissioner finds that it was appropriate for the ALJ to decide that,
given the totality of the evidence, the Board had just reasons for nonrenewal. 	Furthermore,
there is nothing in the record or in the Initial Decision to support Mrs. Lester’s claim of judicial
impropriety.
As to the first reason for nonrenewal, Mrs. Lester does not dispute that she left the
classroom; rather, she insists that she did not leave her students unattended. However, Dr. Vauss
testified that when a teacher needs to leave their classroom, they are supposed to get permission
to have certified staff to watch their students. Mrs. Lester did not follow this procedure before
confronting Ms. Giordano, thereby violating the Board’s policy. 	As to the second reason for
nonrenewal, the Board’s witnesses, specifically Dr. Vauss, Ms. Pettiford, and Mr. Pierre testified
to Mrs. Lester’s contentious dynamics with students from outside her class. As to the Board’s
third reason for nonrenewal, the record and witness testimony clearly show that Mrs. Lester was
unable to maintain cooperative and professional relationships. Petitioner has failed to meet her
burden of showing that the Board’s nonrenewal was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

9
Lastly, Mrs. Lester contends that “[t]here is no concrete evidence to prove there is no
collusion between Giordano, her wife, and Dr. Vauss.” Petitioner’s Exceptions at 24. However,
Mrs. Lester appears to misunderstand the burden of proof in this matter. The burden of proof
belongs to the petitioner, not the Board. D.L. v. Bd. of Educ. of Princeton Reg’l Sch. Dist., 366 N.J.
Super. 269, 274. 	Mrs. Lester has not met her burden. 	She has submitted no credible
documentation or witness testimony supporting her belief that Dr. Vauss, Ms. Giordano, and the
Board orchestrated a plan to deny her tenure.
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
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	September 2, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	September 5, 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
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08223-2023
AGENCY DKT. NO. 189-7/23
ADRIAN TOOLEY-LESTER,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP
OF IRVINGTON, ESSEX COUNTY, AND
DR. APRIL VAUSS, SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
______________________________________
Adrian Tooley-Lester, petitioner appearing pro se
Ronald C. Hunt, Esq., for respondent (Hunt, Hamlin & Ridley, attorneys)
Record Closed: April 30, 2025 	Decided: June 2, 2025
BEFORE DANIELLE PASQUALE, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner Adrian Tooley-Lester (Petitioner or Mrs. Lester), a former untenured
teacher employed by the Board of Education of the Township of Irvington (Respondent or
the Board), appeals the Board’s nonrenewal of her employment contract. 	Mrs. Lester
asserts that the Board’s actions were arbitrary and capricious and in violation of her rights.

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
2
The Board contends that it properly exercised its discretion and that her nonrenewal was
not arbitrary and capricious. 	Must the nonrenewal stand? 	Yes. 	The Board properly
exercised its discretion in not renewing Mrs. Lester’s employment contract and its
decision was not arbitrary and capricious, and it did not violate Mrs. Lester’s constitutional
or statutory rights.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 8, 2023, the Board served Mrs. Lester with a nonrenewal notice for the
2023-2024 school year. (R-23). She requested a statement of reasons, which the Board
sent on May 19, 2023. (R-24, 25). The Board cited three reasons for her nonrenewal.
• 	Violated District policy and placed scholars in harm’s way
by leaving her class unattended to confront a colleague in
front of scholars.
• 	Engaged in inappropriate verbal altercations with students
who were not in her class.
• 	Does not have a cooperative relationship with colleagues;
engages in behaviors that alarm and/or offend.
[R-25].
On June 14, 2023, a hearing was conducted by the Board during the public session
of its monthly meeting at Mrs. Lester’s request, as was her right pursuant to Rice v. Union
Cnty. Regional High Sch., 76 N.J. 238 (1978), Donaldson v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of
North Wildwood, 65 N.J. 236 (1974), and N.J.S.A. 18A: 27-4.1. 	(R-21). 	The Board
affirmed the nonrenewal. 	(R-26). 	Mrs. Lester challenged the nonrenewal and the case
was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for emergent relief on August
28, 2023. 	After a conference with the parties, Mrs. Lester withdrew her emergent
application and opted for a full hearing on the matter. Hearings were held on October 28
and November 25, 2024. After receiving post-hearing submissions, the record closed on
April 30, 2025.

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
3
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
Based on the largely undisputed documentary and testimonial evidence, I FIND
the following as FACT. The Board hired Mrs. Lester in 2019 to be an English Language
Arts (ELA) teacher at Union Avenue Middle School. 	For the first few years of her
employment Mrs. Lester received mostly good performance reviews and some positive
feedback. However, there were multiple incidents during her employment which resulted
in warnings and reprimands.
For example, in November 2021, Principal Mueller Pierre gave Lester a written
warning because she called a parent during instructional time, which is a violation of
district policy. 	(R-10). 	The parent complained that Mrs. Lester yelled at her in an
unprofessional manner. (Ibid.). In the written warning, Mr. Pierre explained to Mrs. Lester
that 	an 	email 	she 	sent 	regarding 	the 	incident 	was 	“perceived 	as 	sarcastic 	and
condescending.” (Ibid.). Mrs. Lester said this was “not true” and that “[i]f a person writing
eloquently about matters that impact their job is interpreted as such, there is much pity to
be offered as we are in a world where we should be able to express ourselves.” (R-11).
Other examples include playing loud music in her classroom despite being told numerous
times to turn it down, and writing long, often disrespectful emails to administrators. 	(R-
10, R-11, R-14, R-18, R-19).
There were multiple incidents between Mrs. Lester and students, and she filed
dozens of handwritten complaints about them. She even attempted to file a Harassment,
Intimidation, and Bullying (HIB) complaint against one student, but HIB complaints can
only be brought by students. After Mrs. Lester's attempt to file a HIB complaint against
this 	student, 	Ms. 	Shelley 	Pettiford 	recommended 	that 	she 	seek 	"professional
development" for "coping skills, classroom management," and for "dealing with behavioral
issues in the classroom." (R-13). Mrs. Lester never availed herself of the recommended
professional development. The parent of this child complained to the school about their
child’s interactions with Mrs. Lester. 	There was another incident with a student where
Mrs. Lester, instead of going to building administration, called the police to deal with the
student's behavior. 	Multiple students were removed from Mrs. Lester’s classroom

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
4
because of personality conflicts with her, including another student whose parent also
complained to administration about the interactions between their child and Mrs. Lester.
Mr. Pierre credibly testified that at a certain point, faculty and staff in the building
began coming to him with concerns about Mrs. Lester's behavior. 	Ms. Penelope
Giordano, one of Mrs. Lester’s fellow 8th grade ELA teachers who has worked for the
district for twenty-five years, reluctantly and credibly testified to many uncomfortable
interactions with Mrs. Lester, such as “commenting about my clothing.” 	She said that
Mrs. Lester called her “the devil” and said things like she needed “to cleanse her veins of
the evil” that she encountered in the building. There were multiple incidents when Mrs.
Lester made her uncomfortable by unnecessarily bumping into her in uncrowded hallways
and stairwells. 	I believed Ms. Giordano when she said she did everything in her power
to avoid confrontation and interactions with Mrs. Lester.
The main incident leading to Mrs. Lester’s nonrenewal happened on March 3,
2023. 	That morning, Ms. Giordano’s wife confronted Mrs. Lester’s husband at his job
and, by all accounts, that interaction did not go well. That incident is not before me and
therefore I make no conclusions of law or findings of fact about what happened between
the two spouses. 	However, because Mrs. Lester’s response to this incident was the
inciting reason for her nonrenewal, some context is helpful. 	The parties seem to agree
that Ms. Giordano’s wife approached Mr. Lester in an attempt to deal with Mrs. Lester’s
in-school behavior towards Ms. Giordano. 	It also appears that Ms. Giordano’s wife’s
actions may have been inappropriate, and it is clear that she deeply upset both Mr. and
Mrs. Lester.
Mrs. Lester’s husband texted to tell her what happened, and she called him back—
during class time—on her cellphone. 	Mrs. Lester then took it upon herself to approach
Ms. Giordano about the situation between their spouses, and—with students still in her
classroom—went down the hall to Ms. Giordano’s room. While still on the phone with her
husband, Mrs. Lester knocked on Ms. Giordano’s classroom door. 	Ms. Giordano, also
teaching a class at that time, answered the door, but did not invite Mrs. Lester inside and
did not open the door all the way. 	Mrs. Lester began telling Ms. Giordano that her wife

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
5
had gone to visit Mr. Lester, her husband. 	Ms. Giordano honestly testified that, at that
point, she had no idea that her wife was planning on making the visit. Ms. Giordano, in
an attempt to end the interaction and get back to work, told Mrs. Lester that she would try
to speak to her wife after school. 	This interaction lasted no more than a minute or two
but made Ms. Giordano “very uneasy.”
Mrs. Lester returned to Ms. Giordano’s classroom later that day, this time during
lunch when no students were present. At this point, Ms. Giordano had shut and locked
her classroom door. 	Ms. Giordano convincingly testified that this second conversation
also made her deeply uneasy, and that Lester was “intimidating” and “gesticulating with a
clipboard in an escalating manner” and that her tone was hostile. Ms. Giordano convinced
me when she described Mrs. Lester as “condescending.” 	Mrs. Lester did not outright
threaten Ms. Giordano during this encounter.
Later that afternoon, Mrs. Lester sent an email to building administration, which
was then forwarded to Respondent Dr. April Vauss, the Superintendent of Schools. 	(R-
13). In this two-page email, Mrs. Lester admits that she called her husband during class
time. (Ibid.). She also claimed that Ms. Giordano’s wife was “not wired right” and possibly
“part retarted,” [sic] and that Ms. Giordano was “evidently in search of some kind of
altercation at her home and has conjured up lies.” (Ibid.). She accused Ms. Giordano of
racial and religious animus. 	“The entity of lying on me and carrying on because I am a
black Christian woman will be short lived as I don’t live in fear.” (Ibid.).
Adding to her credibility that she did everything she could to avoid conflict with Mrs.
Lester, Ms. Giordano did not self-report the incident. Rather, she was approached by Ms.
Pettiford (the administrator on duty that day) to give a written statement, which she did.
(R-16). Ms. Giordano confirmed that the first interaction with Mrs. Lester happened in her
doorway, and while Mrs. Lester did not come into the classroom “she was in clear view of
my entire class.” (Ibid.). She gave insightful context to her relationship with Mrs. Lester.
I would also like it to be known that I do not approach Mrs.
Lester at all under any circumstances. There have been past
incidents of confrontations and communications between Mrs.
Lester and I, and each of those has been commenced by her.

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
6
I have spoken to numerous parties in the district regarding
those previous matters, and I have always made it clear to
those 	parties 	that 	any 	conversation, 	any 	event, 	any
interaction, any incident and/or communication has been
initiated by her and her alone. I avoid her at all costs and each
party to whom I have spoken has agreed that was the best
way to avoid any escalation of issues she has with me as well
as to avoid incorrect interpretations of words, tones of voices
and/or actions. Please let me repeat: I do not commence any
sort of interaction with her.
[Id. at 2].
In response to the incident between their spouses, Mrs. Lester filed an eight-page
complaint against Ms. Giordano “on the grounds of harassment, intimidation, bullying,
[HIB] and discrimination.” (R-17). This complaint accused Ms. Giordano of “summoning
her spouse” to Mr. Lester’s place of employment. 	(Id. at 2). 	She further accused Ms.
Giordano of targeting her because of “my race, my religion, my marital status, alongside
not being a member of the LGBTQ Community.” (Id. at 1). She described Ms. Giordano’s
wife as a “short, dumpy woman with some mental problems.” (Ibid.). She accused Ms.
Giordano of “working in concert with others to get me jammed up, so my employment is
terminated or my classroom is changed” and that “Giordano would not have ordered such
confrontation of a person of her race.” (Ibid.). She accused Ms. Giordano of being racist,
jealous of her success as a teacher, and harboring “a hidden agenda and possibly a dark
obsession of some kind.” (Id. at 7). Mrs. Lester compared herself to Emmett Till and Ms.
Giordano to his accuser. “Ms. Giordano’s actions are a direct sentiment of Carolyn Bryant
Donham, who falsely accused Emmett Till of sexually harassing her.” 	(Id. at 3). 	She
accused Ms. Giordano of recording excerpts of an assembly where Mrs. Lester shared
personal information about her husband’s job. (Ibid.).
Mrs. Lester’s complaint against Ms. Giordano was investigated by Farrah Irving,
Esq., the HR manager and Affirmative Action Officer for the Board. At the beginning of
the investigation, and after talking with Dr. Vauss, Irving took Mrs. Lester out of her
classroom and put her into a reassignment room for two weeks and one day. The parties
disagree about why Mrs. Lester was put into this room. Irving said that Mrs. Lester was
put into the reassignment room for her own safety because she had expressed that she

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
7
felt unsafe. Mrs. Lester expressed that she felt she was unfairly put in the reassignment
room out of retaliation for filing the complaint. 	(R-18, R-19). 	The record and testimony
support the position that Mrs. Lester was placed in the reassignment room for her own
safety. 	Mrs. Lester repeatedly stated that she was “traumatized” and “in tears” after
learning about the incident between the spouses. The record and testimony reflect that
Mrs. Lester was visibly upset and feared for her safety on March 3, 2023, and I FIND that
she was not placed in the reassignment room out of retaliation.
Irving investigation the complaint as an affirmative action complaint because HIB
complaints can only be filed by students. Irving asked Mrs. Lester to provide the names
of witnesses, but she never provided any. When asked the same question, Ms. Giordano
provided the names of Miss Wiley, Dr. Doherty (the ELA supervisor), Ms. Shakeena Hill
(the vice principal at the time), and Mr. Pierre. During her investigation, Irving reviewed
the documents that were given to her and spoke to Mrs. Lester, Ms. Giordano, Mr. Pierre,
Dr. Doherty, Ms. Hill, Ms. Pettiford, and Miss. Wiley. 	In those conversations, Irving
became concerned because everyone she interviewed said that Mrs. Lester’s behavior
in and around school was causing problems.
As a result of the investigation, Irving issued an Affirmative Action Committee
Decision on March 14, 2023. 	(R-20). The report concluded that there was no violation
of affirmative action because what happened off campus between the spouses could not
be dealt with by the District. 	(Ibid.). 	However, Irving did conclude that there were
universal concerns about Mrs. Lester’s actions based on the information she received
during the investigation. Ms. Hill reported to Irving that Ms. Giordano began speaking to
her with concerns about Mrs. Lester during the 2021-2022 school year. 	(Id. at 2).
Similarly, Dr. Doherty and Ms. Wiley both reported that they had met with Ms. Giordano
during the 2022-2023 school year to discuss her concerns about Mrs. Lester. (Ibid.). Ms.
Wiley reported that Ms. Giordano “keeps all interactions very professional” but that Mrs.
Lester “makes it widely known that she has issues within the buildings and with students.”
(Id. at 3). Mr. Pierre reported that Ms. Giordano was professional and that he had never
had any problems with her, but that he had had multiple problems with Mrs. Lester, such
as “issues with a student that escalated into a back and forth when [Lester] should have

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
8
deescalated the situation.” (Ibid.). He further reported that he had to talk to Mrs. Lester
about loud music and parent complaints. 	(Ibid.). 	Mr. Peirre reported that Mrs. Lester
“lacks accountability and will access blame to colleagues should an issue arise.” (Ibid.).
As a result of the investigation, Irving issued Mrs. Lester a violation of district policy,
finding that she had violated three policies on March 3, 2023, by leaving her classroom
to confront Giordano: the code of ethics, liability for pupil welfare, and staff member’s use
of cell phones during instructional time. (R-22).
After the Decision was issued, Mrs. Lester returned to her classroom and no
disciplinary actions were taken. However, on March 30, 2023, Mrs. Lester emailed Irving
a 33-page rebuttal to the Affirmative Action Committee Decision. (P-82). In this rebuttal
she accused Dr. Vauss of being friends with Ms. Giordano’s wife and accused them of
conspiring against her. 	(Id. at 2). 	She accused Irving and the other witnesses to the
investigation of being “coerced to get in line with the conspiracy.” 	(Id. at 2-3). 	She
accused Dr. Vauss of commanding Irving to “ambush” the investigation. 	(Id. at 10-11).
Mrs. Lester said there were “teams of folks working together to perpetuate a plot against
me” who were “liars for the marching legion of enemies who were beset by me making
tenure.” 	(Id. at 3, 7). 	She claimed she was “never a part of the investigation,” despite
being the one who opened the complaint. (Id. at 3). She accused Irving of violating her
civil and constitutional rights by refusing to “engage” her in the investigation process, even
though Irving asked Mrs. Lester to provide witnesses and information. 	(Id. at 6). 	She
called the investigation a “witch hunt” and an “ambush.” (Ibid.).
Parts of this 33-page rebuttal border on threatening. “It is clear that no one goes
against Mayor Tony Vauss and his wife [Dr. Vauss], but God will take care of them.” (P-
82 at 5). She attacked Irving’s character and called Dr. Vauss a “bully.” 	(Id. at 6). 	She
accused them of giving Ms. Giordano preferential treatment because “she is white and
affiliated with the LGBTQ community.” (Ibid.). She accused Mr. Pierre of lying. (Id. at 6-
7, 16). She described a previous discussion with Mr. Pierre as the “equivalent to sitting
with a hyena and being certain of the nature of the animal.” (Id. at 26-27). She accused
Pettiford of “collusion with the district ambush.” (Id. at 11). Mrs. Lester called Ms. Hill her
“arch nemesis” and accused her of seizing “every opportunity to create a paper trail” about

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
9
her. (Id. at 3, 18). She also accused Ms. Hill of lying and threatened to sue her. (Id. at
19). 	She admitted to yelling “Ghetto!” at Ms. Hill because she didn’t like what she was
saying in a private conversation with another teacher. (Id. at 21). She accused Irving of
trying to “coerce [Mr. Pierre] to be a part of the Illuminati.” (Id. at 24). Finally, and most
unsettling, Mrs. Lester spoke about Ms. Giordano in ways that were rude, belittling,
homophobic, and deeply upsetting. (Id. at 7, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22).
In reading the eight-page complaint, the 33-page rebuttal, and the numerous
emails, it became clear to me that the District had no other choice but to not renew Mrs.
Lester’s employment contract. 	These documents speak for themselves, and I would
direct the Commissioner to closely review them in their entirety.
After considering the totality of the circumstances, the Board served Mrs. Lester
with a notice of nonrenewal on May 8, 2023. (R-23). Mrs. Lester requested a statement
of reasons via email, in which she again asserted that she was the victim of a “recent
engineered racial and retaliation attack” against her based on her religion, marital status,
and race. 	(R-24). 	In this email she claimed she had been “treated worse than my
ancestors who were brought to this country on the Middle Passage.” (Id. at 2). She made
inappropriate and racially charged comments about Dr. Vauss and accused her fellow of
staff members of being criminals. 	(Ibid.). 	The Board provided her with a statement of
reasons, held a public hearing, and affirmed the non-renewal. (R-25, R-26).
Credibility
A trier of fact may reject testimony because it is inherently incredible, or because
it is inconsistent with other testimony or with common experience, or because it is
overborne by other testimony. 	Congleton v. Pura-Tex Stone Corp., 53 N.J. Super. 282,
287 (App. Div. 1958). The choice of accepting or rejecting the witnesses’ testimony rests
with the finder of facts. 	Freud v. Davis, 64 N.J. Super. 242, 246 (App. Div. 1960). 	In
addition, for testimony to be believed, it must not only come from the mouth of a credible
witness, but it also must be credible in itself. 	It must elicit evidence that is from such
common experience and observation that it can be approved as proper under the

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
10
circumstances. 	See Spagnuolo v. Bonnet, 60 N.J. 546 (1974); Gallo v. Gallo, 66 N.J.
Super. 1 (App. Div. 1961).
A credibility determination requires an overall assessment of the witness’s story in
light of its rationality, internal consistency and the manner in which it “hangs together” with
the other evidence. Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718, 749 (9th Cir. 1963). A factfinder
“is free to weigh the evidence and to reject the testimony of a witness even though not
contradicted when it is contrary to circumstances given in evidence or contains inherent
improbabilities or contradictions which alone or in connection with other circumstances in
evidence excite suspicion as to its truth.” In re Perrone, 5 N.J. 514, 521–22 (1950); see
D’Amato by McPherson v. D’Amato, 305 N.J. Super. 109, 115 (App. Div. 1997).
Having had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, I FIND all
the Board’s witnesses to be highly credible. 	They were calm, professional, and
measured. From the bench I could see Mrs. Lester and her husband, who sat with her at
counsel table, glaring at the witnesses, but even so they all spoke calmly and rationally.
They were seasoned and experienced, and their testimony was not vindictive. It became
clear that they all had dealt with Mrs. Lester and gave their testimony careful not to
escalate her. 	Mr. Pierre, who testified despite recently recovering from a stroke, was
objective, measured, and kind to Mrs. Lester. I believed him when he said that he tried
to work with her and help her, but that she was not a good fit for the school. 	Dr. Vauss
kept her cool and spoke with precision, even when Mrs. Lester openly attacked her
character.
Ms. Giordano was a reluctant and deeply credible witness. 	Her testimony was
measured and thoughtful, and it seemed as if she could have said a lot more about Mrs.
Lester’s behavior but instead chose to only speak to the questions asked. I believed her
wholeheartedly 	when 	she 	said 	that 	Mrs. 	Lester’s 	behavior 	at 	school 	made 	her
uncomfortable on a regular basis and that she had felt bullied for the last two years. Ms.
Giordano’s tone and body language on the stand showed that she was uncomfortable, so
much so that I had to ask Mrs. Lester not to approach the witness. 	(For her part, Mrs.
Lester complied and did not approach Ms. Giordano as requested.) When Ms. Giordano

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
11
could have been combative and defensive, she was calm and responsive to Mrs. Lester’s
aggressive cross examination. 	I recognized that Ms. Giordano came to the hearing
reluctantly and without an agenda. As such, I give her testimony enormous weight.
Mrs. Lester’s husband, Roger Lester, was a credible witness and a calming
presence at hearing. I believed his testimony regarding Ms. Giordano’s wife showing up
uninvited to his place of work, and I believed him when he said that this interaction was
upsetting. However, he was not at work with Mrs. Lester and did not have any first-hand,
personal knowledge of her behavior at school. Mrs. Lester’s other witnesses, Christopher
Tamburro and Michael Byock, were both credible, but only knew what Mrs. Lester had
told them and did not have any personal knowledge of the March 3, 2023, incident or of
Mrs. Lester’s subsequent actions and communications. 	As such, I do not give their
testimony much weight.
It must be said that Mrs. Lester did a very good job representing herself. She was
deferential to the Court and was as prepared and thorough as most lawyers. 	However,
when confronted with some of her most egregious words and actions, she doubled down,
seemingly unaware of why they caused the responses they did. Mrs. Lester’s inability to
understand the gravity and effects of her behavior further support the Board’s assertion
that she did not have a cooperative relationship with her colleagues and that her
behaviors were inappropriate with staff and students. 	Mrs. Lester failed to take
accountability or direction for any of the flagged behavior, especially what she said and
wrote 	in 	the 	eight-page 	complaint, 	the 	33-page 	rebuttal, 	and 	her 	various 	email
communications with administration.
In view of the above credibility determinations, I make the following FINDINGS of
critical FACT:
1. 	Mrs. Lester was in violation of district policy when she
made a phone call during class time on March 3, 2023.

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
12
2. 	Mrs. Lester was in violation of district policy when she left
her classroom to speak with Ms. Giordano on March 3,
2023.
3. 	During her four years at Union Avenue Middle School, Mrs.
Lester 	engaged 	in 	several 	inappropriate 	verbal
altercations with students.
4. 	There was no orchestrated attack against Mrs. Lester.
5. 	There was no collusion between Ms. Giordano, her wife,
and Dr. Vauss.
6. 	Ms. Giordano did everything in her power to avoid conflict
with Mrs. Lester.
7. 	Mrs. Lester did not have a cooperative relationship with
her colleagues.
8. 	Mrs. 	Lester 	engaged 	in 	behaviors 	that 	alarmed 	and
offended.
9. 	Mrs. Lester did not take direction or feedback well.
10. Before March 3, 2023, Mrs. Lester received good reviews
and had excellent attendance but was not without incident.
Her 	various 	actions 	were 	discussed, 	coached, 	and
reprimanded, and eventually—and in large part to her own
response 	to 	the 	March 	3 	incident—amounted 	to 	her
nonrenewal.
11. Mrs. Lester’s choice of words in her submissions, exhibits,
and 	testimony 	corroborates 	the 	Board’s 	reasons 	for
nonrenewal.
12. Mrs. Lester’s behavior was not becoming or appropriate of
a teacher.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. The Board’s nonrenewal of Mrs. Lester’s employment was not arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
13
At the end of every school year, local boards of education must give untenured
teachers either a written offer of employment for the next succeeding year or a written
notice that an employment contract will not be offered. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:27-10. The board
may only renew the employment contract of a teacher with the recommendation of the
chief 	school 	administrator 	and 	a 	“nontenured 	officer 	or 	employee 	who 	is 	not
recommended 	for 	renewal 	by 	the 	chief 	school 	administrator 	shall 	be 	deemed
nonrenewed.” N.J.S.A. 18A:27-4.1(b). Untenured teachers whose employment contracts
are not renewed have the right to a written statement of reasons for nonrenewal and an
informal appearance before the board. N.J.S.A. 18A:27-4.1(b); N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.2.
“The board shall not withhold its approval for arbitrary and capricious reasons.”
N.J.S.A. 18A:27-41(b). 	Arbitrary and capricious means “having no rational basis.”
Bayshore Sewerage Co. v. Dep’t. of Envt. Protection, 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199-200 (Ch.
Div. 1973), aff’d N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1974). When there is “room for two opinions,
action is not arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration,
even though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached.” 	Ibid.
The arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable standard is narrow in scope and “consequently
imposes a heavy burden on those who challenge actions of boards of education.” Piccoli
v. Bd of Educ. of the Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High Sch. Dist., EDU 1839-98, Final
Decision, Comm'r (Mar. 11, 1999), https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/ at 26.
Importantly, “it is by now axiomatic that a board has virtually unlimited discretion in
hiring or renewing non-tenured teaching staff members.” Adams v. Trenton Bd. of Educ.,
EDU 8237-07, Initial Decision (July 3, 2008), adopted, Comm’r (August 13, 2008),
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/; see also Dore v. Bedminster Bd. of Educ., 185
N.J. Super. 447 (App. Div. 1982). 	Classroom performance is not the only grounds for
these decisions because “there are many unrelated but nonetheless equally valid
reasons” for a non-renewal. Donaldson v. Bd. of Educ., 65 N.J. 236, 241 (1974). A board
of education’s non-renewal is afforded discretion and “will only be overturned if it is
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or if it violates constitutional or legislatively
conferred rights.” Ramaswamy v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Englewood, EDU 08534-23,

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
14
Final Decision, Comm'r (May 30, 2024), https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/, citing
N.J.S.A. 18A:27-4.1 and Dore, 185 N.J. Super. at 456.
Mrs. Lester’s nonrenewal was not arbitrary and capricious. As to the Board’s first
reason for nonrenewal, she does not dispute that she left her classroom to confront Ms.
Giordano on March 3, 2023. At hearing, Mrs. Lester insisted that her students were not
left alone because there were other adults in the room, supposedly certified instructional
leaders for students with IEPs. However, Dr. Vauss testified that it is not appropriate for
students to be left alone with certified instructional leaders, and if a teacher needs to leave
their classrooms they are supposed to seek permission to have certified staff watch their
students. 	Mrs. Lester did not do that. 	Instead, she left her classroom to contentiously
confront another teacher about personal, non-school related issues in front of students.
Lester denied that it was in front of students because Giordano never opened the
door the whole way or let Mrs. Lester into her classroom—but that does not change the
fact that she left her room and had what Giordano credibly described as a deeply
uncomfortable conversation that students could see and hear. Mrs. Lester confirmed that
she was on the phone with her husband the entire time that she confronted Ms. Giordano.
At various points in her briefings and at hearing, Mrs. Lester accused the District of
intentionally and maliciously destroying security footage of her going to Ms. Giordano’s
classroom. But this footage, if it even exists, would not help Mrs. Lester because, by her
own admission, it would show her going to Ms. Giordano’s door during class time. As Dr.
Vauss testified, “[y]ou requested the footage and you, at that time, espoused that it would
show that you hadn’t done what you had consistently said did happen.” (11/25/24 Tr. at
68:15-17).
As to the Board’s second reason for nonrenewal, the record and testimony reflect
that Mrs. Lester often engaged in inappropriate verbal altercations with students who
were not in her class. Ms. Pettiford credibly testified to an ongoing conflict between Mrs.
Lester and K.D. 	(R-13, P-73). 	As Mr. Pierre reported during the affirmative action
investigation, there were times when Mrs. Lester herself escalated these confrontations
with students. (R-20). Dr. Vauss credibly reported about a conflict between Mrs. Lester

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
15
and 	a 	student 	that 	escalated 	to 	the 	point 	that 	Mrs. 	Lester 	inappropriately 	and
unnecessarily called the police.
As 	to 	the 	Board’s 	final 	reasons 	for 	nonrenewal, 	the 	record and 	testimony
unequivocally show that Mrs. Lester was unable to maintain professional and cooperative
relationships with many of her colleagues and that her behaviors alarmed and offended
faculty and administration alike. Ms. Giordano felt bullied by her. Teachers and building
staff complained to Mr. Pierre about her behavior. 	She was disrespectful to Dr. Vauss.
Parents complained about her. 	She wrote long, disrespectful emails to administrators.
(R-10, R-11, R-14, R-18, R-19).
The record and testimony reflect many instances of alarming behavior and lack of
good judgment by Mrs. Lester. 	What happened between Ms. Giordano’s wife and Mrs.
Lester’s husband on the morning of March 3, 2023, was undoubtedly upsetting. But what
happened between the spouses is not at issue here and I do not make any findings of
fact or conclusions of law about it. 	However, I do FIND that Mrs. Lester’s response
reflects a lack of judgment and an inability to manage her own actions and words. I further
FIND that her reaction to the March 3, 2023, incident was alarming.
Mrs. Lester’s eight-page complaint reads like a rant against Ms. Giordano. (R-17).
Yet at the hearing Mrs. Lester insisted she had never bullied her. (Ibid.). In the complaint
she mistakes Ms. Giordano’s attempts to avoid confrontation (discussed in R-16), as a
“superiority about herself where she thinks that one should have to walk at her pace and
remain behind her.” (Id. at 4). She spoke rudely about Ms. Giordano and her wife. She
made unsettling comments about Ms. Giordano, like how she has a “misery of a dark
classroom, 	which looks 	like 	someone got murdered 	in.” 	(Id. at 6). 	She made
inappropriate comments about Ms. Giordano’s body. 	(Id. at 7). 	Dr. Vauss testified that
she found this complaint alarming and offensive because of the way Mrs. Lester wrote
about Ms. Giordano. 	(11/25/24 Tr. 85:23 to 86:10). 	I FIND this complaint alarming. 	I
further 	FIND 	that 	it 	exemplifies 	Mrs. 	Lester’s 	uncooperative 	relationship 	with 	the
colleagues named in the complaint.

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
16
Mrs. Lester made a lot out of the fact that Ms. Giordano never saw the eight-page
complaint. 	She argues that the District not showing Ms. Giordano the complaint
objectively proves that it was out to get her. (Pet. Closing Br. at 292-98). However, the
testimony and record show that Ms. Giordano was actively involved in the investigation.
(R-20). The fact that she had not actually read the complaint itself shows good judgment
on the part of the District as it may have been unnecessarily upsetting to her, and thus I
so FIND.
The 33-page rebuttal that Mrs. Lester wrote after the Affirmative Action Committee
Decision was issued further shows her profound lack of judgment. (P-82). This rebuttal,
more than anything, demonstrates that Mrs. Lester’s instinct in stressful situations is to
exponentially escalate the circumstances around her. This is not a safe or professional
characteristic of a teacher, and thus I so FIND. 	Throughout the rebuttal (and again at
hearing) she emphasized the detail that she never left her class unattended or stepped
foot in Giordano’s classroom the morning of March 3. (Id. at 4). Both of these things are
true—there were adults with her students, and she never got further than the doorway of
Mrs. Giordano’s classroom. 	But this ignores the bigger issue—Mrs. Lester should not
have left her classroom supervised only by certified instructional leaders in order to
confront another teacher about personal issues. 	And even though she never made it
further than Ms. Giordano’s doorway, the students could see and hear their conversation.
Her continued denial of how upsetting her behavior was to Ms. Giordano shows an
inability to take accountability for her own actions. 	This is not a safe or professional
characteristic of a teacher, and thus I so FIND.
At hearing, Mrs. Lester was asked about the most outrageous elements of the
eight-page complaint, emails, and 33-page rebuttal. 	(R-17, R-24, P-82). 	She stood by
them all. 	In fact, the District tried to keep the 33-page rebuttal out of evidence due to
hearsay, but Mrs. Lester fought hard to keep it in. (P-82). When confronted by her own
words 	at 	the 	hearing, 	Mrs. 	Lester 	did 	not 	understand 	why 	they 	were 	alarming,
unprofessional, and inappropriate. The way she speaks about her colleagues in the 33-
page rebuttal alone shows that she is unable to maintain professional and cooperative
relationships. The Board argues that this demonstrates “a disconnection with reality and

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
17
a warped sense of proportionality which singularly raises concern over this employee’s
judgment as an educator.” (Resp. Closing Br. at 10). I agree, and thus I so FIND.
In light of the largely uncontested FACTS and credible and corroborative testimony
and documentary evidence, I FIND the aforementioned accounting of events as FACT
and CONCLUDE that these facts provide the Board with just reason to not renew Mrs.
Lester’s contract.
B. The Board did not violate Mrs. Lester’s constitutional or statutory rights
A board of education non-renewal will not be afforded discretion if it “violated
constitutional or legislatively conferred rights.” 	Ramaswamy, EDU 08534-23. 	In her
original petition, Lester made a wide variety of constitutional and statutory claims against
the Board and Dr. Vauss. 	However, at hearing, while she did accuse Ms. Giordano of
discrimination, she only accused the Board of retaliation. She presented no evidence to
support 	any 	constitutional 	violations 	on 	the 	part 	of 	Respondents. 	Therefore, 	I
CONCLUDE that the Board and Dr. Vauss did not discriminate against Mrs. Lester or
violate any of her constitutional rights.
In her petition, Mrs. Lester claimed that Dr. Vauss retaliated against her for
complaining about the unbecoming behaviors of students, faculty, and staff, and that,
therefore, she is protected by the Conscientious Employee Protection Action (CEPA),
commonly known as the “Whistleblower Act.” 	(Pet. Statement at 1-2). 	Mrs. Lester also
claimed that she was being retaliated against for filing reports to the school that she
understood to be required of her as a “mandated reporter.” 	Mrs. Lester provided
absolutely no evidence to support any retaliatory or conspiratorial behavior on the part of
the Board or Dr. Vauss. 	There is no evidence that Dr. Vauss and the Board retaliated
against her for raising her voice or for speaking out. 	There is no evidence of an
orchestrated attack against her. 	There is no evidence that she was being retaliated
against for filing what Mrs. Lester characterized as “mandated reporter” reports. 	Dr.
Vauss testified that she never received any reports from the Division of Child Protection
and Permanency, which is what would have happened had Mrs. Lester ever filed an

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
18
official complaint in her role as a mandated reporter.1 	There is no evidence that Mrs.
Lester ever filed such a report. 	Instead, she filed innumerable handwritten complaints
about student behavior to the administration. As such, I FIND that Mrs. Lester did not file
any official reports in her role as a mandated reporter.
Therefore, in light of all of the credible testimony and documentary evidence, I
FIND that the Board and Dr. Vauss did not retaliate against Mrs. Lester. 	In light of the
aforementioned findings of facts and legal analysis, I CONCLUDE that the Board did not
violate Mrs. Lester’s statutory rights under CEPA.
ORDER
In 	light 	of 	my 	factual 	findings 	along 	with 	the 	legal 	analysis 	above,
I CONCLUDE that Adrian Tooley-Lester has failed to meet her burden to demonstrate
that the Board acted in an arbitrary and capricious or unreasonable manner when it
followed the Superintendent’s recommendation to not renew her employment. Therefore,
her appeal from the Board’s decision to non-renew must be DENIED.
I further CONCLUDE that the Board did not violate Adrian Tooley-Lester’s
constitutional rights or statutory rights under CEPA.
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.
1 Certain professionals, including teachers, are legally required to report suspected child abuse to a
designated government agency. 34 U.S.C. 20341 (a)(1) and (2), (b)(4). This is known as being a mandated
reporter.

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
19
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.
June 2, 2025
DATE 	DANIELLE PASQUALE, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	June 2, 2025
Date E-Mailed to Parties: 	June 2, 2025
DP/lr

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
20
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For Petitioner:
Adrian Tooley-Lester, Petitioner
Roger Lester, Petitioner’s husband
Dr. Christopher Tamburro, In-house consultant for the New Jersey Education
Association
Michael Byock, Dean of Attendance, University Middle School and the President,
Irving Education Association
For Respondent:
Dr. April Vauss, Superintendent
Farrah Irving, Esq., Manager of Human Resources
Mueller Pierre, Principal Union Avenue Middle School
Shelley Pettiford, District Supervisor of Guidance
Penelope Giordano, Teacher, Union Avenue Middle School
Ms. Hill, Assistant Principal, Union Avenue Middle School
Exhibits
Respondent:
R-1 	Petitioner’s online application for employment with Respondent and Teaching
Certificate
R-2 	Petitioner’s Verification Form (with attachments)
R-3 	Petitioner’s Resume
R-4 	Recommendation for the appointment of Petitioner as ELA Teacher
R-5 	Report to Work Form
R-6 	Petitioner’s Employment Contract (9/23/19 to 6/30/20)
R-7 	Petitioner’s Employment Contract (10/14/19 to 6/30/20)

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
21
R-8 	Petitioner’s Employment Contract (9/1/20 to 6/30/21)
R-9 	Petitioner’s Employment Contract (9/1/21 to 6/20/22)
R-10 	November 18, 2021, Memorandum from Mueller Pierre, Principal, Union Avenue
Middle School to Petitioner
R-11 	November 18, 2021, email from Petitioner to Principal Pierre
R-12 	Petitioner’s Employment Contract (9/1/22 to 6/30/23)
R-13 	October 7, 2023, email from Shelley Pettiford, District Supervisor to Mueller Pierre,
Union Avenue Middle School Principal; March 3, 2023
R-14 	October 7, 2023, email from Petitioner to administration
R-16 	March 3, 2023, Incident Report of Teacher, Penelope Giordano
R-17 	March 6, 2023, Harassment, Intimidation, Bullying (HIB) and Discrimination
Complaint filed by Petitioner (eight-page complaint)
R-18 	March 6, 2023, email from Petitioner to Ms. Irving
R-19 	March 6, 2023, email from Petitioner to Ms. Irving
R-20 	March 14, 2023, Affirmative Action/Discrimination Committee Decision
R-21 	Undated Donaldson Hearing Statement to Board on behalf of Petitioner by Dr.
Tamburro
R-22 	March 20, 2023, email from Farrah Irving, Esq. Manager of Human Resources to
Petitioner
R-23 	May 8, 2023, letter from Dr. April Vauss, Superintendent to Petitioner (Notice of
Non-Renewal)
R-24 	May 8, 2023, email from Petitioner to Reggie Lamptey, Assistant Superintendent
for Business (request for a Statement of Reasons)
R-25 	May 19, 2023, letter to Petitioner from Superintendent, Vauss- Statement of
Reasons for Non-Renewal
R-26 	June 15, 2023, letter from Superintendent Vauss to Petitioner
R-27 	June 21, 2023, email from Farrah Irving to Petitioner with certified receipt
R-28 	June 21, 2023, letter from Petitioner to Irvington Board Members
R-29 	August 8, 2023, letter from Petitioner to New Jersey Department of Labor and
Workforce Development Unemployment and Disability Insurance Services
R-30 August 7, 2023, Notice of Determination from New Jersey Department of Labor and
Workforce Development Unemployment Disability Insurance Services

OAL DKT. NO. 08223-23
22
Petitioner:
P-4 	May 21, 2020, Summative Professional Assessment and Development Report
P-5 	January 29, 2020, Professional Assessment and Development Report
P-6 	March 12, 2020, Professional Assessment and Development Report
P-7 	March 25, 2021, Professional Assessment and Development Report
P-8 	May 11, 2021, Professional Assessment and Development Report
P-9 	June 6, 2021, Summative Professional Assessment and Development Report
P-10 	February 8, 2021, Classroom Teacher Formative Assessment and April 19, 2023,
Classroom Teacher Pre-Conference
P-11 	May 1, 2023, Classroom Teacher Formative Assessment
P-12 	June 14, 2023, Minutes from the Irvington Board of Education Virtual Board
Meeting
P-13 	Petitioner’s personnel file provided by Respondents
P-15 	“4D Participating in the Professional Community” binder (created and maintained
by Petitioner)
P-27 	Flyer advertising jobs in Irvington Public Schools
P-52 	November 3 and 4, 2022, email from Ms. Hill to Petitioner
P-73 	January 5, 2023, HIB reporting form filled out by Petitioner regarding student K.D.
P-80 	Ms. Irving’s June 11, 2018, Ethics Reprimand
P-82 	March 	30, 	2023, 	Petitioner’s 	thirty-three-page 	rebuttal 	to 	March 	14, 	2023,
Affirmative Action/Discrimination Committee Decision. (Not admitted for the truth
of the matter asserted)