Stephanie Bradberry v. New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners, 5/30/2024, (208-24)

208-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Stephanie Bradberry,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education,
State Board of Examiners,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro-se petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent New Jersey State Board of Examiners (SBE)
denying her application for a standard administrative certificate with a supervisor endorsement. The SBE
based its decision upon petitioner’s failure to satisfy N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.6(a)2.ii, which requires six graduate-
level semester-hour credits in instructional staff supervision and/or curriculum design and development.
Petitioner maintained that the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, and was
inconsistent with the requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.6(a)2.ii, contending that she is “more than
qualified” with many years in academia as well as experience since 2004 with “writing or contributing to
curriculum [sic], founding and owning two educational businesses, and [a] Doctoral candidacy in Education:
Curriculum and Teaching.” The parties filed cross motions for summary decision.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts at issue in this case and the matter is ripe for
summary decision; 	petitioner disagreed with the Board’s assessment that her proffered alternative
education and experience is not equivalent to her three-credit deficiency in instructional staff supervision
and/or curriculum design and development; the Board argued that petitioner “failed to proffer any
evidence demonstrating that the Board’s decision was not consistent with the applicable statutory and
regulatory provisions;” petitioner urged the Board to consider five alternative courses to cure her three-
credit deficiency in instructional staff supervision and/or curriculum design and development, but two of
those courses had already been applied to satisfy six of the twelve credits required under N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
12.6(a)2.ii; 	the three remaining proffered courses focused on teaching methods, strategies, and lesson
planning, rather than curriculum development and/or instructional staff supervision. 	The ALJ concluded
that petitioner failed to prove that the Board’s decision was contrary to the applicable statutory and
regulatory provisions; 	further, petitioner’s proffered experience from the summer of 2005, involving a
“contribution” to the development of a ninth-grade curriculum, was not equivalent to a broad-based
curriculum development design course which focuses on the entire philosophical, historical, and
pedagogical perspectives of creating curricula from kindergarten through twelfth grade. Accordingly, the
ALJ granted the Board’s motion for summary decision and dismissed the petition.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the findings and conclusions of the ALJ and adopted the
Initial Decision as the final decision in this matter. 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.

208-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 02459-23
Agency Dkt. No. 253-9/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Stephanie Bradberry,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education,
State Board of Examiners,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law have
been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that the New
Jersey State Board of Examiners’ (Board) decision denying petitioner’s application for a standard
administrative certificate with a supervisory endorsement was consistent with N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.6.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter. The Board’s
motion for summary decision is granted, and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: May 30, 2024
Date of Mailing: May 31, 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.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02459-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 253-9/22
STEPHANIE BRADBERRY,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION, STATE BOARD OF
EXAMINERS,
Respondent.
________________________________
Stephanie Bradberry, petitioner, pro se
Colin G. Klika, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin,
Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
Record Closed: March 4, 2024 Decided: April 18, 2024
BEFORE SARAH H. SURGENT, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner Stephanie Bradberry (Bradberry) appeals from respondent New Jersey
Department of Education (DOE), State Board of Examiners’ (Board) denial of her

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02459-23
2
application for a standard administrative certificate with a supervisor endorsement
(Supervisor Certificate), based upon Bradberry’s failure to satisfy N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
12.6(a)2.ii, which requires, in relevant part, six graduate-level semester-hour credits in
instructional staff supervision and/or curriculum design and development. Bradberry
maintains that the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, and that
it was inconsistent with the requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.6(a)2.ii, “because she is
more than qualified with [twenty] years in academia, experience since 2004 with writing
or contributing to curriculum [sic], founding and owning two educational businesses, and
[a] Doctoral candidacy in Education: Curriculum and Teaching.” (Pb at 1, 4, 8-9).1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or about August 9, 2021, Bradberry submitted her application for a Supervisor
Certificate to the DOE. (P-1). By notice dated December 8, 2021, the Board denied
Bradberry’s application on the basis that she lacked “[t]hree graduate elective credits in
instructional staff supervision AND/OR curriculum design and development.” (P-2). On
March 29, 2022, Bradberry requested a credentials review, (P-3), and the Board again
denied the Supervisor Certificate on June 30, 2022, concluding that Bradberry failed to
“establish a one-to-one correspondence between her work experience and the licensure
deficiency.” (R-1 at 3). On September 13, 2022, Bradberry filed a pro se petition of
appeal, which was transmitted to and filed at the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on
March 20, 2023, to be heard as a contested case, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et seq.
and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 et seq.
After several telephonic status conferences, the parties indicated that each of them
would be moving for summary decision. Bradberry filed her motion for summary decision
on October 27, 2023. (Pb). The Board filed its opposition and cross-motion for summary
decision on December 8, 2023. (Rb). Oral arguments were held in person on March 1,
2024. On March 4, 2024, Bradberry’s electronic submission of her exhibits table of
contents was received, and the record closed.
1 Bradberry also asserted civil rights claims alleging “harassment, racism, and discrimination,” and sought
damages for alleged lost employment opportunities, as well as damages for alleged physical and emotional
distress. (Pb at 1, 5, 10‒11). She withdrew those claims on the record at the March 1, 2024 hearing.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02459-23
3
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
These salient points are not in dispute. I therefore FIND the following FACTS.
The above procedural history is incorporated herein by reference. In its June 30,
2022 denial of the Supervisor Certificate after Bradberry’s credentials review, the Board
found, in relevant part, the following:
Bradberry has satisfied the requirements toward
certification except for three graduate level elective credits in
general principles of instructional staff supervision and/or
curriculum design and development. She was present at the
Board's meeting on May 19, 2022. The Board had no
questions for her.
Bradberry requested the Board consider certain
coursework taken at Northcentral University as demonstrating
alternative education and/or experience that satisfies her
deficiency. Specifically, Bradberry asked the Board to
consider the following courses:
● CT7000 Developing Instructional Strategies and
Curriculum
● CT7002 Identifying and Maximizing
Teaching/Learning Styles
● CT7003 Teaching and Learning Foundations
● CT7005 Literacy: Focus on Curriculum
● CT7006 Multiple Intelligences
The Board was advised by the Office of Recruitment,
Preparation and Certification that CT7000 and CT7005 were
already used to satisfy 6 of the 12 credits required pursuant
to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.6(a)(2)(ii). Thus, these two courses
cannot also satisfy her deficiency. Upon review of the syllabi
and course descriptions for the remaining three courses, the
Board finds that for each the focus was on teaching methods
and strategies as well as models for lesson planning to
address the need for differentiated instruction as opposed to

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02459-23
4
concepts of curriculum development or instructional staff
supervision.
Bradberry also states that she has developed curricula,
programs and courses since 2004. The Board notes that her
resume includes experience as a tutor, paraprofessional, and
teacher at the elementary and secondary levels as well as an
adjunct professor at the collegiate level. However, the only
specific experience in curriculum development and/or staff
supervision she provided documentation to support was for
the summer of 2005, when she contributed to the 9th grade
curriculum development at Northern Burlington County
Regional High School. The Board finds that her limited work
experience in curriculum development does not meet the
breadth and level of what is required of a supervisor and is not
equivalent to the knowledge she would gain from the course
she is lacking. Thus, The Board finds Bradberry did not
establish a one-to-one correspondence between her work
experience and the license deficiency.
[R-1 (emphasis added).]
The description for CT7000, a three-credit course entitled Developing Instructional
Strategies and Curriculum, which the Board already credited, states:
In this course, students will contrast and analyze instructional
strategies based on a framework of architectural principles.
Students will integrate and implement curriculum theories and
models that include differentiated instruction and the infusion
of technology. Curriculum standards, requirements, issues,
and trends will be evaluated for the production and promotion
of recommendations for effective change.
[R-2 at 9.]
The description for CT7002, a three-credit course entitled Identifying and
Maximizing Learning/Teaching Styles, states:
The skillful use of learning and teaching styles requires
familiarity with style models. CT7002 offers the doctoral
student opportunities for the analysis and assessment of the
interactions at play within learning/teaching styles and brain-
based strategies and applications. The doctoral student will
become familiar with his or her own style and teaching models
that engage diverse learners. From that awareness, planning

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02459-23
5
can include how to investigate and evaluate the responsible
use of styles and strategies within effective teaching models,
plus the synthesis, application, an assessment of models
within diverse learning contexts. The doctoral student will
integrate insights for maximizing styles, teaching strategies,
and assessments within a plan for developing best practices
and continuing professional development.
[R-2 at 10.]
The description for CT7003, a three-credit course entitled Teaching and Learning
Foundations, states:
The foundations of teaching and learning can be viewed from
several perspectives. Doctoral students will analyze the
influence of emotional, social, and cultural contexts and
evaluate those influences to make effective decisions that
support school structures, which enable student learning.
Topics include: learning theories and instructional models,
effective teaching practices, multiple intelligences, and
metacognition.
[R-2 at 11.]
The description for CT7005, a three-credit course entitled Literacy: Focus on
Curriculum, which the Board already credited, states:
This class offers doctoral students opportunities to investigate
and assess the issues and research related to literacy
development and literacy curriculum development. Students
will analyze principles and strategies that foster literacy
development in the early grades and apply learning to
classroom curriculum and instruction. Theory, activities, and
summative assessments aid the doctoral student in the
evaluation of literacy based learning and performance.
Literacy achievement and best literacy teaching strategies are
planned and implemented.
[R-2 at 12.]

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02459-23
6
The description for CT7006, a three-credit course entitled Multiple Intelligences,
states:
In this course, students will be introduced to Dr. Howard
Gardner's theory of multiple intelligent intelligences (MI), and
will evaluate how to differentiate curriculum to maximize its
benefits for students. Students will analyze the options for
evaluating and revising assessment methods and tools to
include MI theory in curriculum development. In addition,
specific intelligences will be evaluated for their contributions
to personal and professional development.
[R-2 at 13.]
Bradberry’s resume indicates, under “Educational Consulting Experience,” that
she was a “Developer” at Northern Burlington County Regional High School in New
Jersey during the summer of 2005, when she “[c]ontributed to 9th grade curriculum
development.” (R-2 at 19). In that vein, Bradberry tendered for the Board’s consideration
an August 9, 2010 letter of recommendation “for supervisory and managerial levels in
education,” authored by the former Director of Curriculum and Instruction for the
Humanities at that school, stating that Bradberry “was a fabulous contributor” to the
development of an interdisciplinary curriculum that summer. (R-2 at 14‒15).
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Bradberry maintains that her motion for summary decision should be granted
because the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, and is
inconsistent with the requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.6(a)2.ii. In short, she disagrees
with the Board’s assessment that her proffered alternative education and experience is
not equivalent to her three-credit deficiency in instructional staff supervision and/or
curriculum design and development. The Board argues that Bradberry’s motion should
be denied and that its cross-motion for summary decision should be granted because
Bradberry “failed to proffer any evidence demonstrating that the Board’s decision was not
consistent with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02459-23
7
I.
A summary decision “may be rendered if the papers and discovery which have
been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of
law.” N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). That rule is substantially similar to the summary judgment
rule embodied in the New Jersey Court Rules. See R. 4:46-2; Judson v. Peoples Bank
& Trust Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67, 74 (1954).
In Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520 (1995), the New Jersey Supreme
Court addressed the appropriate test to be employed in determining the motion:
[A] determination whether there exists a “genuine issue” of
material fact that precludes summary judgment requires the
motion judge to consider whether the competent evidential
materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational fact
finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-
moving party. The “judge’s function is not . . . to weigh the
evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to
determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.”
[Id. at 540 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 250 (1986)).]
In evaluating the merits of the motion, “[a]ll inferences of doubt are drawn against
the movant and in favor of the opponent of the motion.” Judson, 17 N.J. at 75. However,
“[w]hen a motion for summary decision is made and supported, an adverse party in order
to prevail must by responding affidavit set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue which can only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding.” N.J.A.C. 1:1-
12.5(b).
Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and heard their oral arguments, I
CONCLUDE that no genuine issues of material fact exist which require a plenary hearing
to determine whether Bradberry’s application for a Supervisor Certificate was
appropriately denied. This matter is therefore ripe for summary decision.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02459-23
8
II.
The Board consists of the DOE Commissioner, ex officio, one DOE assistant
commissioner, two presidents of State colleges, one county superintendent, one
superintendent of a Type I school district, one superintendent of a Type II school district,
one high school principal, one elementary school principal, one school business
administrator, one librarian employed by the State or a political subdivision thereof, and
four teaching staff members other than a superintendent, principal, school business
administrator, or librarian. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-34. The Board is entrusted, inter alia, with
issuing appropriate certificates to teach or to administer, direct, or supervise the teaching,
instruction, or educational guidance of pupils in public schools operated by boards of
education, and such other certificates as it is authorized to issue by law based upon
certified scholastic records or examinations, or both. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38.
When an initial application to the Board for a certificate is denied, an applicant may
appeal that decision to the Board and provide evidence of alternative education and/or
experience which the applicant considers to be equivalent to cure the noted deficiencies.
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12(b). Bradberry carries the burden to prove by a preponderance of
the credible evidence that she is entitled to a Supervisor Certificate by presenting the
information necessary to establish a “one-to-one correspondence of experience/alternate
education to cure her alleged licensing deficiency. McQuilken v. State Bd. of Exam’rs,
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 8375-11, Initial Decision (Dec. 13, 2011),
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal, adopted, Comm’r (Jan. 27, 2021).
The Commissioner may review the Board’s decision to determine whether it is
consistent with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. Walder v. State Bd. of
Exam’rs, Comm’r Decision No. 503-14 (Dec. 29, 2014), 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1259,
*4-*5. When the Board’s denial of a request for the issuance of a certificate is challenged,
the Commissioner is not required to give deference to the Board, but instead determines
whether its decision was legally appropriate. Id. at *4. Contrary to Bradberry’s assertion,
the arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable standard of review is inapposite to the
Commissioner’s review of the Board’s determination. Ibid.; Travisano v. Dep’t of Educ.,
State Bd. of Exam’rs, 2022 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 471.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02459-23
9
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.6 currently provides:
(a) To be eligible for the standard administrative certificate
with a supervisor endorsement, a candidate shall:
1. Hold a master's or higher degree from an accredited
college or university; [and]
2. Successfully complete one of the following:
i. A Commissioner-approved college curriculum
that specifically prepares the candidate for the
endorsement; [or]
ii. Twelve graduate-level semester-hour credits,
including the following:
(1) Three credits in general principles of
instructional staff supervision in preschool
through grade 12;
(2) Three credits in general principles of curriculum
design and development for preschool through
grade 12; and
(3) Six elective credits in instructional staff
supervision and/or curriculum design and
development; or
iii. A Commissioner-approved training program
that is implemented by a Commissioner-
approved provider and specifically prepares the
candidate for the endorsement; and
3. Hold a standard New Jersey instructional or
educational services certificate, or its out-of-State
equivalent, and complete three years of successful,
full-time teaching and/or educational services
experience. Teaching and/or educational services
experience completed in a New Jersey school district
shall have been under an appropriate New Jersey
certificate.
[N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.6 (eff. May 1, 2023) (emphasis added).]

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02459-23
10
Prior to an amendment effective May 1, 2023, the relevant provision of N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-12.6(a)2.ii separated the above section (a)ii.3 into two separate required
components: “(3) Three elective credits in curriculum design and development; and (4)
Three elective credits in in instructional staff supervision and/or curriculum design and
development.” N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.6(a)2.ii.(3) and (4) (2022) (emphasis added). Thus, at
the time of its June 30, 2022 decision, the Board essentially found that Bradberry had
satisfied the required “[t]hree elective credits in curriculum design and development,”
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.6(a)ii.(3) (2022) (emphasis added), but that she had not satisfied the
required additional “[t]hree elective credits in instructional staff supervision and/or
curriculum design and development,” N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.6(a)ii.(4) (2022) (emphasis
added).
As noted in my above factual findings, Bradberry urged the Board to consider five
alternative courses to cure her three-credit deficiency in instructional staff supervision
and/or curriculum design and development. (R-1 at 2). Of those, the Board determined
that two of the proffered courses, CT7000 and CT7005, had already been applied to
satisfy six of the twelve credits required by 6A:9B-12.6(a)2.ii, and that the three remaining
proffered courses, CT7002, CT7003, and CT7006, focused upon teaching methods,
strategies, and lesson planning, rather than curriculum development and/or instructional
staff supervision. (R-1 at 2). The Board also found that although Bradberry’s resume
included experience as a tutor, paraprofessional, and teacher at various education levels,
the only documented specific experience in curriculum development and/or staff
supervision provided by Bradberry demonstrated that Bradberry’s limited work
experience in curriculum development during the summer of 2005 did not meet the
breadth and level of what is required of a supervisor and was not equivalent to the content
knowledge she would have gained from the requisite three credit hours she was lacking.
Id. at 2-3.
In light of the applicable law and my findings of fact, I agree with the Board’s
assessment of Bradberry’s proffered alternative education and experience, and I
CONCLUDE that Bradberry failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence
that the Board’s decision was contrary to the applicable statutory and regulatory
provisions. The one-page excerpts of syllabi Bradberry provided to the Board for CT7002,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02459-23
11
Identifying and Maximizing Learning/Teaching Styles, CT7003, Teaching and Learning
Foundations, and CT 7006, Multiple Intelligences, clearly indicate that the courses were
focused on their title descriptions, rather than on any curriculum development or
instructional staff supervision. (R-2 at 10‒11, 13). Moreover, Bradberry’s summer of
2005 “contribution” to a ninth-grade curriculum development is by no means the
equivalent of a broad-based design curriculum development course which focuses on the
entire philosophical, historical, and pedagogical perspectives of creating curricula from
kindergarten through twelfth grade and evaluating different school settings from
elementary to high school and urban versus rural settings. See, e.g., Numczyk v. Dep’t
of Educ., State Bd. Of Exam’rs, Initial Decision, EDU 15422-19, at 6‒8, aff’d as modified,
Final Decision, 242-9/19 (May 18, 2022). I therefore CONCLUDE that Bradberry’s motion
must be denied, and the Board’s motion must be granted.
ORDER
It is therefore ORDERED that the Board’s motion for summary decision is hereby
GRANTED and its denial of a Supervisor Certificate is hereby AFFIRMED; and it is further
ORDERED that Bradberry’s motion for summary decision is hereby DENIED and
her petition 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 in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02459-23
12
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. Exceptions may be filed by email to
ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of Controversies
and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the Judge and to the other parties.
April 18, 2024
DATE SARAH H. SURGENT, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
SHS/nn

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02459-23
13
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
For petitioner
Pb Petitioner’s Brief in Support of Motion, received October 27, 2023
P-1 Email to Craig Eskow
P-2 Evaluation of Credentials-Supervisor
P-3 Review for Standard Supervisory Certificate
P-4 Individual Credentials Review Presentations
P-5 Acknowledgement (Petition)
P-6 Board’s Switch in Representation and Request for Extension to File Answer
P-7 Respondent Refusal to Answer Petitioner’s Request for Explanation and
Proof
P-8 Board Acknowledges Two Letters of Recommendation Included by
Petitioner for Review
P-9 Three Letters of Recommendation, Resume and Professional Development
P-10 Transmittal to OAL
P-11 Request for Update on Case
P-12 Requesting Update for Docket 253-9/22
P-13 Update Sent to Incorrect Email Address
P-14 Minute Clinic and Better Help Services
P-15A Petitioner’s First Set of Answers to Interrogatories and Request for
Production of Documents
P-15B Approved School Leadership Programs, Petitioner’s Transcript, Courses
and Programs Approved by Commissioner, Singh Testimony, NCU Course
Syllabus Details, Three Letters of Recommendation, Resume and
Professional Development
P-15C Course Descriptions for ED7020, RSH9101E, RSH9102E, RSH9103QLE,
RSH9104E, CMP9200E, DIS9321E
P-16 Respondent’s Responses to Petitioner’s First Set of Interrogatories and
Request for Production of Documents

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02459-23
14
P-17 Requirements for Supervisor Certificate
P-18 Miller v. State Board of Examiners Synopsis
P-19 Credential Review: Supervisor Certificate
P-20 Directions for Submission of Credential Review Packet
P-21 Preparation of Documentation
P-22 Respondent’s Affirmative Defenses
P-23 New Jersey State Policy Prohibiting Discrimination in The Workplace
P-24 Average Salary for Curriculum Supervisor, Salaries for Assistant
Superintendents in Mercer County
P-25 Significant EEOC Race/Color Cases (Covering Private and Federal
Sectors)
P-26 Nimczyk v. New Jersey State Board of Examiners Written Feedback
P-27 New Jersey Department of Education State Board of Examiners Decision
P-28 Offered Positions and Potential Positions
P-29 Proof of Fibromyalgia and Medication Allergies
P-30 Email Sent to Incorrect Address
P-31 Proof of Attachments Originally Sent to Mr. Klika
For respondent
Rb Respondent’s Brief in Support of Motion and Opposing Petitioner’s Motion,
received December 8, 2023
R-1 Board’s June 30, 2022 decision
R-2 Bradberry’s letter and exhibits to Board, dated April 6, 2022