In the Matter of the Certificates of Sharonda Allen, State Board of Examiners, New Jersey Department of Education, 7/1/2024, (#252-24)

252-24
State Board of Examiners Dkt. No. 1920-179
Agency Dkt. No. 5-2/24A
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of the Certificates of
Sharonda Allen, State Board of Examiners,
New Jersey Department of Education.
Order of Suspension by the State Board of Examiners, January 19, 2024
For the Respondent-Appellant, Sanford R. Oxfeld, Oxfeld Cohen, P.C.
For the Petitioner-Respondent State Board of Examiners, David L. Kalisky, Deputy
Attorney General (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey)
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and papers filed in connection with appellant
Sharonda 	Allen’s 	appeal 	of 	the 	Order 	of 	the 	State 	Board 	of 	Examiners 	(Board), 	dated
January 19, 2024, suspending her Teacher of Elementary School Certificate of Eligibility, Teacher of
Elementary School Certificate, Teacher of Social Studies Certificate, and Supervisor Certificate, for
one year. Appellant was a tenured special education teacher at the East Orange Board of Education.
East Orange certified tenure charges against appellant and, following an arbitration, the Arbitrator
sustained Count Eight, determined that appellant was guilty of insubordination and unbecoming
conduct, and recommended that she be terminated from her teaching position.
In Count Eight, East Orange alleged that Allen jeopardized the safety of a student, S.B., by
disclosing the student’s full name to another student with the intent to have the student harassed,
intimidated, or bullied, as retaliation for her suspension. The Arbitrator found that it was undisputed
that appellant disclosed S.B.’s full name to another student. The Arbitrator also found that, following

2
the disclosure, S.B.’s mother feared for S.B.’s safety and requested that the student be transferred to
another school. The Arbitrator further found that appellant intended to intimidate S.B. and defied
directives not to discuss the matter involving S.B. with parents or students. The Arbitrator rejected
appellant’s claim that it was necessary for her to disclose S.B.’s full name so that students could report
the fact that S.B. lied about a 2018 incident which resulted in appellant’s suspension and transfer as
incredible. 	Ultimately, the Arbitrator concluded that appellant should be terminated from her
teaching position and found that she had not expressed any remorse for her actions.
Subsequently, the matter was referred to the Board to determine whether appellant’s
conduct warranted action against her certificates. The Board concluded that the doctrine of collateral
estoppel required it to accept the facts found in the tenure hearing by the Arbitrator and that those
facts provided just cause to suspend appellant’s certificates. 	In weighing whether to revoke or
suspend appellant’s certificates, the Board determined that appellant’s conduct indicated a serious
lapse in judgment. However, the Board acknowledged that the incident was an isolated event. The
Board also considered mitigating evidence presented by appellant, including successes during her
fifteen-year teaching career, awards and honors she received, and her continued dedication to the
community. Accordingly, the Board found that revocation was not appropriate and instead ordered
that appellant’s certificates be suspended for one year.
On appeal, appellant argues that the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, and not
supported by sufficient credible evidence and that the imposition of a one-year suspension of her
certificates was therefore excessive under the circumstances. Appellant claims primarily that the
Board did not give appropriate weight to certifications she submitted to provide “additional context”
regarding the unbecoming conduct. While she concedes that she made a mistake, she emphasizes
that no harm resulted from the unbecoming conduct, and that it did not result in a harassment,

3
intimidation, or bullying (HIB) investigation by the district or a report to the Department of Children
and Families’ Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit (IAIU).
In reviewing appeals from decisions of the State Board of Examiners, the Commissioner may
not substitute his judgment for that of the Board so long as the appellant received due process and
the Board’s decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. The Commissioner’s
role in reviewing appeals is constrained by N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a), which specifies that “the
Commissioner shall ascertain whether the decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the
record and shall not disturb the decision unless the appellant has demonstrated that the State Board
of Examiners . . . acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” See Morison
v. Willingboro Bd. of Educ., 478 N.J. Super. 229, 238 (App. Div. 2024) (citing N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a)).
After a comprehensive review of the record, the Commissioner finds that the record contains
sufficient credible evidence to support the Board’s determination that appellant engaged in
unbecoming conduct and that a one-year suspension is the appropriate penalty. 	As the Board
correctly concluded, the doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes appellant from relitigating the issue
of unbecoming conduct, as appellant—who was represented by counsel—had a full and fair
opportunity to contest this finding during the tenure proceeding. Moreover, appellant unsuccessfully
challenged the Arbitrator’s decision in the Appellate Division, and that court concluded that there
was sufficient credible evidence in the record to support the Arbitrator’s factual findings pertaining
to Count Eight. Allen v. E. Orange Bd. of Educ., 2022 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 174 at *12-13 (App. Div.
Feb. 4, 2022), certif. denied, 252 N.J. 371 (2022). The Commissioner finds no basis to dispute the
Arbitrator’s 	findings, 	particularly 	when 	the 	Appellate 	Division 	has 	affirmed 	such 	findings.
Furthermore, the Board’s Order reflects that it fully considered appellant’s certifications and her
claims that the unbecoming conduct did not result in HIB or IAIU investigations. Appellant has not

4
provided any legal authority to support her contention that the Board somehow erred by not giving
the certifications more weight in its analysis.
Regarding her suspension, appellant contends that the penalty for her unbecoming conduct
should be limited to the loss of her employment with the district and should not affect her ability to
teach elsewhere. 	However, the Appellate Division has affirmed the Board’s ability to revoke or
suspend certificates pursuant to a separate regulatory action even after arbitrated tenure
proceedings result in the imposition of sanctions or penalties. Morison, 478 N.J. Super. at 245-51.
Appellant also argues that her conduct was much less serious than that of other teachers whose
certificates were suspended and contends that there is no justification for a one-year suspension of
her certificates. But her reliance on In the Matter of the Certificates of Vincent Ajayi, Agency Dkt. No.
1617-121, State Board of Examiners Order of Suspension (March 1, 2018) and In the Matter of the
Certificates of Darnell Coleman, Agency Dkt. No. 1011-178, State Board of Examiners Order of
Suspension (May 16, 2013) is misplaced.
In both Ajayi and Coleman, the respondents committed unbecoming conduct by engaging in
physical altercations with students. 	The Board suspended Ajayi’s certificates for 18 months and
suspended Coleman’s certificates for two years. 	Neither Ajayi nor Coleman support appellant’s
contention that a one-year suspension of her certificates—under entirely different factual
circumstances—was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 	A physical altercation is not a
prerequisite to a suspension of one’s certificates, and the fact that appellant did not engage in a
physical altercation with a student does not require the Commissioner to conclude that a one-year
suspension of her certificates is unreasonable. 	Moreover, the Board has previously suspended
certificates in matters involving teachers who exercised poor judgment by engaging in inappropriate
discussions with students. See, e.g., In re Certificates of Zantow, Agency Dkt. No. 0607-126, State Bd.

5
of Exam’rs Order of Suspension at 5 (July 28, 2008) (imposing one-year suspension of certificates); In
re Certificates of Skerbetz, Agency Dkt. No. 0405-315 State Bd. of Exam’rs Order of Suspension at 5-6
(February 22, 2007) (imposing one-year suspension of certificates).
Finally, appellant suggests that if a penalty is warranted, a more appropriate consequence
would be a censure or reprimand. This contention is likewise unavailing, as the Board’s regulations
expressly permit revocation or suspension of certificates; they do not empower the Board to issue
censures or reprimands. See N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.4; Morison, 478 N.J. Super. at 237. There is nothing in
the record to suggest that the Board’s decision to suspend appellant’s certificates for one year was
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Accordingly, the decision of the State Board of Examiners suspending appellant’s certificates
for one year is affirmed.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	July 1, 2024
Date of Mailing: 	July 3, 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.

IN THE MATTER OF 	: 	NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
THE CERTIFICATE OF 	: 	STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS
SHARONDA ALLEN 	: 	ORDER OF SUSPENSION
_______________________ : 	DOCKET NO: 1920-179
At its meeting of May 14, 2020, the State Board of Examiners (Board) reviewed a decision
forwarded by the Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) that had dismissed Sharonda Allen
from her tenured position as a special education teacher with the East Orange Board of Education
(East Orange). 	In the Matter of the Tenure Hearing of Sharonda Allen, Dkt. No. 140-6/19
(Arbitrator’s Decision, December 27, 2019). 	Allen currently holds a Teacher of Elementary
School Certificate of Eligibility, issued in April 2001; a Teacher Elementary School certificate,
issued in October 2002; a Teacher of Social Studies certificate, issued in December 2003; and a
Supervisor certificate, issued in April 2014.
East Orange certified tenure charges against Allen alleging unbecoming conduct and other
just cause. Ibid. East Orange alleged, in counts one through seven, that Allen failed to perform
required duties and responsibilities, displayed unprofessional and inappropriate behavior in her
interactions with students, and insubordinate behavior in her interactions with supervisors. Ibid.
In count eight, East Orange alleged that Allen jeopardized the safety of a student, S.B., by releasing
the name of that student with the intent to have him harassed, intimidated, or bullied. Ibid. The
Arbitrator concluded that East Orange had proven that Allen was guilty of unbecoming conduct.
Ibid.

2
In his decision, dated December 27, 2019 (which is incorporated herein by reference), the
Arbitrator found that East Orange had proven the allegations in count eight of the tenure charges
and dismissed Allen from her tenured employment. Id. at p. 36. There was no dispute that Allen
had clearly identified the full name of student S.B. to a separate student, P.S. Id. at p. 32. Allen’s
communication was purportedly sent via a social media private messaging platform and then
student P.S. more widely disseminated S.B.’s full name, resulting in fear for S.B.’s safety and
S.B.’s mother requesting a transfer for S.B. Ibid.
The Arbitrator determined that Allen’s claim and testimony, that disclosure of S.B.’s name
was necessary so that students could report the fact that S.B. lied about a separate December 5,
2018 incident which resulted in Allen’s suspension and transfer, was incredible. Id. at p. 33. Allen
was intimately involved in the December 5, 2018 incident and she should have grieved her two-
week suspension and “not provide a post-hoc rationalization for disclosing S.B.’s name in th[e
tenure] proceeding.” Ibid. Although Allen argued that there was no evidence that she intended to
harass, intimidate or bully S.B., there was testimony that students approached S.B. after his name
was released and S.B. was subsequently transferred to a different school. 	Id. at p. 33-34. 	The
Arbitrator found that Allen “intended to put undue pressure on S.B., a ninth grade student[,] and
the have S.B. intimidated.” Id. at p. 34.
The Arbitrator concluded, based on aspects of the record that were “extraordinarily
troubling,” that termination was necessary. 	Id. at p. 35. 	One of the aspects highlighted by the
arbitrator was that Allen did not express any remorse for her actions. Ibid. Allen filed suit, with
the New Jersey Superior Court, seeking to vacate the arbitration result. The trial court dismissed
her complaint. 	Sharonda Allen v. East rand Board of Education, Essex County, Dkt. No. C-

3
000052-20. On appeal, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, in a decision dated
February 4, 2022, affirmed the award of termination. 	Sharonda Allen v. East Orange Board of
Education, Essex County, Dkt. No. A-3995-19 (App. Div. February 4, 2022), cert. denied
(December 6, 2022). In so doing, the court noted that the “record shows that [Allen] demonstrated
conduct which would permit a factfinder to conclude that she was unfit to perform the duties of a
schoolteacher.” Id. at p. 16.
Upon review of the above information, the Board voted at its meeting of May 14, 2020 to
issue Allen an Order to Show Cause as to why her certificates should not be revoked. The Board
sent Allen the Order to Show Cause by regular and certified mail on July 1, 2020. The Order to
Show Cause provided that Allen must file an Answer within 30 days. On July 20, 2020, Allen
requested the Order to Show Cause be held in abeyance pending the outcome of an appeal of the
Arbitration Decision. The Board granted Allen’s request on July 29, 2020. Allen filed an Answer
to the Order to Show Cause on February 15, 2023.
In her Answer, Allen admitted that tenure charges had been brought against her, that the
Arbitrator concluded that Allen should be terminated, and that she was dismissed from her
employment based on the one count of the tenure charges that the Arbitrator sustained. (Answer,
¶¶ 2, 6, 7). 	Allen stated that the Arbitrator’s Decision dismissed seven of the eight counts
contained in the tenure charges. 	(Answer, ¶ 4). 	Allen denied that she engaged in unbecoming
conduct and argued she was not given the opportunity to defend against certain allegations during
the tenure hearing. 	(Answer, ¶¶ 6, 7). 	Allen also denied there was just cause to revoke her
certificates. (Answer, ¶ 8).

4
Thereafter, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.6(e), on March 27, 2023, the Board sent Allen a
hearing notice by regular and certified mail. The notice explained that it appeared that no material
facts were in dispute. Thus, Allen was offered an opportunity to submit written arguments on the
issue of whether the conduct addressed in the Order to Show Cause constituted conduct
unbecoming a certificate holder, as well as arguments with regard to the appropriate sanction in
the event that the Board found just cause to take action against his certificate. 	Allen was also
offered the opportunity to appear before the Board to provide testimony on the sanction issue.
Allen filed a response on June 16, 2023.
In that response, Allen claimed that the conduct for which she was found guilty of by the
arbitrator, releasing S.B.’s name to student P.S. with the intent to have S.B. harassed, intimidated,
or bullied, does not warrant revocation or suspension of her certificates. (Hearing Response, p. 2,
12). She acknowledges that she cannot challenge the arbitrator’s factual findings in this forum.
Id. at 12. She states she “deeply regrets releasing S.B.’s name to another student in the midst of
her employment issues with [East Orange].” Id. at 2. She offers two certifications, one by herself
and one by student P.S., to provide an explanation and to add context to the situation. Ibid. Student
P.S. certifies that he had no malintent towards S.B. and was only trying to help Allen regain her
position at the high school. Ibid. Allen certified that she had been unfairly transferred away from
her students at the high school and was desperate to find a way back. Id. at 2-3. She claims that
there is no evidence that releasing S.B.’s name resulted in any harm to anyone, including S.B. Id.
at 3. 	She reiterates that she made a mistake and regrets her mistake in judgment. 	Ibid. 	She
recognizes that the proper action would have been to decline student P.S.’s request and handle it
through more appropriate channels. Id. at 23. She states she was never criminally charged, nor

5
was she ever the subject of a harassment, intimidation, and bullying (“HIB”) complaint or an
Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit (“IAIU”) investigation. Ibid. She claims that, based on the
totality of the circumstances, there is no just cause to take action against her certificates. Id. at 15.
As to mitigation, Allen claims she has already suffered the loss of her tenured employment
and the effects that accompany that significant penalty. Id. at 2. She claims that her conduct here
relates only to her employment with East Orange and does not reflect on her fitness to function as
a teacher in general. 	Id. at 17. 	Further, Allen offers the successes in her teaching career; her
continued commitment to, and involvement in, the community; and her receipt of various awards
and honors. 	Id. at 3-5. 	For example, Allen notes that subsequent to her termination from East
Orange, she established Operation Grow, Inc., an organization serving thousands of people each
year that assists with fulfillment of community service graduation requirements of students, as
well as college and career preparation and workforce development and readiness. 	Id. at 10-11.
She also states she is the co-chair of the New Jersey Chapter of Climate Reality and involved in
numerous local civic activities. Id. at 11. Allen asked that the Board find no just cause exists to
take action against her certificates based on the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 24. She also
asked to appear before the Board.
The threshold issue before the Board in this matter is whether Allen’s conduct constitutes
conduct unbecoming a certificate holder. At its meeting of December 8, 2023, the Board
considered the allegations in the Order to Show Cause as well as Allen’s Answer and Hearing
Response. The Board determined that collateral estoppel applied as to the facts found in the tenure
hearing and therefore no material facts related to Allen’s offense were in dispute. See In the Matter
of the Certificates of Richard Barnes-Bey, Dkt. No. 1314-194 (Bd. Of Examiners September 17,

6
2015) (Collateral estoppel applies to facts established in a prior tenure hearing for Board
revocation proceedings). Thus, the Board determined that summary decision was appropriate in
this matter. N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.6(h).
The Board must now determine whether Allen’s conduct, as set forth in the Order to Show
Cause, represents just cause to act against his certificate pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.4. 	The
Board finds that it does.
The Board may revoke or suspend the certification of any certificate holder on the basis of
demonstrated inefficiency, incapacity, conduct unbecoming a teacher or other just cause. N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-4.4. “Teachers… are professional employees to whom the people have entrusted the care
and custody of … school children. 	This heavy duty requires a degree of self-restraint and
controlled behavior rarely requisite to other types of employment.” 	Tenure of Sammons, 1972
S.L.D. 302, 321. Moreover, unfitness to hold a position in a school system may be shown by one
incident, if sufficiently flagrant. Redcay v. State Bd. of Educ., 130 N.J.L. 369, 371 (1943), aff’d,
131 N.J.L. 326 (E & A 1944). Allen’s conduct in jeopardizing the safety of a student by releasing
the student’s name to another student with the intent to have the student harassed, intimidated,
bullied or worse, as retaliation for an employment decision made by East Orange is behavior that
indicates a serious lapse in judgment warranting action on her certificates. However, because it
was an isolated event, and given the mitigating evidence presented by Allen, namely her successes
in her fifteen-year teaching career, the awards and honors she received, and her continued
dedication to the education community, the Board believes that only suspension is warranted here.
The Board therefore concludes that the appropriate response to Allen’s conduct is a one-year
suspension of her certificates.

7
Accordingly, on December 8, 2023, the Board voted to suspend Sharonda Allen’s Teacher
of Elementary School Certificate of Eligibility, Teacher Elementary School certificate, Teacher of
Social Studies certificate, and Supervisor certificate, for a period of one year, effective
immediately. 	On this 19th day of January 2024, the Board voted to adopt its formal written
decision and it is therefore ORDERED that the suspension of Sharonda Allen’s certificates be
effective immediately. It is further ORDERED that Allen return her certificates to the Secretary
of the State Board of Examiners, Office of Certification and Induction, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, NJ
08625-0500 within 30 days of the mailing date of this decision.
_______________________________
Rani Singh, Secretary
State Board of Examiners
RS/LF
Date of Mailing:
Appeals may be made to the Commissioner of Education pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A.
18A:6-38.4.