K.A., on behalf of minor child v. South Orange-Maplewood Board of Education, Essex County, 8/26/26 (#332-26E)

332-26E
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 10920-26
Agency Dkt. No. 278-06-26
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Order on Emergent Relief
K.A., on behalf of minor child, P.A.,
Petitioner,
v.
South 	Orange-Maplewood 	Board 	of 	Education,
Essex County,
Respondent.
The record of this emergent matter, the sound recording of the hearing held at the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL), and the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) have been
reviewed and considered.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner has failed to demonstrate
entitlement to emergent relief pursuant to the standards enunciated in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126,
132-34 (1982), and codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6.
Accordingly, the recommended Order denying petitioner’s application for emergent relief is
adopted. This matter shall continue at the OAL with such proceedings as the parties and the ALJ deem
necessary to bring it to closure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	August 26, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	August 26, 2026

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ORDER DENYING
EMERGENCY RELIEF
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10920-26
AGENCY DKT NO. 278-06-26
K.A. ON BEHALF OF P.U.,
Petitioners,
v.
SOUTH ORANGE-MAPLEWOOD,
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
ESSEX COUNTY,
Respondents.
K.A., petitioner, pro se
Patrick F. Carrigg, Esq., for respondent (Lenox, Socey, Formidoni, Giordano,
Lang, Carrigg, & Casey, LLC, attorneys)
Record Closed: July 16, 2026 	Decided: July 17, 2026
BEFORE PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner is seeking emergent relief to prevent the South Orange-Maplewood
Board of Education from transmitting confidential student data, to compel compliance with

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10920-26
2
the National School Lunch Program, to investigate the improper practices of the security
staff at Columbia High School, and for remote academic access to the summer credit
recovery program. Is petitioner entitled to emergency relief? No. Petitioner must prevail
on all four prongs of N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.6 to obtain emergent relief. 	Crowe v. DeGioia, 90
N.J. 126 (1982).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 1, 2026, petitioner filed a request for emergent relief to prevent the South
Orange-Maplewood Board of Education (the District) from transmitting confidential
student data, to compel compliance with the National School Lunch Program, to conduct
an investigation of improper practices of the security staff at the Columbia High School
and to provide remote academic access to the summer credit recovery program. On July
7, 2026, the petition was filed with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a hearing
as a contested case under N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13. 	On
July 12, 2026, I held a prehearing conference to discuss the issues to be presented at
the scheduled hearing. On July 13, 2026, the District filed its answer to the petition, and
petitioner submitted her exhibits. On July 15, 2026, I held a hearing. Petitioner requested
to introduce one additional email, and respondent requested an additional day to research
the email and respond. 	I held the record open, and on July 16, 2026, respondent
submitted their response to the petitioner’s email, and I closed the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the testimony the parties provided and my assessment of their
credibility, together with the documents the parties submitted and my assessment of their
sufficiency, I FIND the following FACTS:
P.A. is a rising junior at Columbia High School who is enrolled in the summer credit
recovery program. P.A. is in the program for five and a half hours every day. P.A. was
deficient in seven classes. Students enrolled in the summer credit recovery program are
provided with individually wrapped snacks and bottled water. Students are also given a
fifteen-minute break while at school. The school cafeteria is not open.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10920-26
3
FERPA
Emails were exchanged between the petitioner and district personnel concerning
the P.A.’s registration for the summer credit recovery program. Petitioner’s emails do not
contain any headers, which would include the recipients, date and time. 	The District’s
copies of these emails contain the names and email addresses of the sender and
recipients. 	The District personnel were Superintendent Jason Bing; Principal Frank
Sanchez; Assistant Superintendent Kevin Gilbert; Dr. Kerri-Waibel, the McKinney-Vento
liaison; and Adaliana Cuadrado, confidential secretary to Bing. 	(R-A; R-B; R-C; R-D.)
The emails confirm that the District offered P.A. options for credit recovery.
National School Lunch Program
Kerri Waibel is the director of data research and planning for the District and also
the District’s McKinney-Vento liaison. 	She stated that fewer than fifty percent of the
District’s enrolled students qualify for free or reduced-price meals. 	The District is not a
sponsor or site for the federal Summer Food Service Program (SFSP). (R-E.)
She explained that the District is not mandated to provide meals during the
summer credit recovery program. McKinney-Vento services were offered to petitioner as
well as additional nutritional and financial support during the summer credit recovery
program. (R-A.)
Summer Credit Recovery Program
The summer credit recovery program is not offered remotely to any student and is
only available in the summer. (R-D.) Credit recovery is available during the school year
as well as in the summer. Seniors can also participate in credit recovery after graduation.
The District has programs that allow for an extra year after senior year to obtain all the
credits they need to transfer to a university. 	During the last two weeks of school, the
District has a virtual option for credit recovery.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10920-26
4
K.A. received an email (P-I) that confirmed P.A. was enrolled in virtual school. K.A.
asserts that this virtual school was for the summer credit recovery program. 	The email
for the NJ Virtual School request was issued to all high school students and offered an
online course in personal finance. (R-E; R-F.) It was issued for a specific class and only
for the summer. This class is not a part of the summer credit recovery program. 	P.A.
remains registered for this course, and the course is conducted online.
Privacy Rights
There are 2,000 students at Columbia High School. 	All students are required to
wear their identification on a lanyard for easy identification. If a student is not wearing a
lanyard, school personnel are permitted to take a photograph of the student, for
identification and security purposes only, to ensure that only authorized persons are in
the building. 	A security person employed by the District did take a photograph of P.A.
because he did not present identification upon request. 	The photograph was taken to
assist the administration in identifying the student. (R-C.)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Emergent relief may be granted “where authorized by law and where irreparable
harm will result without an expedited decision granting or providing some action or relief
connected with a contested case. . .” 	N.J.A.C. § 1:1-12.6(a). 	N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b)
codifies the standard for injunctive relief set forth in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982),
which states that (i) the petitioner will suffer irreparable harm if the requested relief is not
granted; (ii) the legal right underlying the petitioner’s claim is settled; (iii) the petitioner
has a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the underlying claim; and (iv) when the
equities and interests of the parties are balanced, the petitioner will suffer greater harm
than the respondent will suffer if the requested relief is not granted. 	See also Crowe v.
DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982). 	The applicant shoulders the burden of satisfying all four
prongs of this test by clear and convincing evidence. Crowe, 90 N.J. at 132–34.
Irreparable harm has been defined as harm that cannot be redressed by monetary
damages. 	Crowe, 90 N.J. at 132−33. 	The petitioner must make a “clear showing of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10920-26
5
immediate irreparable injury” or a “presently existing actual threat.” 	Cont’l. Grp., Inc. v.
Amoco Chems. Corp., 614 F. 2d 351, 359 (D.N.J. 1980). 	The second consideration is
whether the legal right underlying the petitioner’s claim is settled, N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b)(2),
and then, third, the petitioner must make a preliminary showing of a reasonable probability
of success on the merits. Crowe, 90 N.J. at 133. The final prong of Crowe is whether the
equities and interests of the parties weigh in favor of granting the requested relief to the
petitioners.
FERPA
Petitioner argues that the District has been transmitting confidential student data
in violation of the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232,
34 CFR Part 9. FERPA applies to all schools and protects a student’s education records
from being disclosed to third parties without their consent. Id. Petitioner argues that the
emails transmitted by the District were violations of FERPA because they disseminated
private information to people who were not authorized to receive that information. 	The
petitioner’s copies of these emails (P-B; P-C; P-D; P-E; P-F; P-G) do not have any
recipients’ email addresses, dates or subject lines and appear to be responses directly to
petitioner. The emails relate only to P.A. and do not contain any information on any other
student. The District’s copies of these emails (R-A; R-B; R-C; R-D) are more complete,
containing the names and email addresses of all recipients, as well as the dates and times
of transmittal. 	On the District’s copies, all recipients of the emails are employed by the
District and considered to be school officials under FERPA. Petitioner argues that some
of the recipients should not have received the email. 	None of the emails presented
included information for any of the other students, and petitioner did not present any other
evidence to substantiate her claims that the District violated FERPA. Based on the emails
provided, I CONCLUDE that those emails are not a violation of FERPA.
National School Lunch Program
Petitioner also argues that the District is in non-compliance with the National
School Lunch Program and Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) under N.J.S.A.
18A:33-24. Every school district, where more than fifty percent of the enrolled students

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10920-26
6
are eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch, can become a sponsor or site for the
SFSP. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:33-24(1)(a). 	The regulations do not state that the District must
provide lunch or cafeteria services. The regulations only provide that if the District meets
the criteria, the District can become a distribution site for the free or reduced-price lunch.
The District has certified that fewer than fifty percent of its enrolled students qualify for
the free or reduced-price lunch. Therefore, the regulation is not applicable to the District.
Even if the regulations applied to the District, they do not mandate that the District must
provide lunch. 	Rather, the regulations state that the District can apply to become a
sponsor or a site for the SFSP. I CONCLUDE that N.J.S.A. 18A: 33-24 is not applicable
to the District because there are fewer than fifty percent of their enrolled students who
qualify for free or reduced-price lunch.
Petitioner argues that the District must provide meal services because students
are at school for five and a half hours. Under N.J.S.A. 18A:33-4, the District must make
school lunch available to all students enrolled during the school year. The summer credit
recovery program is not during the school year, and therefore, the District is not mandated
to offer school lunch for this program. 	The District does provide individually wrapped
snacks, water and a fifteen-minute break for students. 	I CONCLUDE that meal service
is not required during the summer credit recovery program.
School Safety/Privacy
Petitioner alleges that the security staff employs improper practices at Columbia
High School in violation of N.J.A.C. 6A:16. Petitioner states that a security officer took a
photograph of her son while he was in the restroom at the high school. The District argues
that the security personnel took the photograph of the student because the student did
not present identification and was alleged to be smoking in the restroom. 	The District
also argues that security personnel are permitted to take a photograph, solely for
identification purposes, of any student who does not have their student identification.
N.J.A.C. 6A:16 et seq. governs programs to support program development at
schools. Subchapter 5 addresses school safety and security plans and requires districts
to develop and implement protocols for the safety and security of the school population.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10920-26
7
These safety protocols relate to potential emergencies within the school and are
inapplicable to the issue at hand. Here, there was one incident of a photograph taken by
a security person, and the District explained the purpose behind the photograph.
Petitioner has not presented any other evidence of photographs taken by security
personnel in the restrooms. 	Based on the evidence presented, I CONCLUDE that the
petitioner has failed to prove that the single photograph taken by security personnel is an
improper systemic practice or a violation of privacy and that this single incident has not
caused any irreparable harm.
Home Instruction
Petitioner argues that the District must provide remote academic access to the
summer credit recovery program and relies on N.J.A.C.6A:16-10.1. 	The District must
provide home instruction if there is a temporary or chronic health condition, if the parent
presents documentary evidence from a physician, and the school physician has verified
the need for home instruction. N.J.A.C. 6A:16-10.1 (a)(1). There are no other regulations
that provide for home instruction that are applicable to the summer credit recovery
program. Petitioner has not provided any physician’s note requesting home instruction.
Petitioner has failed to provide any proof that P.A. has been excluded from the
summer credit recovery program. 	The District argues that home instruction is not
available for the summer credit recovery program and that even if it were available,
petitioner has not provided a doctor’s note requesting home instruction under the
applicable regulations. 	Most importantly, the District has demonstrated that P.A. has
been encouraged to attend, that they have offered nutritional and financial support to
encourage his attendance, and that they have attempted to discuss the issues in greater
detail with petitioner, and she has refused. 	The District cannot compel his attendance;
they can only offer their encouragement that he attend and provide additional meal
support while in attendance.
Petitioner argues that she has voluntarily withheld P.A. from the summer credit
recovery program because he was approved for virtual school. 	The gravamen of
petitioner’s argument is that P.A. will not have sufficient credits in his classes if he does

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10920-26
8
not receive these credits through the summer credit recovery program, and she does not
want him to attend school without being provided meal service as required by SFSP. The
District argues that credit recovery is available during the school year as well as in the
summer. 	Seniors can also participate in credit recovery after graduation. 	The District
has programs that allow for an extra year after senior year to obtain all the credits they
need to transfer to a university.
Petitioner relies on the email from Petroccia that the District confirmed P.A. was
approved for virtual instruction. The District argues that this email was sent to all students
who requested enrollment in the online personal finance class. It is limited to one class
and is not a part of the summer credit recovery program.
P.A. has two remaining years at school, and during this time, there are multiple
options available to him for credit recovery. The District is not obligated to provide meal
service. 	They are currently providing individually wrapped snacks and have offered
additional nutritional services for P.A. Summer credit recovery is not the only way for P.A.
to obtain the credits he needs, and there is no immediate, irreparable injury to P.A. that
must be cured by emergent relief. 	Based on the evidence and testimony presented,
petitioner has not shown that there is irreparable harm, a well-settled legal right, or a
probability of success on the merits. 	Further, the balance of equities does not weigh in
favor of the petitioner.
Petitioner has not met all four conditions set forth in Crowe, as codified in N.J.A.C.
6A:3-1.6(b). 	Therefore, I CONCLUDE that petitioner is not entitled to emergency relief
as requested, and the petitioner’s request for emergency relief is DENIED.
ORDER
Based on the above discussion and conclusions of law, the petitioner has not met
the burden of establishing the right to emergent relief, as she has failed to prevail on all
four factors of Crowe, and I ORDER that the petition for emergency relief is DENIED. The
case will now be scheduled for plenary hearing on the underlying due process petition
under a separate prehearing order.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10920-26
9
This Order on application for emergency relief 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. 	The final decision shall be issued
without undue delay, but no later than forty-five days following the entry of this order. 	If
the COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION does not adopt, modify
or reject this order within forty-five days, this recommended order shall become a final
decision on the issue of emergent relief in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
July 17, 2026
DATE 	PATRICE E. HOBBS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	July 17, 2026
Date Mailed to Parties: 	July 17, 2026

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10920-26
10
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For petitioner:
K.A., petitioner
For respondent:
None
Exhibits
For petitioner:
P-A 	Original Administrative Complaint and Chronological Timeline, dated
6/30/26
P-B 	Initial Formal Grievance to South Orange-Maplewood School District,
dated 6/27/26
P-C 	Supplemental Grievance to South Orange-Maplewood School District,
dated 6/28/26
P-D 	District Communications Regarding Meal Access, Summer Program, and
Related Concerns, dated 6/29/26–7/1/26
P-E 	McKinney-Vento Correspondence Regarding Summer Meal Assistance
P-F 	Summer School Remote Coursework Correspondence, dated June 30,
2026
P-G 	Attendance Reporting and Restroom Incident Correspondence, dated
5/5/26−5/8/26
P-H 	New Jersey Department of Education and Office of Administrative Law
correspondence, dated 7/1/26−7/8/26
P-I 	Email from Elizabeth Petroccia approving Virtual School, dated 6/16/26

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10920-26
11
For respondent:
R-A 	March 22−23, 2026, email chain between petitioner and the District
R-B 	May 5, 2026, email chain between petitioner and the District
R-C 	May 7−8, 2026, email chain between petitioner and the District
R-D 	June 30, 2026, email chain between petitioner and the District
R-E 	Letter from Principal Sanchez re: NJ Virtual Online Finance Course
R-F 	June 29, 2026, Principal Sanchez email responding to Petitioner’s concerns
R-G 	Columbia High School Flyer for NJ Virtual School Online Finance