Lorraine Taddei-Graef v. Board of Education of the Freehold Regional School District, Monmouth County, 10/6/2020, (#213-20)

1
213-20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
Lorraine Taddei-Graef,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Freehold Regional
High School District, Monmouth County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner – a tenured teaching staff member in the respondent Board’s school district –
contended that her tenure rights were violated when the Board reduced her salary without the
filing of tenure charges after discovering that the institution which had granted petitioner’s
Doctor of Philosophy degree in April 2006 was not accredited. 	However, the statute requiring
such accreditation was not in effect until July 1, 2010. 	Petitioner filed a motion for summary
decision.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: the material facts at issue here are not in dispute, and the parties
filed a joint stipulation of facts; petitioner received a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Curriculum
and Assessment through an online program offered by Breyer State University (University) in
April 2006; the Board then placed petitioner on the doctoral salary guide at the beginning of the
2006-07 school year; N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.5 went into effect on July 1, 2010 and stipulates that
boards of education may provide additional compensation based on degrees or credit completion
only from duly authorized institutions of higher education, a category which excluded Breyer
State University; however, as petitioner received her degree from the University in 2006, this
statute was not yet in effect; on December 2, 2008, the Board notified petitioner that she was
being removed from the doctoral salary guide and being placed on the Masters +30 salary guide.
The ALJ concluded that petitioner’s tenure rights were violated when the Board reduced her
salary without the filing of tenure charges, and petitioner was entitled to any additional
compensation that she would have received had she remained on the doctoral salary guide from
December 2, 2008 until June 30, 2010.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusion, and adopted
the Initial Decision as the final decision is this matter. 	The Board was directed to retroactively
reinstate petitioner to the doctoral salary guide from December 2, 2008 until June 30, 2010.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It
has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.
October 6, 2020

2
213-20
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 02617-09 (
Agency Dkt. No. 19-2/09
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
Lorraine Taddei-Graef,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Freehold Regional
High School District, Monmouth County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions.
Petitioner, 	a 	tenured 	teacher, 	received 	a 	Doctor 	of 	Philosophy 	degree 	in
Curriculum 	and 	Assessment 	through 	an 	online 	program 	from 	Breyer 	State 	University
(University) in April 2006. 	Subsequently, the Board placed petitioner on the doctoral salary
guide at the start of the 2006-07 school year. Following an Office of Fiscal Accountability and
Compliance investigation, the New Jersey Commission on Higher Education advised petitioner
in October 2008 that the University is not accredited and therefore she cannot continue to use the
title or reference her degrees. 	Thereafter, on December 2, 2008, the Board notified petitioner
that she was being removed from the doctoral salary guide and being placed on the Masters +30
salary guide. 	Petitioner filed a petition of appeal challenging her salary reduction on the basis
that it violated her tenure rights.

3
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Board violated petitioner’s
tenure rights under N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5 and N.J.S.A.18A:6-10 when it reduced her salary without
bringing tenure charges. Although case law enables boards to correct salary mistakes at the end
of a school year, the ALJ noted that the Board did not make a clerical error. 	At the time the
Board increased petitioner’s salary, there was no law prohibiting a Board from increasing a
teacher’s salary based on a degree from a non-accredited institution. However, on July 1, 2010,
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-8.5 went into effect, permitting boards to provide additional compensation based
on degrees or credit completion only from duly authorized institutions of higher education. 	As
such, the ALJ found that petitioner was entitled to any additional compensation that she would
have received had she remained on the doctoral salary guide from December 2, 2008 until
June 30, 2010.
Upon review, the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ – for the reasons thoroughly
expressed 	in 	the 	Initial 	Decision 	– 	that 	the 	Board 	violated 	petitioner’s 	tenure 	rights.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this matter. The
Board 	is 	directed 	to 	retroactively reinstate 	petitioner 	to 	the 	doctoral 	salary 	guide 	from
December 2, 2008 until June 30, 2010.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 1
INTERIM COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: October 6, 2020
Date of Mailing: 	October 6, 2020
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008,
c. 36 (N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1).

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION ON MOTION FOR
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 2617-09
AGENCY DKT. NO. 19-2/09
LORRAINE TADDEI-GRAEF,
Petitioner,
v.
FREEHOLD REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Respondent.
_________________________________
Stephen Hunter, Esq., for petitioner (Detzky & Hunter, attorneys)
Mark G. Toscano, Esq., for respondent (Comegno Law Group PC, attorneys
Record Closed: March 27, 2020 Decided: August 26, 2020
BEFORE PATRICIA M. KERINS, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner Lorraine Taddei-Graef moves for summary decision on whether
respondent Freehold Regional High School Board of Education (Freehold) violated her
tenure rights by reducing her salary upon discovering that she received a doctoral degree
from an unaccredited university, along with the reinstatement of her previous salary in
accordance with Freehold’s doctoral degree salary schedule.

OAL DKT. NO. TYP 02281-09
2
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The parties have submitted a lengthy joint stipulation of facts and the material facts
are not in dispute. The Stipulation of Facts are as follows:
1. Petitioner, Lorraine Taddei-Graef, resides at 1209 Koa Drive, Forked River,
New Jersey, 08731.
2. Petitioner is a tenured teaching staff member employed by Freehold.
Petitioner is currently assigned as a Learning Consultant and Child Study
Team Leader at the Freehold Township High School.
3. In or around May 2005, petitioner enrolled in a coursework program through
the on-line program provided by Breyer State University (University). The
University held itself out as an institution with the authority to confer
doctorate degrees on individuals who completed the program.
4. On or about April 26, 2006, petitioner was advised by Dominick Flarey,
Ph.D., via electronic mail, that she met the University’s coursework
requirement, and a Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Curriculum and
Assessment, was conferred.
5. Upon receipt of the degree, petitioner was placed on the doctorate salary
guide for the 2006-2007 school year pursuant to the collective bargaining
agreement entered into by respondent and the Freehold Regional High
School District Education Association. Petitioner’s salary was $58,410.
See, Official Salary Card, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6. Petitioner remained on the doctorate guide until on or about December 2,
2008. Between September 1, 2008, and December 2, 2008, petitioner was
placed on Step 10 of the doctorate guide, for a base salary in the amount
of $73,620. See, 2008-2009 Collective Bargaining Agreement, attached
hereto as Exhibit B. The differential in base salary between Step 10 of

OAL DKT. NO. TYP 02281-09
3
Masters +30 guide, where petitioner would have been placed if she had not
earned the doctorate, and the Step 10 of the doctorate salary guide was
$1,500. See, 2008-2009 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the
Freehold Regional High School District Board of Education and the
Freehold Regional High School Education Association, attached hereto as
Exhibit B.
7. In or around August 2008, the Office of Fiscal Accountability and
Compliance (OFAC) conducted an investigation assessing the
respondent’s policies and practices relating to tuition reimbursement and
salary increases upon completion of a doctorate degree program. The
OFAC investigation centered around several administrators employed by
respondent. Each had received doctorate degrees from the University.
See, OFAC report attached hereto as Exhibit C.
8. OFAC did not determine whether the degrees received from the University
were valid and recognizable in the State of New Jersey. The matter was
referred to the New Jersey Commission on Higher Education (Higher
Education), the agency charged with regulation of degrees of higher
education, for further evaluation.
9. Although petitioner was not a subject of the initial OFAC investigation,
Higher Education subsequently learned that she had received a degree
from the University. On October 8, 2008, Higher Education issued a letter
to petitioner advising her that degrees from the University did not meet the
accreditation standards required for degree recognition. See, October 8,
2008, letter to petitioner attached hereto to Exhibit D.
10. Higher Education advised petitioner that continued use of her title was
“legally impermissible” and in “violation of State law and must cease and
desist.” See Exhibit D.

OAL DKT. NO. TYP 02281-09
4
11. Higher Education instructed petitioner to submit a notarized letter avowing
that she has ceased appending the degree designation to the end of her
name (i.e., Ed.D., Dr. or Ph.D.). On or about October 20, 2008, petitioner
complied with this directive. See, October 20, 2008, letter from petitioner to
Higher Education attached hereto as Exhibit E.
12. On or about September 2, 2008, the Commissioner of Education issued a
memorandum reiterating the requirements for degrees of higher education.
See, September 2, 2008, letter from Commissioner Davy attached hereto
as Exhibit F.
13. On or about December 2, 2008, the Assistant Superintendent for Business
Administration notified petitioner that the respondent was removing
petitioner from the doctorate column of the salary guide, and placed on the
Masters +30 guide, as a result of the aforesaid correspondences from the
Commission on Higher Education and the Department of Education. See,
Salary letter to petitioner, dated December 2, 2008, attached hereto as
Exhibit G. Step 10 of the Masters +30 salary guide provided a salary of
$72,160. See Exhibit B.
14. On or about January 28, 2008, petitioner filed the instant Petition of Appeal.
She seeks to be replaced on the doctoral salary column of the salary guide
contained collective bargaining agreement. Petitioner further seeks
reinstatement of the use of her title.
15. Petitioner never filed an appeal of the October 8, 2008, Higher Education
determination.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The purpose of teacher tenure laws is “to aid in the establishment of a competent
and efficient school system by affording teachers ‘a measure of security in the ranks they
hold after years of service.’” Carpenito v. Rumson Bd. of Educ., 322 N.J. Super. 522,

OAL DKT. NO. TYP 02281-09
5
528-29 (App. Div. 1999) (quoting Viemeister v. Prospect Park Bd. of Educ., 5 N.J. Super.
215, 218 (App.Div.1949)); N.J.S.A. 18A:28-1 to -18; N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10 to -18.1 (“Tenure
Employees Hearing Law”). As such, a tenured teacher may not be dismissed or reduced
in compensation except for inefficiency, incapacity, unbecoming conduct, or other just
cause, and then only after the appropriate procedural requirements under the Tenure
Employees Hearing Law have been met. N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5; N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10.
A person shall not append to his name any letters in the same form designated by
the Commission on Higher Education as entitled to the protection accorded to an
academic degree unless the person has received from a duly authorized institution of
higher education the degree or certificate for which the letters are registered. N.J.S.A.
18A:3-15.3; N.J.A.C. 9A:1-8.1.
A motion for summary decision shall be granted “if the papers and discovery which
have been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a
matter of law.” N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b).
There are several school law decisions that offer support for the proposition that
Freehold violated petitioner’s tenure rights by unilaterally reducing her compensation
without adhering to the procedural requirements of the Tenure Employees Hearing Law.
In Fedor v. Elmwood Park Bd. of Education, 97 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 96, a school board
adopted a resolution to increase the salary of a tenured principal who was transferred
from a high school to an elementary school, and then three weeks later adopted another
resolution rescinding the original resolution and reinstating his previous salary amount.
In voiding the school board’s second resolution as a violation of the principal’s tenure
rights, ALJ Springer provided a summary of school law decisions establishing tenured
teachers’ rights when a school board attempts to reduce their salaries:
[a] long line of school law decisions has interpreted this
reduction-in-compensation language [at N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5
and the Tenure Employees Hearing Law] as prohibiting a local
board from rescinding a resolution approving a tenured
employee's salary in a given year, unless the board

OAL DKT. NO. TYP 02281-09
6
successfully brings tenure charges or the employee is laid off
or demoted as the result of a reduction in force. Illustratively,
in Anson v. Bridgeton Bd. of Educ., 1972 S.L.D. 638, 640
(Comm'r Dec. 5), the Commissioner declared that tenured
teachers ‘acquired vested rights to the salaries established for
them by the Board's adoption of their salary placement’ and
that they could not ‘be deprived of a right they had acquired
by action of the board.’ Accord, Docherty v. West Paterson
Bd. of Educ., 1967 S.L.D. 297 (Comm'r Oct. 23), where the
Commissioner ruled that a board may not adopt a subsequent
resolution to correct a mistake in a tenured teacher's
placement on the salary guide, if the mistake "was not of the
teacher's making." See also, Rivers v. Mercer Cty. Area Vo-
Tech. Sch., 1984 S.L.D. 102, 108 (Comm'r Jan 17) and Galop
v. Hanover Twp. Bd. of Educ., 1975 S.L.D. 358 (Comm'r May
16 ), aff'd 1975 S.L.D. 366 (St. Bd. Sept. 10), where the
Commissioner invalidated attempts by local boards to recoup
small overpayments of salary that were not ‘of windfall
proportions.’
In that case, ALJ Springer also noted that the school board’s original decision
reflected “a good faith effort” by the school board “to set a fair salary for an administrator
who had been involuntarily transferred to a new position” and that “the situation is very
different from genuine mistake, such as inadvertently placing a teaching staff member on
the wrong step of the salary guide for a person with his particular experience and
qualifications.”
Here, unlike in Fedor, Freehold did not attempt to set a fair salary for a teacher
who is transferred. However, upon receipt of her doctoral degree, petitioner “was placed
on the doctorate salary guide for the 2006-2007 school year pursuant to the collective
bargaining agreement” between Freehold and the teachers’ union, and remained on the
doctorate guide until December 2, 2008 when Freehold unilaterally reduced petitioner’s
salary by $1500. See Joint Stipulation of Facts ¶5, 6, 13. Thus, as in Fedor, once
Freehold set petitioner’s salary for the 2007-2008 school year, Freehold could not rescind
its resolution approving petitioner’s salary unless Freehold successfully brought tenure
charges. As such, Freehold improperly reduced petitioner’s salary by failing to bring
tenure charges against her.

OAL DKT. NO. TYP 02281-09
7
Most school law cases in which a tenured teacher argues that his or her salary has
been illegally reduced involved a clerical error in which an employee of the school board
mistakenly set a tenured teacher’s salary at a level at which the teacher should not have
received his or her salary. See, e.g., Stockton v. Trenton Bd. of Educ., 1987 S.L.D. 512,
521; Trenton Educ. Assn. v. Trenton Bd. of Educ., 1986 S.L.D. 2415, 2434; Rivers v.
Mercer Cty. Vo-Tech Sch. Bd. of Educ., EDU 1368-83, Initial Decision (November 30,
1983), aff’d, Comm’r (January 17, 1984). In Stockton, for example, the Trenton Board of
Education incorrectly placed Stockton on a higher step on the salary guide. While the
Commissioner in that case held that the Board could correct its mistake, he found that the
teacher was entitled to be paid at the incorrect level for the rest of the school year and
that the board had to reimburse him for the difference between what he was paid after
the Board corrected its mistake and what he should have been paid at the incorrect salary
step. According to the Commissioner, a board may correct a clerical error with respect
to salary; however, “during a given school year, once an individual has been placed and
paid at a given step of the salary guide, he or she may not be subject to any corrective
action during that year, which reduces his or her salary . . .” Id. at 521. In such instances,
the Commissioner stated that “only a board of education may act to correct an
error/mistake and it must provide reasonable notice to the individual that a correction is
to be made.” Ibid. Thus, under circumstances involving a clerical error in which a tenured
teacher’s salary is inadvertently increased, it appears that a school board does not have
to file tenure charges in order to correct its mistake.1
Here, it is not clear that Freehold actually made an error in increasing petitioner’s
salary. Yes, it appears that Freehold believed at the time it approved petitioner’s salary
1 There is a case that is more directly on point. Unfortunately, the case was dismissed for procedural
reasons. In Hoffman v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of Hillsborough, 96 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 944, the school
board mistakenly increased a tenured teacher’s salary after she obtained a doctoral degree from LaSalle
University in Louisiana.1 When the school board realized that the university was not an accredited
institution, the school board notified the teacher that her advancement on the salary guide was denied
despite the fact that she had already received a paycheck reflecting her placement on the doctoral scale.
While the Commissioner dismissed the teacher’s petition as untimely under the 90-day rule for appeals, the
Commissioner noted that “a board may not act to unilaterally recoup monies erroneously paid to a teaching
staff member as numerous Commissioner and State Board of Education decisions so aptly point out.”
This language from the Commissioner suggests that but for the 90-day rule violation, the Board
would have had to have brought tenure charges against Hoffman in order to reduce her salary after it
affirmatively increased it.

OAL DKT. NO. TYP 02281-09
8
increase that Breyer University had been or was accredited even though it was not (or
subsequently lost its accreditation before petitioner received her degree). However, there
also appears to be no language in the relevant CBA or Freehold’s policy (which is not in
evidence here but is referred to in the Office of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance’s
(OFAC) report, Stipulation of Facts, Exhibit C) that would have prohibited Freehold from
placing on the doctoral salary scale a tenured teacher who obtained a doctoral degree
from a non-accredited university. Moreover, at the time of the salary increase, the
Legislature had yet to address this issue, and the Commission on Higher Education
regulations address degree designations and not salary increases in response to degrees
obtained from non-accredited institutions. Freehold determined that petitioner had
obtained a doctoral degree and accordingly increased her salary under the salary guide
set forth in the relevant CBA. Therefore, as noted in Fedor, Freehold should have brought
tenure charges against petitioner if it believed it had just cause to reduce her
compensation and petitioner should have had the opportunity to defend her rights
pursuant to the Tenure Employees Hearing Law. Since Freehold did not do so, Freehold
violated petitioner’s tenure rights and she is entitled to a doctoral salary retroactive to
December 2, 2008, until the end of the 2009-2010 school year when P.L. 2010, c.13 goes
into effect.
Nevertheless, the legislature has enacted a law prohibiting a local board of
education from increasing a teacher’s salary upon completion of a degree program unless
the institution from which she obtained the degree meets the requirements of N.J.S.A.
18A:3-15.3.2 According to the act, “[t]his act shall take effect on July 1 of the school year
next following the date of enactment, except that this act shall not be deemed to impair
an obligation set forth in a [CBA] or an individual contract of employment in effect on the
effective date.” P.L. 2010, c. 13. In addition to the relevant CBA, OFAC report, and higher
education laws, this legislative development shows that at the time of Freehold’s decision
to approve Taddei-Graef’s salary there was no authority prohibiting such action. Thus,
since P.L. 2010, c. 13 was not effective until the start of the 2010-2011 school year,
petitioner is entitled to compensation under the doctoral scale until June 30, 2010, and
2 P.L. 2010, c. 13.

OAL DKT. NO. TYP 02281-09
9
reimbursement from Freehold to compensate her for the reduction in salary unilaterally
implemented by Freehold in December 2008.
CONCLUSION
Freehold violated petitioner’s tenure rights by unilaterally reducing her salary
without bringing tenure charges or holding a tenure hearing. While there is case law that
stands for the proposition that a school board may correct at the end of the relevant school
year any clerical error that results in an increase in a tenured teacher’s salary, Freehold
does not here appear to have made a clerical error. In addition, at the time of the increase
in petitioner’s salary, there was no law barring such action by a school board, and
Freehold policy and the relevant CBA did not prohibit such action. Finally, the legislature
enacted a statue which prohibits salary increases for teachers who attain degrees from
non-accredited universities. That act went into effect July 1, 2010. As a result, Freehold
violated petitioner’s tenure rights and she is entitled to be reinstated to the doctoral salary
guide until June 30, 2010 and reimbursed for any monies she should have received had
she remained on that guide retroactive to December 2, 2008. While such a result
contravenes a proper public policy that frowns upon using public money pay educators
for degrees from unaccredited institutions, there was no law in place at the time of
petitioner’s increase and the tenure laws protect tenured teachers’ rights against unlawful
reductions in salary.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that petitioner be reinstated to the doctoral salary guide
from December 2, 2008, until June 30, 2010.
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

OAL DKT. NO. TYP 02281-09
10
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.
August 26, 2020
DATE PATRICIA M. KERINS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: August 26, 2020 (emailed)
Date Mailed to Parties:
/mel