E.B., on behalf of minor child, A.B. v. Board of Education of the Township of Hainesport, Burlington County, 6/13/25 (#305-25E)

305-25E
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 09171-25
Agency Dkt. No. 160-5/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Order on Emergent Relief
E.B., on behalf of minor child, A.B.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Hainesport,
Burlington County,
Respondent.
The record of this emergent matter and the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) have been reviewed and considered.
Upon such 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 for the reasons stated therein. This matter shall continue at the Office of Administrative Law
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: 	June 13, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	June 16, 2025

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
ORDER DENYING
EMERGENT RELIEF
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09171-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 160-5/25
E.B. ON BEHALF OF A.B.,
Petitioner,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF HAINESPORT
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Respondent.
E.B., petitioner, pro se
Cherie L. Adams, Esq., for respondent (Adams Lattiboudere Croot & Herman,
LLC, attorneys)
BEFORE WILLIAM T. COOPER III, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
E.B. (petitioner) brings an action for emergent relief against the Board of Education
of the Township of Hainesport (respondent) challenging the imposition of a penalty
imposed on her minor child, A.B., because of A.B.’s involvement in an incident with two
other students that occurred on May 20, 2025. A.B. served a two-day suspension from
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09171-25
2
school on May 21, 2025, and May 22, 2025, and was barred from attending a class field
trip to the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia on May 30, 2025.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 21, 2025, the petitioner was verbally advised of the penalty and the reason
it was being imposed. On May 22, 2025, the petitioner appealed to the school
superintendent, arguing that the imposition of a two-day suspension and the ban from the
class field trip were unfair. The superintendent upheld the penalty imposed, finding that
it was consistent with school policy.
On May 23, 2025, the petitioner filed a request for emergent relief at the
Department of Education, Office of Controversies and Disputes, challenging the discipline
imposed. The matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where
on May 23, 2025, it was filed as a contested case seeking emergent relief. N.J.S.A.
52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
Oral arguments regarding the application for emergent relief were conducted on
May 29, 2025.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
The following facts are not in dispute, therefore, I find the following as FACT:
A.B. is a ten-year-old fourth-grade student attending Hainesport Elementary
School.
On May 20, 2025, a fourth-grade teacher observed A.B. and two other students
ingest an unknown substance in a classroom. A school counselor escorted the three
students to the principal’s office. The counselor also had the bag one of the students
used to bring the unknown substance into the school. The three students would not
identify the substance they had ingested. A State Police officer was present in the school
at this time due to an unrelated matter requiring the students and staff to shelter in place.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09171-25
3
The officer inspected the unknown substance but was unable to identify it, indicating that
it had a heavy artificial smell.
Because the toxicity of the substance was unknown, emergency measures were
employed; a shelter-in-place, level two, protocol was initiated until emergency services
arrived. This meant that no one could be in the school hallways, and no one could enter
or leave the building without express permission from administration. This process
caused a disruption to students and staff.
The officer continued to engage the three students, and the student who brought
the substance to school said that it was a laundry cleaning product. The three students
were checked medically and then the principal contacted the parents and advised them
that all three students were being sent home pending further discipline.
A.B. was given a two-day suspension, which he served on May 20 and 21, 2025.
A.B. was also banned from attending the May 30, 2025, fourth-grade class trip to the
Franklin Institute in Philadelphia.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner
Petitioner argues that she does not agree with the proposed penalty because A.B.
was not the student who brought the substance to school, and because he told her that
he only “licked” the substance but did not ingest it. Further, she maintains that a two-day
suspension and not being permitted on the class trip is excessive.
Petitioner argued that A.B will suffer irreparable harm because:
1. The class trip is something A.B. has looked forward to from the beginning
of the school year;

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09171-25
4
2. There are a number of exhibits that the Franklin Institute will be permanently
closing and A.B. may not be able to see ever again;
3. Some of A.B.’s class assignments were centered on current exhibits at the
Franklin Institute and A.B. will miss the opportunity to connect them with his
schoolwork;
4. A.B.’s twin sister and classmates will be attending, and his inability to attend
will be emotional for him.
The petitioner requests emergent relief in the form of an order permitting A.B. to
attend the class trip.
Respondent
The respondent maintains that A.B. and the other students caused a major
disruption to the school environment, and that the incident required two paramedic
ambulance units to be dispatched from Lumberton, N.J., which were visible to the general
public, causing alarm. Further, the respondent maintains that the punishment is within
school-policy limits for this type of offense, and is appropriate based on A.B.’s disciplinary
record. Finally, the respondent argues that the petitioner has failed to meet the criteria
necessary for the granting of emergent relief.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Emergent relief shall be requested only for the following issues:
i. Issues involving a break in the delivery of services;
ii. Issues involving disciplinary action, including
manifestation determinations and determinations of interim
alternate educational settings;
iii. Issues concerning placement pending the outcome of
due process proceedings; and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09171-25
5
iv. Issues involving graduation or participation in
graduation ceremonies.
[N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.7(r)(1).]
Here, the issue involves disciplinary action, thus, emergent relief can be
considered.
The standards for emergent relief are set forth in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126
(1982), and codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b):
1. The petitioner will suffer irreparable harm if the
requested relief is not granted;
2. The legal right underlying petitioner's claim is settled;
3. The petitioner has a likelihood of prevailing on the
merits of the underlying claim; and
4. 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.
The petitioner bears the burden of satisfying all four prongs of this test. Crowe v.
DeGioia, 90 N.J. at 132–34.
The first consideration is whether petitioner will suffer irreparable harm if the
requested relief is not granted. “Irreparable harm is shown when money damages cannot
adequately compensate plaintiff’s injuries.” Hornstine v. Twp. of Moorestown, 263
F. Supp. 2d 887, 911 (D.N.J. 2003) (citing Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974)).
“More than a risk of irreparable harm must be demonstrated.” Cont’l Grp., Inc. v. Amoco
Chems. Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980). “The requisite for injunctive relief has
been characterized as a ‘clear showing of immediate irreparable injury’ or a ‘presently
existing actual threat’; [an injunction] may not be used simply to eliminate a possibility of
a remote future injury, or a future invasion of rights, be those rights protected by statute
or by the common law.” Ibid. (citations omitted). This was further explained by the New
Jersey District Court:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09171-25
6
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must make a clear
showing of immediate irreparable injury. Establishing a risk
of irreparable harm is not enough. A plaintiff has the burden
of proving a clear showing of immediate irreparable injury.
Mere speculation as to an injury that will result, in the absence
of any facts supporting such a claim, is insufficient to
demonstrate irreparable harm.
[Spacemax Int’l LLC v. Core Health & Fitness, LLC, 2013 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 154638 at 2 (D.N.J. Oct. 28, 2013) (internal
citations and quotations omitted).]
Here, irreparable harm has not been established by the petitioner. The petitioner
believes that her son serving a two-day suspension and not being permitted on the fourth-
grade class trip is an excessive penalty. However, these assertions alone are insufficient
to support a claim of irreparable harm. While it is recognized that A.B. likely will be
disappointed in missing the class trip to the Franklin Institute, that does not support the
claim that A.B. will suffer irreparable harm.
I CONCLUDE that the petitioner has not met her burden of establishing irreparable
harm.
The second consideration is whether the petitioner has shown her claim to be
well settled. The petitioner challenges the discipline rendered by respondent because of
A.B.’s involvement in the ingestion of an unknown substance while in the classroom. The
three students admitted to ingesting the substance but were not immediately forthcoming
in identifying what the substance was. Their actions necessitated a school-wide shelter-
in-place protocol being put into effect, and a call for paramedical services to respond to
the school. These actions caused a disruption to school operations and an inconvenience
to other students and staff.
Local boards of education are responsible for protecting the health, safety, and
welfare of their students and ensuring the orderly conduct of the academic process. Goss
v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975). To accomplish this, such boards are empowered to
establish rules of conduct and impose discipline to enforce such rules. It is established

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09171-25
7
that the actions of a board of education that lie within the area of their discretionary
powers, especially as they relate to matters of student discipline, cannot be upset unless
there is a showing that the discipline imposed was arbitrary, capricious, without a rational
basis, or induced by improper motives. J.M. v. Hunterdon Cent. Reg. High Sch. Dist., 96
N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 415, 419 (citing Kopera v. West Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super.
288 (App. Div. 1960)).
Here, the petitioner argues that the discipline imposed is excessive, while
respondent counters that it is consistent with school policy.
Based upon the limited record at this stage of the proceedings, I cannot conclude
that the discipline imposed was arbitrary, capricious, without a rational basis, or induced
by improper motives.
I CONCLUDE that the petitioner has not shown that the discipline imposed was
arbitrary, capricious, without a rational basis, or induced by improper motives.
The third consideration is whether petitioner has a likelihood of prevailing on the
merits. It is well settled that the decisions of local boards of education are to stand
undisturbed unless shown to be patently “arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by
improper motives.” J.M., 96 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) at 419 (citing Kopera, 60 N.J. Super. 288).
Here, the petitioner argues that the discipline imposed is excessive. The
respondent argues that the incident A.B. was involved in, together with the need to deter
such incidents in the future, justifies the discipline rendered. The petitioner has failed to
show that respondent’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, without rational basis, or
induced by improper motives.
I CONCLUDE that the petitioner has not shown a likelihood of prevailing on the
merits at this point in the proceedings.
The fourth consideration entails a balancing of interests between the parties.
Petitioner argues that the discipline issued by the respondent is excessive and will have

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09171-25
8
a detrimental impact on A.B. However, the respondent has an obligation to all the
students, and the petitioner’s arguments fail to recognize that A.B.’s actions had a
negative impact on other students. Further, petitioner fails to recognize respondent’s
need to deter similar behavior in the future.
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that the equities weigh in favor of respondent.
Having considered the parties’ arguments and submissions, I CONCLUDE that the
petitioner has not met all four prongs of the standard for entitlement to emergency relief.
For the foregoing reasons, I CONCLUDE that the request for emergent relief must be
denied.
It is ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for emergent relief is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that a telephone pre-hearing conference has been
scheduled for June 30, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. a notice will be sent separately.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09171-25
9
This order on application for emergency relief may be adopted, modified or
rejected by 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
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.
May 30, 2025
DATE WILLIAM T. COOPER III, ALJ
Date Received at Agency
Date Mailed to Parties:
WTC/am

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09171-25
10
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For petitioner
None
For respondent
None
Exhibits
For petitioner
Petition for Emergent Relief and Expedited Relief and supporting documents
For respondent
Response to Emergent Relief Request, legal memorandum, and appendix