D.H., on behalf of minor child, O.H. v. Board of Education of the Township of Gloucester, Camden County, 3/1/2024, (#125-24)

125-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
D.H., on behalf of O.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Gloucester,
Camden County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner challenged the determination of the respondent Board that three aggressive incidents
against her son, O.H., by a classmate did not constitute harassment, intimidation, or bullying (HIB) under
District Policy 5512 and New Jersey’s Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14. O.H. was a fourth-
grade student at the time of the events in question, wherein he was the victim of three separate
unprovoked incidents by the same child, a classified student with recognized impulse control difficulties.
The Board determined that petitioner’s allegations did not constitute HIB, as a finding of HIB requires that
the conduct be reasonably perceived as being motivated by an actual or perceived distinguishing
characteristic, and no such motivation was found during the HIB investigation in this case. A hearing in the
matter was held in the Office of Administrative Law on October 5, 2023.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: the decision of a board acting within the scope of its authority is entitled to
a presumption of correctness and will not be overturned unless there is an affirmative showing that such
decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; further, the action of a board which lies within the area
of its discretionary powers may not be upset unless patently arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by
improper motives; in this case, none of petitioner’s allegations met the legal standards of the HIB statute;
for a finding of HIB, the alleged behavior must reasonably be perceived as being motivated by an actual or
perceived distinguishing characteristic of the victim, a critical element that is missing in this case; although
petitioner believes that the HIB policy must be revised to protect all students, nevertheless, a finding of HIB
requires that the conduct be reasonably perceived as being motivated by an actual or perceived
distinguishing characteristic, and no such motivation or distinguishing characteristic was identified here.
The ALJ concluded that the Board’s determination that the three incidents in question did not constitute
harassment, intimidation, or bullying was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Accordingly, the
petition was dismissed.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ that the Gloucester Township Board of Education’s
determination in this matter was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 	Accordingly, the Initial
Decision of the OAL was adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition was dismissed.
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.

125-24
OAL Dkt. No. 05662-23
Agency Dkt. No. 141-5/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
D.H., on behalf of minor child, O.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Gloucester, Camden County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law have been
reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that the Gloucester
Township Board of Education’s determination that O.H. was not the victim of harassment, intimidation,
and bullying was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition of
appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: March 1, 2024
Date of Mailing: March 6, 2024
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
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05662-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 141-5/23
D.H. ON BEHALF OF O.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF GLOUCESTER,
CAMDEN COUNTY,
Respondent.
___________________________________
D.H., petitioner, pro se, and on behalf of her minor child, O.H.
Daniel H. Long, Esq., for respondent (Wade, Long, Wood & Long, LLC, attorneys)
Record Closed: December 12, 2023 	Decided: January 24, 2024
BEFORE KATHLEEN M. CALEMMO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, D.H., challenged the decision of the respondent, the Board of Education
of the Township of Gloucester (Board), that the three incidents against her son, O.H., by
a classmate did not constitute harassment, intimidation, or bullying (HIB) under District
Policy 5512 as defined in the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05662-23
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 23, 2023, petitioner filed a petition of appeal with the Commissioner of
Education, Office of Controversies and Disputes. On June 20, 2023, respondent filed its
answer. The matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law on June 22, 2023,
to proceed as a contested matter under N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1
to -23.
The hearing was held on October 5, 2023. 	The record closed on December 12,
2023, after receipt of the parties’ post-hearing submissions.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Having heard the testimony presented at the hearing, and having reviewed the
documentary evidence, I FIND:
O.H. was a fourth-grade student at Chews Elementary School. 	On January 9,
2023, O.H. was the victim of three separate unprovoked incidents by the same student,
A.A. The incidents were consistently described as follows:
The first incident occurred at the start of the school day. 	O.H. was in line when
A.A. ran towards him and slapped him on his cheek. 	A.A.’s explanation was that he
thought O.H. and another student were fighting, so he tried to break up the fight. 	O.H.
and the other classmate admitted to “playing around” while in line. (R-2.)
The second incident occurred after recess. 	During recess, a group of boys,
including A.A. and O.H., were playing cops and robbers. 	When the bell rang, ending
recess, A.A. claimed he wanted to “finish the game and get another point.” (R-2.) 	A.A.
saw O.H. bending down to tie his shoe, so he ran to him and grabbed him by twisting his
neck.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05662-23
3
The third incident occurred at the lunch table. 	A.A. thought O.H. and his friends
were talking about him. In response, A.A. stated to the group, “I’m going to kill you, you,
and you.” (R-2.)
On the day of the incidents, the vice principal called D.H. to report what happened
to her son, O.H. 	On January 10, 2023, O.H.’s parents met with the vice principal to
discuss the incidents. D.H. was not satisfied with the school’s response to the incidents,
so she filed a report requesting a HIB investigation into the matter. 	(R-2.) 	The
investigation was assigned to Raylene Aita, the anti-bullying specialist (ABS) at Chews.
Ms. Aita is also a school counselor.
As 	part 	of 	her 	investigation, 	Ms. 	Aita 	interviewed 	O.H., 	two 	other 	student
witnesses, and A.A. (R-2.) After conducting her investigation, Ms. Aita determined that
the events happened as described above. A.A. did not deny his actions. Based on the
descriptions 	received from 	O.H. 	and 	the other 	witnesses, 	and 	considering 	A.A.’s
explanations for his behavior, Ms. Aita determined that A.A. did not target O.H. based on
any actual or perceived characteristics of O.H. identified under HIB. (R-2.)
Based on her experience, knowledge, and training, Ms. Aita determined that A.A.
acted impulsively and with a misunderstanding of social cues and situations. 	Ms. Aita
explained that A.A. thought he was breaking up a fight that he perceived as real.
Likewise, his actions at recess and his verbal threat were based on an impulsive reaction
to perceived events. He wanted to continue playing so he jumped on O.H. to gain another
point. 	A.A. thought O.H. and his friends were talking negatively about him, so he
threatened them. 	A.A.’s actions were clearly not appropriate. 	His aggression and
threatening 	language 	violated 	the 	school’s 	code 	of 	conduct, 	for 	which 	A.A. 	was
appropriately disciplined.
Ms. Aita further explained that A.A. is a classified student under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, with known struggles with impulse control.
The testimony of Ms. Aita was not controverted. She expressed a clear knowledge
of her role as the ABS. Moreover, Ms. Aita has been a counselor for Glassboro schools

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05662-23
4
for over twenty years. She expressed her familiarity with the students and was confident
that the students were comfortable in speaking with her during the interviews. Based on
the consistency of the events as stated in her investigation report, her clear understanding
of her role in a HIB investigation, and her knowledge of what constitutes a HIB violation,
I accept the testimony of Ms. Aita as credible. She provided a reasonable, plausible, and
sound justification why A.A.’s actions against O.H. based on the facts and circumstances
did not constitute HIB.
During their initial meeting on January 10, 2023, O.H.’s parents believed that the
threats against their son were downplayed by the school administration. 	They did not
accept that the discipline imposed on A.A. reflected the magnitude of what had occurred.
They also felt that these three incidents directed at their son on the same day showed
that A.A. had targeted O.H. A.A. did not act impulsively towards any other student, just
O.H. 	Therefore, under their interpretation of the plain meaning of bullying, harassment,
and intimidation, they felt that O.H. was targeted and should be afforded protection under
HIB. 	I accepted the testimony of D.H. and S.H. as being motivated by their love and
concern for the safety and well-being of their son. Their testimony was both sincere and
heartfelt. 	While petitioner expressed her dissatisfaction with the statutory language,
respondent and this tribunal are required to follow the definition of HIB provided in
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
It was the intent of the Legislature in enacting the “Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act”
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, -13.2.
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14 and District Policy 5512 define harassment, intimidation, or
bullying in pertinent part as anything that could be “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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05662-23
5
“takes place on school property” and “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.
O.H.’s parents believed that the focus of Glassboro’s administration, their ABS,
and the Board on an actual or a perceived characteristic was too restrictive, and this focus
failed to consider the impact on their son, who was the target of the aggression. 	As
explained by Ms. Aita, the ABS, there was no distinguishing characteristic that motivated
the inappropriate behavior. 	Ms. Aita reasonably determined that A.A.’s impulsivity and
failure to understand social situations caused his misbehavior towards O.H. The Board’s
finding that no HIB occurred because there was no distinguishing characteristic does not
diminish what happened to O.H. 	The Appellate Division in K.L. v. Evesham Township
Board of Education, 423 N.J. Super. 337, 350–51 (App. Div. 2011), succinctly stated:
The statutory definition of “bullying” does not include all violent
or aggressive conduct against a student. The definition, both
before and after adoption of the 2010 Anti-Bullying Act, refers
to conduct that is “reasonably perceived as being motivated”
by a “distinguishing characteristic” of the victim, such as,
“race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual
orientation, gender identity and expression, or a mental,
physical or sensory [disability].” 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14. 	The
statute has not limited “distinguishing characteristic” to those
specifically enumerated, but it has consistently required such
a perceived motivation.
Thus, 	harmful 	or 	demeaning 	conduct 	motivated 	only 	by
another reason, for example, a dispute about relationships or
personal 	belongings, 	or 	aggressive 	conduct 	without

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05662-23
6
identifiable motivation, does not come within the statutory
definition of bullying.
Thus, an incident may be physically, psychologically, or socially harmful, but still
not meet the HIB criteria.
Petitioner argued that A.A.’s motivation for singling out her son was not known or
developed through the investigation. She contended there was no valid reason for A.A.
to slap, put his hands on, or threaten to kill O.H. While the petitioner did not accept the
response that A.A. misunderstood social situations and reacted impulsively due to his
disability as a sufficient explanation for his aggression against her son, the investigation
did not reveal any other motive, or a distinguishing characteristic as legally required for a
HIB violation. 	Petitioner questioned why the perception of O.H. was not considered.
Under N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14, the required element is “how the actor’s motivation is
perceived and whether that perception is reasonable.” Wehbeh v. Bd. of Educ. of Verona,
2020 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 50 (Feb. 4, 2020), at *8. To determine whether the perception is
reasonable, “the alleged victim [need not] correctly assess the actor’s motivation, as such
a 	requirement 	would 	convert 	the 	analysis 	from 	one 	about 	reasonably 	perceived
motivation to one about actual motivation and would inappropriately place the burden on
the alleged victim to divine the intent of the actor.” 	Ibid., n.3. 	The HIB investigation by
Ms. Aita reasonably showed that A.A.’s behavior on January 9, 2023, towards O.H. was
not motivated by any distinguishing characteristics of O.H.
After hearing D.H.’s appeal, the Board voted to affirm the decision that the conduct
by A.A. did not meet the definition of HIB. 	Petitioner presented her arguments to the
Board but was dismayed when none of the Board members had any questions for her
about the incidents.
The decision of a board acting within the scope of its authority is “entitled to a
presumption of correctness and will not be upset unless there is an affirmative showing
that such decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.” Thomas v. Bd. of Educ.,
89 N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965). 	Similarly, the action of a board “which lies
within the area of its discretionary powers may not be upset unless patently arbitrary,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05662-23
7
without rational basis or induced by improper motives.” Kopera v. Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J.
Super. 288, 294 (App. Div. 1960). 	The petitioner contended that the Board did not fully
explore all aspects of her arguments and did not provide a detailed basis for its decision.
Petitioner 	believes 	that 	the 	HIB 	policy 	must 	be 	revised 	to 	protect 	all 	students;
nevertheless, a finding of HIB requires that the conduct be reasonably perceived as being
motivated by an actual or perceived characteristic. No such motivation or distinguishing
characteristic or difference has been identified.
In view of the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that the Board’s determination that these
three incidents did not constitute harassment, intimidation, or bullying was not arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the petitioner’s appeal is 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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05662-23
8
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.
January 24, 2024
DATE 	KATHLEEN M. CALEMMO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
KMC/editing/tat

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05662-23
9
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For Petitioner:
D.H.
S.H.
For Respondent:
Raylene Aita, ABS
Grant Hildebrand
EXHIBITS
For Petitioner:
P-1 	Gloucester Township Public Schools—the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights
P-2 	Petition of Appeal
P-3 	Typed statements
P-4 	Email chain
For Respondent:
R-1 	Policy 5512—HIB
R-2 	HIB Report
R-3 	Investigation Parental Notification Letter
R-4 	Board Appeal Notification Letter