P.V., on behalf of minor child, T.S. v. Board of Education of the Township of Verona, Essex County, 7/8/2022, (#168-22)

168-22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
P.V., on behalf of minor child, T.S.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Verona,
Essex County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner challenged the respondent Board’s decision to deny her minor child, T.S., admission into the
Verona High School National Honor Society (NHS). Following an emergent hearing via Zoom on May 20, 2022,
the record closed. The parties agreed during the proceedings that no underlying issues remain in this matter.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: T.S. – a junior at Verona High School – applied for admission to the school’s NHS
in 2022; membership in the NHS is conferred upon students in recognition of outstanding accomplishments in
scholarship, leadership, character, and service; in April 2022, T.S. was denied admission because his “student
conduct record is inconsistent with the character requirements of the NHS.”; this determination stemmed
from a one day, in-school suspension during T.S.’s freshman year, issued following an in-class remark directed
at his Spanish teacher; petitioner’s assertion that her child’s chances of admission to selective colleges will be
impacted by the fact that he is not a member of NHS is speculative and not supported by the record; N.J.A.C.
6A:3-1.6(b) sets forth the standards governing motions for emergent relief, and instructs that parties seeking
such relief must meet all of the four standards enunciated in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982); petitioner
here has failed to meet all four of the required standards for emergent relief. Accordingly, the ALJ denied
petitioner’s request for emergent relief.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s conclusion that petitioner has not met the standards
for emergent relief. Further, as the parties agreed during the proceedings that no underlying issues remain, no
further proceedings are necessary to bring this matter to a close. Accordingly, the petition of appeal 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.

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 03920-22
Agency Dkt. No. 87-4/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
P.V., on behalf of minor child, T.S.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Verona,
Essex County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) have
been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon such review, and for the reasons detailed in the Initial Decision, 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 (1982), and codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6.
Furthermore, as the parties agreed during the proceedings at the OAL that there are no underlying
issues that remain, no further proceedings are necessary to bring this matter to a close.
Accordingly, the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
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.
168-22
July 8, 2022
July 8, 2022

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03920-22
AGENCY DKT. NO. 087-04-22
P.V. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD, T.S.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP
OF VERONA, ESSEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
____________________________
P.V., petitioner, pro se
Daniel Roberts, Esq., for respondent (Kenney, Gross Kovats & Parton, attorneys)
Record Closed: May 20, 2022 	Decided: 	May 23, 2022
BEFORE JULIO C. MOREJON, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, P.V. on behalf of T.S. (student), seeks an order by way of emergent
relief, to reverse the decision of respondent, Board of Education of the Township of
Verona (the District or the Board), denying the student admission into the Verona High
School, National Honor Society.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03920-22
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On 	April 	22, 	2022, 	petitioner, 	filed 	a 	petition 	of 	appeal 	(petition) 	with 	the
Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Controversies and
Disputes (Department of Education). Thereafter, on May 16, 2022, petitioner converted
the petition to an emergent petition, seeking emergent relief pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A-31.6.
The Department of Education then transferred this matter to the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) and the same was filed at the OAL on May 16, 2022, as an emergent and
contested matter. The parties agree that there are no other underlying issues that remain.
A telephonic status conference was held on May 18, 2022, and the parties agreed
to conduct oral argument on May 20, 2022, to allow time for the submission of respective
legal briefs.
Oral argument was scheduled remotely via zoom on May 20, 2022. Petitioner and
the student appeared at oral argument and were placed under oath and presented oral
statements concerning petitioner’s application herein. 	The Board did not present any
witness and relied on its opposition brief filed herein. The record closed on May 20, 2022.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
The following essential facts in this matter are not in dispute. 	The student is a
junior in the eleventh grade at Verona High School. When the student was a freshman
in the ninth grade, Verona High School issued a one-day in school suspension of the
student related to his conduct in class. Specifically, the student made an in-class remark
directed at his Spanish class teacher, which resulted in his suspension. 	The student
stated that he and the teacher presented their respective versions of the incident to the
vice principal, who then issued the one-day in school suspension. Petitioner stated that
the student has not been issued any other disciplinary suspension.
Petitioner confirmed that Verona Highs School notified her of the suspension, and
she had several discussions with the vice principal regarding her objection to the student’s
suspension. Petitioner stated that she was not aware at the time that a suspension could

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03920-22
3
lead to the student being denied admission into the Verona High School National Honor
Society (NHS). Petitioner argues further that the school should not have issued a “Level
III” suspension against the student, as his conduct was more in line with a “Level II”
suspension. 	The Petitioner did not appeal the suspension to the State Department of
Education under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i), as she claims she “was not made aware” of the
same by the vice principal.
The Verona High School NHS guidelines for student induction and participation
membership in the NHS follows the same 	criteria as the National 	NHS chapter.
Membership is limited to juniors and seniors and is conferred upon students in recognition
of outstanding accomplishments in scholarship, leadership, character, and service.
Induction and continued participation in the NHS are based upon the criteria in the Verona
High School NHS by-laws, and Student Handbook.
In 2022, the student applied for admission into the NHS, as well as subject NHS
membership, which Verona High School also maintains. Petitioner also presented an
email from Paula Ramos Santiago addressed to the student informing him that his
application to the Science National Honor Society was denied because of his past school
offense. 	(P-2). 	(No 	other 	documents 	regarding 	the 	subject 	NHS 	chapters 	were
presented.)
By letter dated April 29, 2022, (April 29 letter) the student was informed that he
was denied admission into the NHS because his “student conduct record is inconsistent
with the character requirements of the NHS.” (P-1). The April 29 letter also provided the
student an opportunity to meet with the NHS advisors to “understand the reason for
denial”, and “advocate for themselves (Id.). Petitioner and the student did not meet with
the NHS advisors, and petitioner filed the within petition on April 1
1 It is noted that although not addressed in the papers filed herein, or at oral argument, petitioner filed the
within petition dated April 13, 2022, on April 22, 2022, and Verona High School notified the student on April
29, 2022, that he was denied admission into the NHS (P-1).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03920-22
4
Petitioner argues that the student’s denial in the NHS and the subject NHS
chapters are unfair and will have a “detrimental effect” on the student’s admission into an
elite college or university. 	Petitioner bases her argument on the competitive college
application process as any college that the student applies to will “question” why the
student is not on the NHS despite his academic record. 	Petitioner argues that Verona
High School does not report the student’s disciplinary record on his school transcript and
the colleges are therefore, not made aware of the same.
The District argues that petitioner’s written submission does not address any of the
applicable factors for emergent relief set forth in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982),
and instead appears to contest whether the student’s prior suspension was warranted.
The District argues further that emergent relief cannot be granted in this matter as
petitioner 	has 	not 	alleged 	irreparable 	harm 	with 	any 	specificity, 	except 	a 	purely
“speculative belief” that Verona High School’s denial of the student in the NHS will
detrimentally effect the student’s ability to apply to college. 	The District argues further
that lacking any demonstrable factual support, this belief is not sufficient to demonstrate
irreparable harm, and further the student is a junior student, and is eligible to apply for
admission to the National Honor Society his senior year.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b) sets forth the standards governing motions for emergent
relief. The regulation instructs in salient part:
A motion for a stay or emergent relief shall be accompanied
by a letter memorandum or brief which shall address the
following standards be met for granting such relief pursuant to
Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982):
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 the likelihood of prevailing on the merits of
the underlying claim; and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03920-22
5
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.
[N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b).]
Petitioner has the burden of establishing each of the above requirements in order
to warrant relief in her favor.
Irreparable harm
Turning to the first criteria, it is well settled that relief should not be granted except
“when necessary to prevent irreparable harm.” 	Crowe, 90 N.J. at 132. 	In this regard,
harm is generally considered irreparable if it cannot be adequately redressed by monetary
damages. Id. at 132-33. In other words, it has been described as “‘substantial injury to
a material degree coupled with the inadequacy of money damages.’” Judice’s Sunshine
Pontiac, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 418 F. Supp. 1212, 1218 (D.N.J. 1976) (citation
omitted). See New Jersey Dep’t of Environmental Protection v. Circle Carting, Inc., 2004
N.J. AGEN LEXIS 968 (April 2, 2004) (finding no irreparable harm in connection with the
revocation of respondent’s solid waste license in that financial loss is generally insufficient
to demonstrate this requirement). 	The moving party bears the burden of proving
irreparable 	harm. 	More 	than 	a 	risk 	of 	irreparable 	harm must 	be 	demonstrated.
Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F. 2d 351, 359 (D.N.J. 1980).
The requisite for injunctive relief is 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 common law.’” Ibid. (citation omitted.)
In the instant matter, I CONCLUDE there has not been a showing of “immediate
irreparable injury” or a “presently existing actual threat”. 	Petitioner’s argument that the
student’s opportunities to attend college will be harmed because he has been denied
admission 	to 	the 	NHS is 	unsubstantiated 	by 	the 	record 	presented 	before 	me. 	I
CONCLUDE that no proofs were presented by petitioner that would satisfy the first prong

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03920-22
6
in Crowe, and I therefore CONCLUDE that petitioner has not demonstrated that the
student will suffer irreparable harm if the requested relief is not granted.
Right to the underlying claim must be settled
A board of education's actions are entitled to a presumption of lawfulness and good
faith. In challenges to board actions, the challenger bears the burden of proving that such
acts were unlawful, arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 	Schuster v. Bd. of Educ.
Montgomery Twp., 96 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 670, 676 (citing Schnick v. Westwood Ed. of
Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 448 (App. Div. 1960), and Quinlan v. Bd. of Educ. of North Bergen
Twp., 73 N.J. Super. 40 (App. Div. 1962).
In the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion, the Commissioner of
Education will not substitute his or her own judgment for that of the board of education.
Massaro v. Bd. of Educ. of the Boro. of Bergenfield, 1 965 S.L.D. 84, 85. In Kopera v. Bd.
of Educ. of West Orange, 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App. Div. 1960), the Appellate Division
stated, "the well-established rule that action of the local board [of education] which lies
within the area of its discretionary powers may not be upset unless patently without
rational basis or induced by improper motives."
Given this standard in Crowe, that the legal right underlying petitioner’s claim is
settled, it is particularly notable that petitioner fails to cite any precedent whatsoever for
holding that petitioner has an underlying legal right to admission to the National Honor
Society. 	To the contrary, the Commissioner of Education has recognized, admissions
criteria to the National Honor Society are matters of local determination for each school
district, and the Commissioner will not substitute his judgment for that of the school district
except where the District’s actions are arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. J.B.A. and
A.M.A. v. Bernardsville Board of Education, 4 N.J.A.R. at 152. An applicant must meet
the applicable standards for entry into the National Honor Society, and that admission is
not so “automatic” as to be considered a “right.” Id. See also Roberts Cert, Ex. A, National
Honor Society Handbook, 2020 P. 41 Terminology (noting that admission is “not a right”),
P49 (again noting admission is not a right), P99 (legal memorandum addressing “legal
right” to entry into NHS). 	Clearly, therefore, in light of NHS own procedures, petitioner

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03920-22
7
cannot demonstrate an underlying legal right to the requested admission, mandating that
emergent relief be denied.
I CONCLUDE that petitioner has failed to establish a right to the underlying claim
has been settled.
Likelihood of prevailing on the merits
Emergent relief requires petitioner to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the
merits of the underlying claim, and when significant factual issues exist, petitioner cannot
prevail. 	Petitioner has not set forth exactly how she is likely to prevail on the merits of
this matter. 	At best, her underlying legal argument is that the student should not have
received what she terms an “indoor suspension,” and if he did not, he would have been
accepted into National Honor Society. The issue of suspension of the student is moot as
petitioner admits that she did not file a timely appeal with the Department of Education
under N.J.A.C. 6a:3-1.3(i).
I CONCLUDE that petitioner has failed to establish that she has a likelihood of
prevailing on the merits.
Balancing of the Equities
The student admitted that he was suspended his freshman year related to his
conduct and petitioner has admitted that she did not appeal the suspension at the time
because she was not aware she could. The time to appeal the student suspension has
passed and petitioner has failed to present any proofs that they were denied due process
to challenge the suspension. 	The petition filed herein seeks emergent relief to reverse
the decision of Verona High School to admit the student in the NHS, not litigate the prior
suspension.
Petitioner must demonstrate that the student will suffer more significant harm than
the Board if this tribunal does not grant petitioner the requested relief. However, no proofs
have been presented that admission into the NHS alone will guarantee or enhance the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03920-22
8
student’s prospects of admission into a college of his choosing. The Board has set forth
the standards for admission into the Verona High School NHS, which are set forth in the
National NHS chapter, which are: academic eligibility, service, leadership, and character.
(Exhibit A, Certification of Counsel). In applying these criteria the Board has determined
that the student’s prior “student conduct record is inconsistent with the character
requirements of the NHS”. 	Under the circumstances of this matter, I CONCLUDE that
the Board’s interests outweigh the student’s interest in seeking admission into the NHS.
For the reasons set forth herein, I CONCLUDE that petitioner is not entitled to
emergent relief because the proofs submitted fail to establish all of the necessary
elements to grant emergency relief under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b), and as set forth in Crowe
v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that petitioner’s request for emergent relief is DENIED.
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 03920-22
9
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.
May 23, 2022
DATE 	JULIO C. MOREJON, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	May 23, 2022
Date Mailed to Parties: 	May 23, 2022
lr