A.O., on behalf of minor child, K.R. v. Jersey City Board of Education, Hudson County, 6/18/26 (#208-26E)

208-26E
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 09872-26
Agency Dkt. No. 252-06-26
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
A.O., on behalf of minor child, K.R.,
Petitioner,
v.
Jersey City Board of Education, Hudson County,
Respondent.
The record of this emergent matter and the recommended decision of the Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) have been reviewed and considered.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner has failed to
demonstrate entitlement to emergent relief pursuant to the standards enunciated in Crowe v.
DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126, 132-34 (1982), and codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6.
Accordingly, the decision denying petitioner’s application for emergent relief is adopted.
This matter shall continue at the OAL with such proceedings as the parties and the ALJ deem
necessary to bring it to closure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	June 18, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	June 18, 2026

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ORDER
EMERGENT RELIEF
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09872-26
AGENCY DKT. NO. 252-06-26
A.O. ON BEHALF OF K.R.,
Petitioner,
v.
JERSEY CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Respondent.
______________________________________
A.O. petitioner appearing pro se
Cherie L. Adams, Esq., for respondent Jersey City Board of Education (Adams,
Lattiboudere, Croot & Herman, LLC)
BEFORE MARIANNE B. ORTEGA, ALJ:
Petitioner, A.O. challenges the Jersey City Board of Education’s (Board or
respondent) decision to exclude her child K.R. from her 8 th grade graduation ceremony.
On June 17, 2026, petitioner filed a Motion for Emergent Relief to compel respondent to
allow K.R. to walk in the graduation ceremony on June 18, 2026. The Board prohibited
K.R. from participation in the ceremony due to a vaping incident during an overnight trip.
The matter was filed with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as a contested matter
June 17, 2026. On June 17, 2026, I conducted the hearing and closed the record.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09872- 26
2
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
Based on the reports presented at the hearing as well as on the opportunity to
observe the witnesses and assess their credibility, I FIND the following:
K.R. is an eight-grade student who has met the requirement to be promoted to the
nineth grade.
On 	June 	3, 	2026, 	K.R. 	was 	on 	an 	overnight 	school 	trip 	to 	Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. On June 10, 2026, the school district became aware of a smoking violation
that occurred during that school trip. The school district received a notice from the tour
company indicating that the hotel’s smoke detection system detected smoke in a
student’s room at approximately 10:17 p.m. on June 3, 2026. The room was assigned to
four students, including K.R. 	The school district conducted an investigation and
interviewed K.R. and the other three occupants of the room individually. 	One of the
students stated that K.R. was vaping in the bathroom and there was a strong odor which
the student believed to be marijuana. 	Another student stated that she also witnessed
K.R. vaping at the Dave & Busters and at the hotel room in the evening of June 3, 2026
and the morning of June 4, 2026. During her interview, K.R. denied vaping and stated
that she neither smelled nor observed any vaping in the room. K.R. had alleged that
another roommate had a blue vape in her bag, however she stated she never observed
the student using it. During the interview process at least two students stated that there
was smoke in the room that smelled like marijuana and directly observed K.R. vaping.
The parents of all the students that were assigned to the room were called. 	The
parents of the other students agreed to take their children for drug testing. A.O. did not
comply with the drug testing as required by the district boards policy. K.R. was given a
three-day suspension and was also excluded from the 8th grade luncheon.
On June 15, 2026, the principal advised A.O., via email, that due to the incident
during the overnight trip, and the failure to comply with the required drug testing, K.R.
would not be able to walk at the graduation ceremony on June 18, 2026. Principal Rivero
testified that due to the incident during the Philadelphia overnight trip and the failure to

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09872- 26
3
comply with the required testing and interventions and participation and completion of the
C-Line Program, a drug intervention program, that K.R. would not be able to walk.
LEGAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b) sets forth the standards governing motions for emergent
relief. The regulation instructs in salient part:
A motion for a stay or emergent relief shall be accompanied by a
letter 	memorandum 	or 	brief 	which 	shall 	address 	the 	following
standards be met for granting such relief pursuant to Crowe v.
DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982):
1. 	The 	respondent 	will 	suffer 	irreparable 	harm 	if 	the
requested relief is not granted;
2. 	The legal right underlying respondent’s claim is settled;
3. 	The respondent has the likelihood of prevailing on the
merits of the underlying claim; and
4. 	When 	the 	equities 	and 	interests 	of 	the 	parties 	are
balanced, the respondent will suffer greater harm than the
respondent will suffer if the requested relief is not granted.
Respondent has the burden of establishing each of the above requirements in
order to warrant relief in his favor.
It is well settled that relief should not be granted except “when necessary to prevent
irreparable harm.” 	Crowe, supra 90 N.J. at 132. 	In this regard, harm is generally
considered irreparable if it cannot be adequately redressed by monetary damages. Id. at
132-33. In other words, it has been described as “‘substantial injury to a material degree
coupled with the inadequacy of money damages.’” 	Judice’s Sunshine Pontiac, Inc. v.
General Motors Corp., 418 F. Supp. 1212, 1218 (D.N.J. 1976) (citation omitted). 	See
New Jersey Dep’t of Environmental Protection v. Circle Carting, Inc., 2004 N.J. AGEN
LEXIS 968 (April 2, 2004) (finding no irreparable harm in connection with the revocation
of respondent’s solid waste license in that financial loss is generally insufficient to
demonstrate this requirement). The moving party bears the burden of proving irreparable

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09872- 26
4
harm. More than a risk of irreparable harm must be demonstrated. 	Continental Group,
Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F. 2d 351, 359 (D.N.J. 1980). 	The requisite for
injunctive relief requires a “‘clear showing of immediate irreparable injury,’” or a “‘presently
existing actual threat; (an injunction) may not be used simply to eliminate a possibility of
a remote future injury, or a future invasion of rights, be those rights protected by statute
or by common law.’” Ibid. (citation omitted.)
In this matter, the petitioner will not suffer irreparable harm by not being able to
walk in her 8 th grade graduation ceremony. K.R. failed to comply with previously required
intervention. The Board reserves the right to take away privileges and other disciplinary
consequences when students engage in prohibited conduct. Since K.R. will advance to
the 9 th grade and receive her diploma, I CONCLUDE that respondent will not suffer
irreparable harm.
Local boards of education are responsible for protecting the health, safety and
welfare of their students and ensuring the orderly conduct of the academic process. Goss
v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S. Ct. 729, 42 L. Ed. 2d 725 (1975). To accomplish this, such
boards are empowered to establish rules of conduct and impose discipline to enforce
such rules. It is established law that the actions of a board of education which lie within
the area of discretionary powers, especially as it relates to matters of student discipline,
cannot be upset unless there is a showing that the discipline imposed was arbitrary,
capricious, without a rational basis, or induced by improper motives. J.M. vs. Hunterdon
Cent. Reg’l High Sch. Dist., 96 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 415, 419 (citing Kopera v. W. Orange
Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288 (App. Div. 1960)).
Based on the evidence submitted, I cannot conclude that the actions of the school
district in imposing discipline upon K.R. were arbitrary, without a rational basis, or induced
by improper motives. 	All that is contained in the record before me in support of K.R. is
the argument that respondents’ actions are retaliatory due to her prior infractions. There
is not enough objective evidence in the record before me upon which I can base a
conclusion that petitioner would be successful in prevailing on the merits of the underlying
claim that K.R. is not guilty of the disciplinary infractions in question.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09872- 26
5
There is no question that graduation is a privilege, and that under the clearly
enunciated 	policies 	of 	the 	school 	district, 	failure 	to 	comply 	with 	the 	disciplinary
requirements of the school district will result in a student’s exclusion from the graduation
ceremony.
All the criteria of N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b) must be met in order for petitioner to prevail
on a motion for emergent relief. I CONCLUDE petitioner did not meet all of the criteria of
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b) because they have not shown a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that petitioner’s application for such relief be and
hereby is DENIED.
This order on application for emergency relief may be adopted, modified or
rejected by the COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized to make a
final decision in this matter. The final decision shall be issued without undue delay, but
no later than forty-five days following the entry of this order. 	If the Commissioner of
Education 	does 	not adopt, 	modify 	or 	reject 	this 	order 	within 	forty-five 	days, 	this
recommended order shall become a final decision on the issue of emergent relief in
accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
June 17, 2026
DATE 	MARIANNE B. ORTEGA, ALJ
ljb