J.B., on behalf of minor child, R.B. v. Board of Education of the Bergen County Vocational Technical School District, Bergen County, 7/19/2021, (#150-21)

New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
J.B., on behalf of minor child, R.B.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Bergen County
Vocational Technical School District,
Bergen County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
In this matter on remand, pro se petitioner filed an appeal in July 2019 on behalf of R.B., alleging that his
daughter’s religious practices prevented her from competing academically with her classmates and that
the respondent Board failed to make accommodations for those religious practices, in violation of Board
policy. Further, petitioner alleged his daughter’s guidance counselor made a statement to R.B. that
constituted a violation of the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (ABRA), and that the respondent Board
failed to investigate these allegations, in violation of the Act. The Board filed a motion to dismiss in lieu
of an answer. Following transmittal of the matter to the OAL, an Initial Decision was issued in
November 2019, dismissing the petition as untimely pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). In December 2019,
the Commissioner determined that the record did not contain sufficient information to render a decision,
and the matter was remanded to the OAL for supplementation of the record.
On remand, the ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no genuine issues of material fact here, and the
matter is ripe for summary decision; R.B. graduated in 2018 and is now a full-time college student; the
incidents at issue here occurred during the 2016-17 school year; petitioner submitted complaints in
October 2017 regarding R.B.’s grades which were based on alleged conflicts with religious practices
and lack of religious accommodation, and were not HIB complaints; the Board granted in part and
denied in part the grade appeals in a November 2017 final decision; in July 2018, petitioner
attempted to recast his grade appeals as HIB complaints, claiming that he had referenced harassment
in the grade appeals; petitioner alleged that R.B.’s guidance counselor had harassed her when he
asked, “What’s more important to you, your religion or your schoolwork?”; the Superintendent
however informed petitioner by letter dated August 6, 2018 that the complaint of harassment against
the guidance counselor was found not to be an HIB complaint; petitioner’s appeal was not filed until
July 16, 2019. The ALJ concluded that the petition was untimely pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i);
accordingly, the Board’s motion for summary decision was granted and the petition was dismissed.
Upon review, the Commissioner, inter alia, concurred with the findings and conclusions of the ALJ in
this matter, and found petitioner’s exceptions to be unpersuasive. 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.
150-21

1
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 18002-19
(EDU 10790-19 ON REMAND)
Agency Dkt. No. 169-7/19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
J.B., on behalf of minor child, R.B.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Bergen County
Vocational Technical School District,
Bergen County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed, as have the exceptions filed by the petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-
18.4. The Board’s reply was untimely and will not be considered.
In July 2019, petitioning parent filed an appeal alleging that his daughter’s religious
practices prevented her from competing academically with her classmates and that the respondent
Board failed to make accommodations for those religious practices, in violation of Board policy.
Further, petitioner alleged his daughter’s guidance counselor made a statement to R.B. that
constituted a violation of the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (ABRA), and that the respondent
Board failed to investigate these allegations, in violation of the Act. Following transmittal of the
matter to the OAL, an Initial Decision was issued in November 2019, dismissing the petition as
untimely pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). In December 2019, the Commissioner determined that the
record did not contain sufficient information to render a decision, and the matter was remanded to the
OAL for supplementation of the record.
150-21

2
On remand, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the two complaints
petitioner submitted to the district in October 2017 were appeals regarding his daughter’s grades –
based on alleged conflicts with religious practices and a lack of religious accommodations – and
not HIB complaints. The Board issued a final decision on the grade appeals on November 10,
2017. The ALJ found that eight months later, in July 2018, petitioner attempted to recast his
grade appeals to the Board as HIB complaints, claiming he had referenced harassment in the grade
appeals. Petitioner alleged that R.B.’s guidance counselor had harassed her the prior year when he
asked, “What’s more important to you, your religion or your schoolwork?” By letter dated
August 6, 2018, the Superintendent informed petitioner that the complaint of harassment against the
guidance counselor was determined not to be an HIB complaint, but the counselor was nevertheless
removed from working with R.B. On August 20, 2018, the Superintendent reiterated that the
complaint regarding the guidance counselor was determined not to be an HIB complaint; rather, it
was investigated in accordance with the school’s affirmative action policies and procedures.
The ALJ found that the August 6, 2018 letter was notice of the final action regarding
the HIB complaint. The ALJ concluded that, as the petition challenging the district’s handling of the
HIB complaint was not filed until July 2019, it was filed outside the 90-day limitations period set
forth in N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). The ALJ also found that petitioner’s correspondence with district
officials following this final notice – including the Board attorney’s April 16, 2019 letter stating that
petitioner’s complaints were not subject to HIB policies as they were never reported as such – did not
toll the statute of limitations. As such, the ALJ dismissed the petition as out of time.
In his exceptions, petitioner argues that the Board’s final determination was the
April 16, 2019 letter following his Board hearing, and not the August 6, 2018 letter from the
Superintendent. Petitioner maintains that his petition was not out of time because he was required to
pursue all avenues before appealing. Petitioner contends that it would have been premature to file a

3
petition before he met with the superintendent and the Board. Petitioner also argues that it is unfair
that he is being held to strict deadlines when the Board could file a late motion for summary decision.
Additionally, petitioner maintains that summary decision was improper as there are genuine issues of
disputed fact – such as whether the guidance counselor’s statement constitutes harassment and
whether a reasonable accommodation was provided – and that the Board never responded to
discovery requests. As such, petitioner urges the Commissioner to reject the Initial Decision.
Upon review of the record in this matter, the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that
this matter should be dismissed as untimely as it was filed outside the 90-day limitations period set
forth in N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). First, the Commissioner finds that the complaints filed by petitioner in
October 2017 were grade appeals, and not HIB complaints. Despite the use of the word harassment,
the subject matter of those complaints was a challenge to R.B.’s grades and the argument that she
was not provided with an accommodation for schoolwork due to her religion. Petitioner referred to
those complaints as grade appeals, not HIB complaints, and the final determination on those grade
appeals was on November 10, 2017, which petitioner did not challenge. Accordingly, to the extent
that petitioner makes any arguments regarding religious accommodations or R.B.’s grades, such
arguments are out of time.
Petitioner contacted the school eight months later – in July 2018, after R.B. had
graduated and turned 18 years old1 – to protest that his harassment complaint against the guidance
counselor was not investigated in accordance with school policy. The Commissioner finds that the
Superintendent’s responses on August 6 and August 20, 2018 informed petitioner that the complaints
against the guidance counselor were not investigated as HIB but rather were investigated in
accordance with affirmative action policies and procedures. Accordingly, petitioner received final
notice in August 2018 that any potential HIB complaint petitioner purports to have submitted was not
investigated as such. Subsequent communications with the Superintendent or the Board attorney –
1 Petitioner turned 18 on January 16, 2018.

4
which reiterated the district’s position on how petitioner’s complaint regarding the guidance
counselor had been handled – did not toll the statute of limitations because petitioner had already
received notice of a decision. Nevertheless, the Commissioner further finds that this petition, which
was filed more than a year after R.B. graduated, would be hers to pursue – and not petitioner’s – as
R.B. had reached the age of majority by the time of the filing. See N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(a)(2).
The Commissioner does not find petitioner’s exceptions to be persuasive. As
explained above, a petition would not have been premature following the Superintendent’s
August 2018 notice (provided it was filed by the appropriate petitioner) because that was the date of
the final determination. To the extent that petitioner finds the 90-day deadline to be unfair, the
Commissioner notes that filing deadlines are established by N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i) and apply uniformly
to all petitioners.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this
matter and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
2 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.
July 19, 2021
July 20, 2021

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
AGENCY DKT. NO. 169-7/19
(ON REMAND EDU 10790-19)
J.B. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD R.B.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD 	OF 	EDUCATION 	OF 	THE
VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS IN THE COUNTY
OF BERGEN,
Respondent.
____________________________________
J.B., petitioner, pro se
William C. Soukas, Esq., for respondent (Nowell, P.A., attorneys)
Record Closed: March 26, 2021 	Decided: April 19, 2021
BEFORE BARRY E. MOSCOWITZ, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 6, 2018, respondent notified petitioner that it did not investigate his
grade appeals as harassment complaints under the New Jersey Anti-Bullying Bill of
Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13, et seq. (ABRA). 	On July 16, 2019, petitioner appealed
the handling of his complaints. Did petitioner file his appeal timely? No. Under N.J.A.C.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
2
6A:3-1.3(i), a petitioner shall file a petition no later than 90 days from the date of receipt
of final action about the subject of the case.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 16, 2019, petitioner, J.B., filed a petition with the Department of Education,
Office of Controversies and Disputes, on behalf of his daughter, R.B., against respondent,
the Board of Education of the Vocational Schools in the County of Bergen. In his petition
of appeal, petitioner alleges that his daughter’s religious practices prevented her from
competing academically with her classmates, and that respondent failed to make religious
accommodations for those practices in violation of Board policy. 	In addition, petitioner
alleges at least two specific instances in which an accommodation was not made for those
two assignments. 	Moreover, petitioner alleges that a response to his entreaties by his
daughter’s guidance counselor, a Mr. Natelli, constitutes a violation of the ABRA, which
petitioner further alleges respondent failed to investigate in violation of the Act.
On August 5, 2019, respondent filed a motion to dismiss instead of an answer
under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.5.
On August 7, 2019, the Office of Controversies and Disputes transmitted the case
to the Office of Administrative Law as a contested case under the Administrative
Procedure 	Act, 	N.J.S.A. 	52:14B-1 	to 	-15, 	and 	the 	act 	establishing 	the 	Office 	of
Administrative 	Law, 	N.J.S.A. 	52:14F-1 	to 	-23, 	for 	a 	hearing 	under 	the 	Uniform
Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6.
On November 12, 2019, I granted the motion to dismiss.
On December 17, 2019, the Commissioner of Education remanded the case for
further fact finding.
On January 25, 2021, respondent filed a motion for summary decision; on
February 5, 2021, petitioner filed his opposition; and on March 26, 2021, respondent filed
its reply.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
3
Significantly, respondent filed its motion with supporting affidavits from which
further facts could be found, whereas petitioner filed his opposition with no affidavits from
which genuine issues of fact could be shown.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Given the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion for
summary decision, I FIND the following as FACT for purposes of this motion only:
I.
A. Petitioner filed grade appeals on October 11, 2017.
On October 11, 2017, petitioner wrote a letter to respondent. It was addressed to
the supervisor of academics, Michelle Pinke. In his letter, petitioner appeals a grade his
daughter received in a science class from the previous school year. In the reference line,
petitioner wrote, “Grade Appeal—Letter of Request—Protein Profiler Lab and Related
Biotech Binder.” Ostensibly, the reason for the appeal was alleged conflicts with religious
practices: 	“Last year [my daughter] was unable to complete all school assignments for
reasons that . . . relate to religious practices . . . .”
When petitioner specified, however, he also noted other conflicts: “[My daughter]
missed [a] few labs in Biotech during the last semester due to conflicts between class
schedule and junior meeting (March 29), PARCC exam (April 19), Jewish holidays (May
31 & June 1), and CEE college trip (June 13–15). 	[My daughter] managed to complete
most labs, with the exception of the protein profiler lab. Since one lab was missing, the
binder could not be completed.” 	Thus, of the seven conflicts, only two were related to
religious practices.
In an attachment to the letter, entitled “Conflict Between School Work and
Religious Practices,” petitioner wrote about other potential conflicts between his family’s
religious practices and respondent’s school policies. 	Petitioner’s letter is nearly two

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
4
pages long; his attachment is fully two pages long. Buried in the second page of the two-
page attachment in the body of the document is the word “harassment.” That is the only
appearance of the word in these four pages; it is not set out in any of the headings or in
any of the subject lines.
In the attachment, petitioner explains how his daughter is an Orthodox Jew who
observes the Sabbath, which means she refrains from doing any schoolwork from Friday
evening until Saturday evening. 	His argument is that this puts his daughter at a
“significant disadvantage” compared to other students. He adds that she must also miss
about ten school days for numerous Jewish holidays. Under the heading, “Other Jewish
Students in [Bergen County Academies],” petitioner concludes that his daughter’s
religious practices should have been accommodated.
Meanwhile, 	under 	the 	subheading, 	“Counseling 	and 	Guidance 	at 	School,”
petitioner alleged that a guidance counselor, a Mr. Natelli, responded to his entreaties
with the remark, “What’s more important to you, your religion or your schoolwork?” This
is what petitioner characterizes as harassment: 	“We believe that this statement by
Mr. Natelli constitutes harassment.” 	Thus, it is this word and this characterization that
petitioner would later argue brings this case under the ambit of the ABRA.
On the same date, petitioner wrote another letter to respondent. 	It was also
addressed to Pinke. In this letter, petitioner appeals another grade his daughter received
in another class from the previous school year. This letter is nearly identical to the first.
In the reference line, petitioner wrote, “Grade Appeal—Letter of Request—Anatomy and
Physiology—Digestive Lab Assignment.” 	Again, the reason for the appeal was alleged
conflicts with religious practices: 	“Last year [my daughter] was unable to complete all
school assignments for reasons that . . . relate to religious practices . . . .” 	This time,
petitioner notes that his daughter handed in her binder to her guidance counselor during
the last week of school, but for some reason her science teacher never graded it.
Petitioner’s letter is just one page long; it does not mention the word “harassment”;
and his attachment is the same document he attached to his previous letter.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
5
Thus, no genuine issue of material fact exists that petitioner’s October 11, 2017,
letters were grade appeals based on alleged conflicts with religious practices and a
perceived lack of religious accommodations by the high school during the previous school
year.
B. Petitioner received notice of final action about the grade appeals on
November 10, 2017.
On November 10, 2017, Pinke emailed petitioner granting in part and denying in
part the grade appeals. In particular, Pinke wrote that the grade appeal for Anatomy and
Physiology was denied, but that the grade appeal for Biotech was granted in part and
denied in part. 	More specifically, the Protein Profiler Lab would be allowed to be made
up with the lab report considered timely, but the rest of the notebook would still be
considered late. Her email is reproduced below in its entirety:
Dear [Mr. B.],
The committee met to review the two grade appeals that you
submitted on behalf of your daughter, [R.M.].
For 	the 	grade 	appeal 	for 	Anatomy 	and 	Physiology, 	the
committee concludes that the student had adequate time to
complete and hand in the lab notebook and no additional time
should be granted. The assignment was due in May and the
student attempted to submit it on June 20, which was four
days after the end of the trimester and one day after final
grades were due for the trimester.
For Biotech, there were two issues in question. The first issue
is that the student’s lab notebook was submitted late. 	The
second issue is that the student missed the Protein Profiler
Lab due to an absence for a field trip and then missed the
make up for the lab because she met with her guidance
counselor.
Regarding issue one, the lateness of the lab notebook, the
committee concludes that the lab notebook could have been
submitted on time without the Protein Profiler Lab.
Regarding issue two, the missing Protein Profiler Lab, the
committee concludes that the lab notebook requires opening

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
6
perishable reagents, which are costly. Therefore, this lab can
only be done when the whole class is doing the lab. 	The
committee concludes that the student should have one, and
only one, opportunity to make up the lab on December 6,
2017, which is the next time the lab will be done in a class
setting. The lab report should be completed and submitted to
Mrs. Scott by December 13, 2017. 	The lab should not be
graded 	late; 	however, 	the 	rest 	of 	the 	notebook 	is 	still
considered late. If the lab is not submitted by December 13,
2017, the lab report should not be accepted for credit.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Thank you,
Michelle Pinke
Supervisor of Academics
Bergen County Academies
[Ex. E to the Certification of William Soukas, Esq., dated
January 25, 2021.]
Even if Pinke was mistaken about the nature or subject of the October 11, 2017,
letters, Pinke’s November 10, 2017, email makes clear that she interpreted the October
11, 2017, letters as grade appeals, not as harassment complaints, and that she had
concluded the matter on behalf of respondent as of November 10, 2017.
Thus, no genuine issue of material fact exists that November 10, 2017, is the date
petitioner received notice of final action about his grade appeals.
C. Before petitioner filed his grade appeals, he asked respondent for advice
about how to file them, and before he received notice of final action, he
asked respondent about their status.
On October 4, 2017, before petitioner filed his grade appeals with Pinke, petitioner
emailed Pinke to ask her about the process for grade appeals, and in response, on
October 4, 2017, Pinke provided petitioner with the Board policy on grade appeals. She
also advised petitioner to file his grade appeals with her by October 9, 2017. On October
8, 2017, the day before the deadline, petitioner emailed Pinke that he and his wife had
previously informed respondent of their desire to file grade appeals, and that they wanted

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
7
more time to file them. 	Accordingly, on October 9, 2017, Pinke granted petitioner an
extension to file his grade appeals.
On November 8, 2017, before petitioner received notice of final action about his
grade appeals, petitioner asked Pinke, by his own admission, about the status of his grade
appeals:
Dear Mrs. Pinke,
I’m following up to know the status of the grade appeals we
filed.
[R.B.] is in the process of applying to colleges and the result
of 	the 	grade 	appeals 	impact[s] 	the 	college 	application
process.
The 30 days for making a determination will end this week,
and considering that school is closed tomorrow and Friday,
we would like to know the determination as soon as possible.
Thank you for your cooperation.
[J.B.]
[Ex. E to the Certification of William Soukas, Esq., dated
January 25, 2021.]
Thus, no genuine issue of material fact exists that petitioner intended to file, and
respondent expected to receive, grade appeals, not harassment complaints, by October
13, 2017, and even if respondent was mistaken about the nature or subject of the October
11, 2017, letters, Pinke’s November 10, 2017, email makes clear that she interpreted the
October 11, 2017, letters as grade appeals, and that she had concluded the matter on
behalf of respondent as of November 10, 2017.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
8
II.
A. Petitioner recasts his grade appeals as discrimination and harassment
complaints on July 5, 2018.
Nearly eight months later, 237 days to be precise, on July 5, 2018, petitioner wrote
another letter to respondent. In his letter, petitioner renewed his grade appeals but recast
them as “discrimination and harassment complaints.” 	To wit, in the reference line,
petitioner 	renamed 	his 	grade 	appeals, 	“Religious 	Discrimination 	and 	Harassment
Complaints.” 	Petitioner also delineated that the school “discriminated” against his
daughter on the basis of her religion; that the school “did not provide her with a fair
opportunity to succeed”; that her guidance counselor “harassed” her; and that his
“harassment complaint” was not investigated and processed according to school policy.
Moreover, petitioner included the attachment from his grade appeals, but renamed it
“Complaints for Religious Discrimination and Harassment,” and he added in the body
what he thought the guidance counselor had said (“What’s more important to you, your
religion or your schoolwork?”) and his belief that it constituted not only “harassment,” but
also “intimidation.”
In addition, petitioner wrote in this letter that he had complained about the results
of the grade appeals and the lack of religious accommodations a month earlier to the
school principal, Russell Davis, who replaced the guidance counselor, Mr. Natelli, but
allegedly responded, “If this school does not fit you, you have the choice to go to a
different school,” which petitioner deemed unacceptable:
In June 2017, we met with Mr. Russell Davis, the principal at
BCA. 	We complain[ed] about the harassment by [R.B.’s]
guidance counselor. 	Mr. Davis agreed to replace [R.B.’s]
guidance counselor; however, he did not condemn or criticize
the statement made by Mr. Natelli. Mr. Davis explained to us
the 	school 	provides 	no 	accommodation 	for 	religious
observances.
We explained that the situation our daughter was put into by
the school does not allow her to practice her religion and
complete her school work. 	Mr. Russell’s response was: 	“If

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
9
this school does not fit you, you have the choice to go to a
different school.”
This statement by the principal is unacceptable.
[Ex. F to the Certification of William Soukas, Esq., dated
January 25, 2021.]
Petitioner continued in his letter that he disagreed with Russell’s value judgment
and with the school’s policy regarding religious accommodations:
We felt after this meeting with the principal that the school
indeed expect[ed] that we choose to between our religion or
go to a different school. It seems that Mr. Natelli’s statement
was not just a poor wording incident, but it actually represents
the school policy. We were horrified.
We also believe that, as a matter of policy, the school should
accommodate students in situations when their abilities to
perform [are] limited due to reasons beyond their control.
Whether the limited ability is due to medical disability or due
to religious observance, or other protected right, the school
must make adjustments and concessions to accommodate
the student and give him/her a fair and equal opportunity to
succeed in school.
[Ex. F to the Certification of William Soukas, Esq., dated
January 25, 2021.]
Finally, petitioner cited the denial of his grade appeals as examples of this lack of
religious accommodation:
[R.B.] was unable to complete some work assignments and
was later in submitting several other school assignments. For
example, on one assignment, [R.B.] submitted the work late
by two days and her grade was reduced by 30%. We filed a
grade appeal and explained the specific situation of [R.B.],
however the grade appeal committee did not put any weight
for our considerations and the 30% reduction remained.
On a different assignment, [R.B.] submitted her work later by
two or three days, however the teacher refused to grade her
work due to the lateness and the grade for that assignment
was zero. We filed a grade appeal and explained the specific
situation of [R.B.], however the grade appeal committee did

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
10
not put any weight for our considerations and the grade
remained at zero.
[Ex. F to the Certification of William Soukas, Esq., dated
January 25, 2021.]
Thus, no genuine issue of material fact exists that petitioner had not lodged a new
complaint or complaints about “discrimination” or “harassment” or “intimidation” on July
5, 2018. 	He had simply renewed his grade appeals based on alleged conflicts with
religious practices and a perceived lack of religious accommodations by the high school
during the previous school year. 	In addition, petitioner had simply expressed his
disappointment in and disagreement with the final action. 	Finally, petitioner voiced his
objection to what he understood was school policy regarding religious accommodations.
B. Petitioner 	received 	notice 	of 	final 	action 	about 	the 	so-called
discrimination and harassment complaints on August 6, 2018.
On August 6, 2018, the superintendent, Howard Lerner, responded. In his letter,
Lerner explained what steps the school district had taken concerning the grade appeals,
including the so-called discrimination and harassment complaints. 	Lerner stated that
discrimination and harassment based on religion is strictly prohibited in the school district,
that the school district promptly investigated the complaint, and that it removed Mr. Natelli
as R.B.’s guidance counselor. 	More significantly for purposes of this motion, Lerner
explained that the grade appeals were not considered as complaints for harassment,
intimidation, or bullying (HIB), because they were more properly understood as grade
appeals based on religious accommodations.
Lerner continued that he believed the school district was responsive to petitioner’s
concerns; that it was not true that the school district does not accommodate religious
practices, because it does provide religious accommodations; and that it did so in this
case. To be sure, Lerner noted that the school district provided R.B. with the opportunity
to make up schoolwork during the summer of 2017, the opportunity to retake the Biotech
class during the following school year, and the opportunity to spend up to fifteen hours a
week in school to complete her schoolwork. If any doubt had still existed about the nature

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
11
or subject matter of petitioner’s grade appeals, respondent had made its position even
clearer, and in doing so, restated its final action.
Thus, no genuine issue of material fact exists that August 6, 2018, is the date
petitioner received notice of final action about his so-called discrimination and harassment
complaints.
C. Petitioner did not appeal the final action within the next 90 days.
On August 9, 2018, petitioner wrote another letter to Lerner. 	In this letter, under
his subheading, “Accommodations in School on the Basis of Religious Observance,”
petitioner wrote that he wanted to understand better the school policy concerning religious
accommodations, and under his subheading, “Handling of the Harassment Complaint,”
petitioner wrote that he wanted to know better how his complaint was processed.
Although his daughter had already graduated from the high school and was about to enter
the University of Pittsburgh for college in the fall, petitioner still wanted to continue the
dialogue.
On August 20, 2018, Lerner responded to petitioner once more. 	In his letter,
Lerner explained that whether accommodations are reasonable and proper for any given
student is a fact-sensitive inquiry and is determined on a case-by-case basis. In addition,
Lerner explained that petitioner’s so-called discrimination and harassment complaints
were investigated and processed according to the school’s policy concerning affirmative
action. 	Parenthetically, one of the purposes of the affirmative-action program is “to
identify and eliminate discriminatory practices and other barriers to achieving equality and
equity in educational programs.” District Policy, 1140, Affirmative Action Program, August
2016. Ultimately, petitioner filed his appeal with the Commissioner of Education on July
10, 2019.
So, even if this later letter is considered final action by the school district—because
Lerner further explained that petitioner’s grade appeals were processed as discrimination
complaints under the district’s affirmative-action program—no genuine of material fact

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
12
exists that petitioner still failed to appeal that final action by the school district within the
next 90 days.
Accordingly, the final section that follows merely chronicles the future dialogue
between the parties.
III.
A. Petitioner continues to disagree with respondent and continues to fail to
file an appeal with the Commissioner of Education.
On September 4, 2018, petitioner wrote to Lerner yet again. In his letter, petitioner
repeated that he disagreed with the religious accommodations the high school provided
his daughter the previous school year and with how the high school processed his so-
called discrimination and harassment complaints. 	This letter is seven pages long. 	The
first four and one-half pages concern his disagreement with the accommodations and
why he thought they were insufficient. 	The final three pages concern his disagreement
with the way his grade appeals were processed and why he thought they should have
been processed as harassment complaints.
In fact, petitioner asserts for the first time that he filed such a discrimination and
harassment complaint at a meeting on June 15, 2017.
Whether or not petitioner filed such a discrimination and harassment complaint on
June 15, 2017, does not matter, because petitioner received the final action about the
grade 	appeals 	on 	November 	10, 	2017, 	and 	the 	final 	action 	about 	the 	so-called
discrimination and harassment complaints on August 6, 2018.
The legal effect of these dates notwithstanding, what is clearer is what petitioner
ultimately 	seeks 	from 	his 	entreaties: 	disciplinary 	action 	against 	Mr. 	Natelli, 	a
condemnation from the school or an apology from Mr. Natelli, and an investigation by the
school district under the ABRA.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
13
B. Respondent demurs that the parties will have to agree to disagree.
On September 14, 2018, Lerner responded that the parties would have to agree
to disagree about the final action that respondent took about the grade appeals and the
so-called 	discrimination 	and 	harassment 	complaints, but 	that these appeals 	gave
respondent pause to reflect on its policy for the future:
Dear Mr. [B.],
Thank you for your 9/4/18 email. As I have explained before,
I 	believe 	BCA 	provided 	or 	offered 	reasonable
accommodations 	to 	your 	daughter 	for 	her 	religious
observance during her time there, as required by Board
Policy. 	It appears that your expectations and the district’s
understanding 	of 	its 	role 	in 	accommodating 	individual
students are unlikely to align.
I regret that you feel your dialogue with the school and with
district 	administration 	has 	not 	addressed 	your 	concerns.
Please know, however, that your engagement with the school
and with me has been the catalyst for valuable in-house
reflection and discussion about this issue.
I am glad that your daughter is attending such an esteemed
university for her undergraduate education, and I wish her
much success.
Sincerely,
Howard Lerner, Ed.D.
Superintendent
Bergen County Technical Schools
[Ex. K to the Certification of William Soukas, Esq., dated
January 25, 2021.]
C. Petitioner recasts his grade appeals as HIB complaints.
On November 13, 2018, petitioner restarted the dialogue once again. In an email
to the school district’s business administrator, John Susino, petitioner, incredulously,
again asks for the status of his so-called discrimination and harassment complaints. 	In
doing so, petitioner recast his grade appeals, which he had previously recast as

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
14
discrimination and harassment complaints, as “HIB complaints.” 	The following day, on
November 14, 2018, Susino restated that respondent had processed the grade appeals
as discrimination complaints:
Dear Mr. [B.],
I have received your November 13, 2018, email requesting
information as to when the HIB complaint involving your
daughter 	was 	reported 	by 	Dr. 	Lerner 	to 	the 	Board 	of
Education.
It is my understanding that your complaint was not originally
reported as an HIB matter to school administration. 	As I
believe Dr. Lerner previously advised you, the complaint was
investigated as a discrimination matter. 	Therefore, your
daughter’s matter was handled by school administration and
is not required by law to be formally reported to the Board of
Education.
It 	is 	also 	my 	understanding 	that 	you 	are 	meeting 	with
Dr. Lerner on December 10, 2018, to further discuss this
matter.
Sincerely,
John Susino
Business Administrator/Board Secretary
Bergen 	County 	Technical 	and 	Special 	Services 	School
Districts
[Ex. M to the Certification of William Soukas, Esq., dated
January 25, 2021.]
Immediately thereafter, on November 15, 2018, in a reply email to Susino,
petitioner reasserted that his grade appeals from the previous year were not just grade
appeals but also harassment complaints, and on December 10, 2018, respondent agreed
to perform an administrative review as a courtesy, not according to any Board policy. To
be sure, this was not a new inquiry by petitioner, and it was not a new investigation by
respondent. It was an administrative review as a courtesy, and Lerner agreed to provide
a response by early February 2019.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
15
As promised, the administrative review was completed by early February 2019,
which Lerner memorialized in a letter dated February 5, 2019. In his letter, Lerner wrote
that after his meeting with petitioner, he assigned the head of the school district’s Human
Resources Department, Gary Hall, to interview staff and provide a full report. 	Lerner
wrote 	that 	Hall 	interviewed 	ten 	staff 	members, 	had 	conversations 	with 	school
administrators, and reported his findings. Based on that investigation, together with the
information petitioner had provided, Lerner determined the following:
First, Lerner wrote that during R.B.’s junior year, when she was having academic
difficulties in some of her classes, R.B. never asked any of her teachers to adjust her
coursework or her deadlines for religious observance.
Second, Lerner wrote that the teachers in the three classes in which R.B. seemed
to have particular difficulty made repeated and reasonable efforts to help R.B. keep up
and catch up with her classwork.
Third, Lerner wrote that R.B.’s guidance counselor, Mr. Natelli, did not say or
suggest that R.B. had to choose whether school or religion was more important to her,
and that R.B. must have misunderstood what Natelli had said and what he had meant
during their conversation about time management.
Fourth, Lerner wrote that he did not agree with petitioner’s assertion that R.B. was
unable to meet expectations, because she was able to meet expectations in all her other
classes during her entire four years at the high school.
Fifth, Lerner wrote that petitioner’s request for additional time at the end of R.B.’s
junior year for her to complete unfinished work was properly understood as just that, a
request for additional time to complete unfinished work, and not as a complaint of
discrimination or harassment, intimidation, or bullying.
Sixth, Lerner wrote that petitioner’s assertion that the school district has no policy
for religious accommodation is a misunderstanding of what the school administration had

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
16
communicated to him. 	Lerner was specific. 	Indeed, Lerner noted that not only did the
school district have such a policy, but that R.B. benefited from it:
The Board does, in fact, have a policy . . . . I believe that the
dialogue BCA administration had with you . . . illustrat[ed] how
[R.B.] was offered flexibility by the teachers of the courses she
struggled with throughout her junior year and then opened the
door to additional flexibility for [R.B.] to complete additional
missing work during the summer.
[Ex. M to the Certification of William Soukas, Esq., dated
January 25, 2021.]
Finally, Lerner wrote that he could not and would not change R.B.’s high-school
transcript or her final grades because it would be inaccurate and misleading.
On February 21, 2019, petitioner emailed Susino that he was disappointed with
the outcome of the administrative review, and that he wanted to renew his complaints
before the Board. Significantly, petitioner wrote that he wanted to renew his complaints
as detailed in his letter to Lerner from September 4, 2018, more than five months earlier.
In addition, petitioner attached a letter detailing his disagreement with the outcome of the
administrative review. 	On February 26, 2019, Susino emailed petitioner that the next
Board meeting was scheduled for March 26, 2019.
On March 26, 2019, petitioner attended the Board meeting and addressed the
Board at the end of the meeting during its public session.
After the meeting, on that same date, petitioner emailed Susino, stating that he
was unable to complete his presentation, and asked to present his complaint to the
“Chairman of the Board Committee.”
On April 16, 2019, counsel for respondent wrote a letter to petitioner. In his letter,
counsel explained that the Board had considered his position concerning his complaints
about his daughter’s grades, her counselor, and the administrative investigation, and that
the Board had determined that the school’s handling of his complaints was “prompt,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
17
thorough, and responsive, in all respects.” 	Counsel further explained that petitioner’s
request to make a presentation before the “Chairman of the Board Committee” was
denied for many reasons. First, counsel explained that the complaint against Natelli was
not subject to the school policy concerning harassment, intimidation, and bullying
because it was never reported as such.
Second, counsel explained that a presentation to the “Chairman of the Board
Committee” is not a recognized procedure.
Third, counsel explained that further review was not warranted because of the
most recent administrative investigation, which was provided as a courtesy by the
superintendent, not under any Board policy:
Please be advised that your request for further Board review
of the same complaints you have already brought to the
Board does not appear to be warranted in light of the
administrative and Board-level reviews of the situation that
have already been conducted. 	As a courtesy to you and in
light of your continuing concerns, the Board consented to
consider your complaints relating to the recent administrative
investigation authorized by Dr. Lerner. 	The Board has now
considered 	your 	complaints 	and 	found 	that 	they 	were
addressed properly by school administration. 	As such, no
need exists for further Board review of these matters.
[Ex. M to the Certification of William Soukas, Esq., dated
January 25, 2021.]
Fourth, counsel explained that since R.B. had already graduated from high school
and had attained the age of majority, the Board did not believe that petitioner had standing
to pursue the matter.
Finally, counsel explained once more that the superintendent had held an
extensive meeting with petitioner and authorized, not in keeping with any Board policy but
as a courtesy, an administrative investigation of his complaints, which resulted in the
determination that the Board had handled his complaints properly.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
18
On July 16, 2019, petitioner finally filed his appeal with the Commissioner of
Education.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A party may move for summary decision upon all or any of the substantive issues
in a contested case. 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a). 	Summary decision may be rendered if the
papers and discovery which have been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show that
no genuine issue of material fact exists, and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as
a matter of law. 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). 	When motions for summary decision are made
and supported, an adverse party, to prevail, must respond by affidavit setting forth specific
facts showing that genuine issues of fact exist which can only be determined in an
evidentiary proceeding. Ibid.
In this case, petitioner did not respond by affidavit setting forth specific facts
showing that genuine issues of fact exist which can only be determined in an evidentiary
proceeding. This failure notwithstanding, the record is clear. No genuine issue of material
fact exists that petitioner received notice of final action on November 10, 2017, concerning
his grade appeals, which were processed under Board policy concerning grade appeals,
and notice of final action on August 6, 2018, concerning his so-called discrimination and
harassment complaints, which were processed under Board policy concerning affirmative
action. Since no genuine issue of material fact exists concerning these dates of receipt,
respondent is entitled to prevail as a matter of law for the reasons stated below.
Under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i), a petitioner shall file a petition no later than the 90th
day from the date of receipt of the notice of a final order, ruling, or other action by the
district board of education, individual party, or agency that is the subject of the case. As
case law makes clear, such a time limitation confers due process, is both meaningful and
reasonable, and provides finality in education matters. Kaprow v. Bd. of Educ. of Berkeley
Twp., 131 N.J. 572, 583–88 (1993). 	As such, this time limitation has long withstood
challenge. See, e.g., Nissman v. Bd. of Educ. of Long Beach Island, 272 N.J. Super. 373,
381–82 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 137 N.J. 315 (1994) (where the court stated that the
time limitation is not inherently arbitrary or capricious, and to rule otherwise would deprive

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
19
district boards of education the security of the rule). 	Moreover, negotiations do not toll
this time limitation. See, e.g., Giannetta et al. v. Bd. of Educ. of Egg Harbor, No. #147-
05, Comm’r Decision (April 25, 2005), https://www.nj.gov/education/legal/commissioner/
(where the Commissioner of Education explicitly stated, citing Kaprow, 131 N.J. at 588,
that attempts to resolve a claim through negotiation with a board of education do not
negate receipt of adequate notice or toll the running of the time limitation).
In this case, the incidents that petitioner argues violate Board policy and State law
occurred during the 2016–17 school year. 	Petitioner complained about them after the
close of the 2016–17 school year, and the date of receipt of final action was November
10, 2017, at the earliest, and August 6, 2018, at the latest, all of which place the current
petition, which was filed on July 12, 2019, well outside the proscribed 90 days for filing
such appeals. As I found above, the final action by the Board regarding the grade appeals
was received on November 10, 2017, and any other decision that could have been
construed as some final action about separate harassment complaints could only be said
to have been received on August 6, 2018, when Lerner explained that the complaints
were more properly processed as complaints about religious accommodation, or even on
August 	20, 	2018, 	when 	Lerner 	further 	explained 	that 	they 	were 	processed 	as
discrimination complaints under the district’s policy concerning affirmative action. 	To
underscore, these grade appeals were not HIB complaints.
Petitioner is sophisticated, and his filings are extensive. 	If petitioner had truly
intended to file his grade appeals as HIB complaints, he would have done so, but
petitioner intended to file grade appeals based on alleged conflicts with religious practices
and a perceived lack of religious accommodations by the high school during the previous
school year. More pointedly, if petitioner truly believed that Natelli harassed, intimidated,
or bullied his daughter in violation of the ABRA, then petitioner would have filed not only
his HIB complaints with respondent, but also his appeal for the failure of respondent to
have investigated them under the ABRA in a timely manner. 	In short, petitioner did not
do so because he was pursuing grade appeals, not harassment complaints, which he
later recast as HIB complaints after his grade appeals were denied.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
20
For me to conclude otherwise would mean that anytime a parent or student
questions a final determination, the finality of that determination is somehow negated,
and the statute of limitations is somehow reset. Such a conclusion would contravene not
only case law but also common sense. It would also chill dialogue between students and
schools and between parents and administrations.
This is not to say that petitioner was unreasonable in refusing to accept the
outcome of his grade appeals or the way his grade appeals or so-called harassment
complaints were processed; rather, it is his failure to appeal their final actions within the
statute of limitations that was unreasonable.
As a result, I CONCLUDE that the petition of appeal in this case is outside the
statute of limitations, that the motion for summary decision should be granted, and that
this case should be dismissed.
Since I have concluded that this case is outside the statute of limitations and should
be dismissed, I need not address the issues of standing or mootness, which respondent
argues as additional reasons to dismiss this case.
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that the motion for
summary decision is GRANTED and that this case is hereby 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 under N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18002-19
21
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.
April 19, 2021
DATE 	BARRY E. MOSCOWITZ, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	April 19, 2021
Date Mailed to Parties: 	April 19, 2021
dr