L.R. and S.R., on behalf of U.R. v. Board of Education of the Village of Ridgewood, Bergen County, 12/15/20, (#285-20)

285-20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
L.R. and S.R., on behalf of minor child, U.R.,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Village of
Ridgewood, Bergen County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioners contended that the Board of Education of the Village of Ridgewood (Board)
improperly failed to perform a harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) investigation
concerning an alleged May 9, 2019 incident which allegedly targeted U.R. while she was
enrolled as a student in Ridgewood schools. The petitioners filed the within appeal on
March 9, 2020. 	The Board filed a motion for summary decision, arguing that the petition is
time-barred pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.2(i), which requires petitions to be filed no later than 90
days from the date of receipt of the action that is the subject of the case.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	there is no genuine issue as to any material fact here, and the
case is ripe for summary decision; 	pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15b(6)(d), after an initial
investigation and preliminary determination of a HIB complaint, a parent or guardian may
request a hearing before a school board, which must be heard within ten days of the request; in
responding to an HIB complaint, a board of education must issue a written decision affirming,
rejecting, or modifying a superintendent’s decision, which the parents/guardians then have ninety
days to appeal to the Commissioner of Education, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15b(6)(e); here, the school
principal advised petitioners by letter dated June 11, 2019 that a preliminary determination had
been made regarding their complaint, and that no HIB conduct was found to have taken place;
petitioners never requested a hearing before the Board, and then filed their March 9, 2020 appeal
with the Commissioner based solely upon the principal’s preliminary determination; the petition
was filed almost nine months after that determination, and approximately six months after the
period to appeal that determination had expired under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). The ALJ concluded
that the petition was time-barred; 	accordingly, summary decision was granted in favor of the
Board.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s determinations and adopted the
Initial Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this case. 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.
December 15, 2020

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 05502-20
Agency Dkt. No. 71-3/20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
L.R. and S.R., on behalf of minor child, U.R.,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Village of
Ridgewood, Bergen County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that the petition is time-barred
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.2(i), which requires petitions to be filed no later than 90 days from the
date of receipt of the action that is the subject of the case.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this
matter and the petition is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	December 15, 2020
Date of Mailing: 	December 15, 2020
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36
(N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1).

State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05502-20
AGENCY DKT. NO. 71-3/20
L.R. AND S.R. ON BEHALF OF
MINOR CHILD, U.R.,
Petitioners,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE VILLAGE
OF RIDGEWOOD, BERGEN COUNTY,
Respondent.
L.R. and S.R., petitioners, pro se
Jeffrey R. Merlino, Esq., for respondent (Sciarillo, Cornell, Merlino, McKeever &
Osborne, attorneys)
Record Closed: September 28, 2020 	Decided: November 5, 2020
BEFORE SARAH H. SURGENT, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05502-20
2
Petitioners L.R. and S.R., on behalf of their minor child, U.R. (petitioners), contend that
the Board of Education of the Village of Ridgewood, Bergen County (Board)
New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
improperly failed to perform a harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) investigation
concerning an alleged May 9, 2019 incident1 where U.R. was the alleged target of such
alleged conduct while enrolled as a student at the Benjamin Franklin Middle School
(BFMS). 	The Board maintains that the petition was untimely filed and should be
dismissed pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The petition of appeal was filed with the Commissioner of Education on March 9, 2020.
It was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on March 26, 2020, to be
heard as a contested case. 	On September 2, 2020, the Board filed a motion for
summary decision, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5. 	On September 28, 2020, petitioners
filed a voluminous brief and appendix and a supplemental brief and appendix in
opposition to the motion, with no responding affidavits, contrary to N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b).
The record closed on September 28, 2020.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Although petitioners assert an unsupported claim that an unnamed worker at the New
Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) advised them they could file their petition out of
time, contrary to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i), the salient facts are undisputed. I therefore FIND:
U.R. is a former student of BFMS. 	U.R. was absent from BFMS for medical reasons
from May 9, 2019, until June 21, 2019, the end of the school year. 	On May 10, 2019,
petitioners emailed BFMS school personnel and reported that another student had
mimicked a physical disorder of U.R.’s on a Snapchat video which was viewed off
1 Petitioners’ pro se petition of appeal and brief also contain complaints of prior alleged bullying incidents
dating back to the 2016–2017 school year, along with a litany of complaints about the conduct of other
persons and organizations which are not before this tribunal, and are therefore not addressed.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05502-20
3
school property on U.R.’s cell phone. 	According to petitioners’ Petition of Appeal
narrative, U.R.’s father, not U.R. herself, claimed to have seen the alleged video on May
9, 2019.
However, petitioners’ brief and appendix Exhibit #33 state that U.R. and her father
watched the video together. 	On May 11, 2019, petitioners filed a complaint about the
alleged incident with the police.
On June 5, 2019, petitioners sent a follow-up email to BFMS’s principal, citing to and
quoting from the New Jersey Department of Education’s Guidance for Parents on the
Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (ABR). 	Petitioners complained that no investigation had
been conducted pursuant to the ABR, and that no investigation report had been
rendered by BFMS or the Board. 	The principal replied approximately one hour later,
and explained:
We have not conducted an investigation into a possible HIB
in regard to the alleged incident for two reasons. 	First,
before we conduct any HIB investigation we need to speak
with the alleged victim, as we need to establish a genesis
from the victim in order to investigate an allegation. 	[U.R.]
has not attended school since before the alleged incident
occurred, and we cannot complete an investigation without
her input. 	Second, the alleged incident was reported to the
police, 	and 	when 	we 	followed 	up 	with 	the 	police 	they
indicated that you could not provide the alleged video that is
the basis of the bullying claim, and that they were not
pursuing the incident. 	When [U.R.] returns to the school
environment we will ascertain the next steps to take in
regard to the alleged online incident that you reported to
BF[MS] and the police.
In 	accordance 	with 	New 	Jersey 	law 	the 	parents 	of 	the
alleged bully were informed by phone of the allegation. 	In
addition, under the code of conduct provisions at BF[MS] the
alleged bully was explicitly warned not to contact [U.R.], or
engage in any online discussion of [U.R.] with any other
party, and that it could be considered as a continuation of a
school conflict and dealt with accordingly. 	We have not
received 	any 	word 	that 	said 	student 	has 	breached 	that
directive.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05502-20
4
Petitioners claim that after receipt of that email, they “feared having [the principal] talk
to [U.R.] under any circumstances.” 	U.R. never returned to BFMS, and was thus never
interviewed by BFMS about the alleged incident.
By letter dated June 11, 2019, the BFMS principal advised petitioners:
In regard to the report you sent to the school on 5/10/19 we
have made a preliminary determination in consultation with
the School Anti-Bullying Specialist (SABS) that the alleged
conduct does not meet the definition of HIB under N.J.S.A.
18A:37-14 in that the conduct did not take place on school
property, at any school-sponsored function, on a school bus,
or off school grounds as provided for in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-
15.3. 	Moreover, 	there 	was 	no substantial 	disruption or
interference with the orderly operation of the school.
Please note that if new information is acquired suggesting
the allegations meet the threshold definition of HIB, it will
then be referred to the [S]ABS for investigation.
In addition, please note that you may appeal the preliminary
determination to the Board of Education and thereafter to the
Commissioner 	of 	Education 	in 	accordance 	with 	N.J.A.C.
6A:3. 	A Board hearing shall be held within ten business
days of receipt of the request for a Board hearing.
[(emphasis added).]
On June 27, 2019, petitioners withdrew U.R. from the Ridgewood Public School
System. 	Petitioners did not file an appeal with the Board, and did not file the present
appeal with the New Jersey Department of Education until March 9, 2020.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
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).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05502-20
5
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 nonmoving 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, I CONCLUDE that no genuine issues of
material fact exist which require a plenary hearing regarding the critical issue of whether
petitioners’ appeal was timely filed. This matter is therefore ripe for summary decision.
The ABR, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.2 et seq., was enacted “to strengthen the standards and
procedures for preventing, reporting, investigating, and responding to incidents of
harassment, intimidation and bullying of students that occur in school and off school
premises.” 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.1f. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15 requires that each New Jersey
school district “adopt a policy prohibiting harassment, intimidation or bullying on school
property, at a school-sponsored function or on a school bus,” which, at a minimum shall
contain 	itemized 	components 	including 	procedures 	for 	reporting 	and 	investigating
alleged

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05502-20
6
HIB incidents. 	A school’s HIB policy must also “include provisions for appropriate
responses to [HIB] . . . that occurs off school grounds, in cases in which a school
employee is made aware of such actions,” and those responses “shall be consistent
with the board of education’s code of student conduct and other provisions of the
board’s policy on [HIB].” 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15.3. 	The Board has adopted such a written
policy, 	which 	is 	available 	on 	the 	district’s 	website 	at
https://www.ridgewood.k12.nj.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_207516/File/Our%20District/
Board%20of%20Education/Board%20Policies/5000/P5512.pdf, 	pursuant 	to 	N.J.S.A
18A:37-15b(11), 	and 	includes 	provisions 	for 	off-school-grounds 	alleged 	electronic
communications HIB incidents, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15.1 and N.J.S.A. 18A:37-
14.
After an initial investigation and preliminary determination of a HIB complaint, a parent
or guardian may request a hearing before a school board, which must be heard within
ten days of the request. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15b(6)(d). 	Among the obligations of a board
of education to respond to a HIB complaint, it must issue a written decision affirming,
rejecting, or modifying a superintendent’s decision, which the parents/guardians then
have ninety days to appeal to the Commissioner of Education. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-
15b(6)(e).
By letter dated June 11, 2019, the BFMS principal advised petitioners that BFMS had
made a preliminary determination that no HIB conduct had taken place. 	Petitioners
were apprised of their rights to appeal that determination to the Board, and thereafter to
appeal the Board’s decision to the Commissioner of Education, in accordance with
“N.J.A.C. 6A:3.” 	In this case, petitioners never requested a hearing before the Board,
and filed their March 9, 2020 appeal with the Commissioner based solely upon the
principal’s preliminary determination, almost nine months after that determination, and
approximately six months after the period to appeal that determination had expired
under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i).
I therefore CONCLUDE that petitioners’ appeal must be dismissed as time-barred. The
Commissioner has specifically addressed the time in which a petitioner must initiate a

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05502-20
7
contested case for the Commissioner’s determination of a controversy or dispute arising
under the school laws. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i) provides that “[t]he 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,
which is the subject of the requested contested case hearing.” 	N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i)
(emphasis added).
That rule imposes “a fair and reasonably necessary requirement for the proper and
efficient resolution of disputes under the school laws,” and “[i]t falls within the scope of
statutory authority granted to the Commissioner.” 	Kaprow v. Bd. of Educ. of Berkeley
Twp., 131 N.J. 572, 582 (1993). “The limitation period gives school districts the security
of knowing that administrative decisions regarding the operation of the school cannot be
challenged after ninety days.” 	Ibid. 	Its purposes are: 	(1) “to stimulate litigants to
pursue a right of action within a reasonable time so that the opposing party may have a
fair opportunity to defend, thus preventing the litigation of stale claims;” and (2) “to
penalize dilatoriness and serve as a measure of repose by giving security and stability
to human affairs.” Id. at 587 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The ninety-day requirement is mandatory and is to be strictly construed. Wise v.
Bd. of Educ. of City of Trenton, 2000 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 462, *8 (July 25, 2000).
Petitioners must file their petition within ninety days from the notice of adverse action,
and “not within ninety days of their exhaustion of other avenues and mechanisms” they
might have employed. Id. at *8-9. “Opportunity to appear before the board of education
is established to assist a petitioner in the prosecution and early resolution of a dispute
and not intended to be a condition precedent to perfecting the right to administrative
review.” 	Id. at *8. 	Moreover, informal attempts to resolve a dispute via emails,
complaints to the police, or other means do not toll the ninety-day period of limitations.
See Kaprow, 131 N.J. at 588.
The ninety-day period for filing a petition of appeal commences when petitioners learn
of facts that would enable them to file a timely claim. Id. at 587. “Adequate notice must
be sufficient to inform an individual of some fact that he or she has a right to know and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05502-20
8
that the communicating party has a duty to communicate.” Ibid. In this case, the ninety
days began to run when petitioners were notified of the adverse action, regardless of
whether the action was proper, when the petitioners learned of facts which would enable
them to file a timely claim, as spelled out in the BFMS principal’s letter dated June 11,
2019.
Although petitioners assert that an unnamed worker at the DCR advised them that they
could file their petition out of time, the record is quite to the contrary, and the DCR does
not have authority to enforce the ABR, because the New Jersey Legislature has
conferred that authority to the Commissioner of Education. L.W. ex rel. L.G. v. Toms
River Reg’l Sch. Bd. of Educ., 381 N.J. Super. 465, 498-99 (App. Div. 2005). 	Here, as
early as June 5, 2019, petitioners actually cited to and quoted from the New Jersey
Department of Education’s Guidance for Parents on the ABR, which is available online,
and contains a detailed table of contents, contents, and appendix specifying when,
where, 	and 	how 	to 	appeal 	a 	HIB 	determination.
https://www.state.nj.us/education/students/safety/behavior/hib/ParentGuide.pdf.
Moreover, the BFMS principal’s June 11, 2019 letter explicitly instructed petitioners that
they could appeal to the Board, and thereafter to the Commissioner “in accordance with
N.J.A.C. 	6A:3,” which is 	also 	readily 	available 	online.
https://www.state.nj.us/education/code/current/title6a/chap3.pdf.
I therefore CONCLUDE that petitioners knew or should have known of the ninetyday
filing deadline, and that they missed that deadline by approximately six months. 	There
is nothing in the record to support a conclusion that strict adherence to the ninetyday
rule would be inappropriate, unnecessary, or result in injustice. 	This case does not
involve an important and novel constitutional question, or an important question of
public interest beyond that of concern only to the parties themselves, which would
warrant a relaxation of the limitation period established by the Commissioner. See D.Q.
o/b/o S.Q.
v. State-Operated Sch. Dist. of Newark Essex Co., 2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 993, *8-9
(Dec. 5, 2008).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05502-20
9
ORDER
It is therefore ORDERED that the Board’s motion for summary decision is hereby
GRANTED, and the petition of appeal 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.
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
086250500, marked “Attention: Exceptions.” A copy of any exceptions must be sent to
the judge and to the other parties.
November 5, 2020
DATE
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties: 	jb
APPENDIX
SARAH H. SURGENT 	, ALJ

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05502-20
10
EXHIBITS
For the Judge:
C-1 	Ridgewood Board of Education HIB Policy
For Petitioners:
P-1 	Petitioners’ letter to this tribunal dated September 5, 2020
P-2 	Petitioners’ reply to respondent’s motion
P-3 	Petitioners’ appendix in support of their reply
P-4 	Petitioners’ “Supplemental to Response of Notice of Motion for
Summary Decision
For Respondent:
R-1 	Respondent’s Notice of Motion for Summary Decision and Certification of
Counsel with Respondent’s Supplemental Facts and Exhibits
R-2 	Respondent’s Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Decision