Jennifer Rome and Mellk Cridge LLC v. State-Operated School District of the City of Camden, Camden County, 4/21/25 (#141-25)

141-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 01642-23
Agency Dkt. No. 23-1/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Jennifer Rome and Mellk Cridge, LLC,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Camden,
Camden 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 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that
petitioners are not entitled to indemnification for legal fees pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:16-6
associated with their successful defense of an Order to Show Cause (OSC) issued by the State
Board of Examiners in November 2017 because they did not provide the requisite notice to
respondent that they were seeking indemnification until the instant petition was filed in January
2023. Petitioners were obligated to put respondent on notice that they sought defense costs
within a reasonable period of time after the OSC was issued. Azzaro v. Bd. of Educ. of Trenton,
477 N.J. Super. 427 (App. Div. 2023), cert. denied, 258 N.J. 438 (2024). The Commissioner holds
that petitioners’ failure to notify respondent of their intent to seek indemnification until more
than five years after the OSC was issued was unreasonable.

2
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter,
respondent’s cross-motion for summary decision is granted, and the petition of appeal is hereby
dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	April 21, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	April 22, 2025
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 01642-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 23-1/23
JENNIFER ROME AND
MELLK CRIDGE, LLC,
Petitioners,
v.
CITY OF CAMDEN STATE-OPERATED
SCHOOL DISTRICT, CAMDEN COUNTY,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
Edward A. Cridge, Esq., for petitioners (Mellk Cridge, LLC, attorneys)
Louis R. Lessig, Esq., for respondent (Brown & Connery, LLP, attorneys)
Record closed: February 3, 2025 Decided: March 18, 2025
BEFORE JUDITH LIEBERMAN, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioners, Jennifer Rome and law firm Mellk Cridge, LLC, filed this action against
the City of Camden State-Operated School District, Camden County (District) in which
they seek, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:16-6, indemnification for legal fees associated with

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01642-23
2
their successful defense of an Order to Show Cause (OSC) issued by the Department of
Education, State Board of Examiners (SBE or Examiners). Petitioners filed a motion for
summary decision in which they contend that they are entitled to indemnification for the
costs of defending the OSC notwithstanding that they did not ask the District to provide
for the costs of Rome’s defense until after the matter was concluded. In so arguing, they
contend that Azzaro v. Board of Education of Trenton, 477 N.J. Super. 427 (App. Div.
2023), certif. denied, 258 N.J. 438 (2024), which requires parties seeking provision of
defense costs by boards of education to provide reasonable notice of their request, is
distinguishable and thus inapplicable here.
The District opposes petitioners’ motion and filed a cross-motion for summary
decision in which it argues that Azzaro is not distinguishable and thus petitioners are
ineligible for indemnification because they did not provide timely notice to the District of
their intention to seek defense costs.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioners filed their petition with the Commissioner on January 25, 2023. On
February 17, 2023, respondent filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer. The matter
was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on February 23, 2023. The
motion to dismiss was denied on May 16, 2023. Orders of Inactivity were issued on
October 17, 2023, and April 24, 2024, pending the disposition of Azzaro, because the
issue presented in that case was substantially similar to the issue presented here. The
Order of Inactivity was lifted after the Supreme Court denied certification of the Appellate
Division’s decision in Azzaro. Petitioners filed their motion for summary decision on
January 31, 2025; respondent filed its opposition to the motion and a cross-motion for
summary decision on February 3, 2025. The record for the motion closed on February 3,
2025.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01642-23
3
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
The following facts are undisputed.
Petitioner Jennifer Rome was employed by the District from September 1, 2004,
through December 31, 2017. On January 27, 2017, the District filed tenure charges
against Rome, alleging inefficiency, conduct unbecoming a teacher and other just cause.
The tenure charges were resolved via a global settlement agreement (Agreement) that
the parties signed on March 27, 2017. In conjunction with the Agreement, Rome resigned
from her position with the District, effective December 31, 2017.
On or about November 1, 2017, the SBE issued an OSC to Rome, directing her to
show cause why her teaching certificates should not be suspended or revoked.
Honorable Sarah G. Crowley, ALJ, heard the matter and issued an initial decision finding
that the SBE failed to demonstrate inefficiency, insubordination, falsification of records,
misrepresentation of her qualification or conduct unbecoming by a preponderance of the
credible evidence and dismissed the OSC. On December 9, 2022, the Commissioner
adopted the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) decision to dismiss the OSC. In re the
Teaching Certificates of Jennifer Rome, EDE 04037-18, Initial Decision (August 4, 2022),
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/, adopted, Comm’r (December 9, 2022),
https://www.nj.gov/education/legal/commissioner/index.shtml. Rome was represented
by law firm Mellk Cridge, a petitioner in this matter, for the OSC matter.
On January 25, 2023, Rome and Mellk Cridge filed their petition for indemnification
from the District for the reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred in the defense of
the OSC, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:16-6. Rome and Mellk Cridge did not notify the District
that they wanted it to pay the costs of the defense of the OSC until they filed their petition
for indemnification.
Parties’ Arguments
The parties agree that summary decision is appropriate because the material facts
are not in dispute. The District argues that, pursuant to Azzaro, the petition must be

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01642-23
4
dismissed because petitioners did not advise the District, within a reasonable period of
time after the OSC was filed, that they wanted it to pay the costs of their defense of the
OSC. They are subject to this requirement even if they believed that there is a conflict of
interest between Rome and the District.
Petitioners assert that they are entitled to indemnification, notwithstanding their
failure to notify the District, because the facts here are distinguishable from those in
Azzaro. Unlike in Azzaro, there was an “adversarial relationship” between Rome and the
District. Pet’r’s Br. at 7. That is, the OSC “was premised entirely and exclusively upon
tenure charges” that the District filed. Ibid. In filing the charges, the District announced
that it determined that Rome engaged in conduct outside the scope of her duties. Thus,
the District here was Rome’s “accuser” and could not simultaneously serve as her
“defender” or “play any role in arranging for her defense.” Id. at 8. Also, the settlement
agreement with Rome “contemplated that the District would provide information” about
her to the Examiners and “the referral of the District’s tenure charges to the Examiners
was required by” N.J.A.C. 6A:3-5.6. Id. at 7. Thus, the “District could not have ethically
provided Ms. Rome with a defense to the OSC, under any circumstances” until after the
OSC was dismissed. Id. at 7–8, 10.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Standard of Review
Summary decision is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). 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 factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-
moving party.” Ibid. The facts relied upon by both parties, which are documented in the
record, are not in dispute. Summary decision is, therefore, appropriate.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01642-23
5
Indemnification
“Under the civil indemnification statute, N.J.S.A. 18A:16-6, a board of education
employee may be indemnified for attorney’s fees and costs incurred defending civil
actions arising out of an act or omission that took place in the course and scope of
employment duties.” L.A. v. Bd. of Educ., City of Trenton, Mercer Cnty., 221 N.J. 192,
201–02 (2015). N.J.S.A. 18A:16-6 provides:
Whenever any civil or administrative action or other legal
proceeding has been or shall be brought against any person
holding any office, position or employment under the
jurisdiction of any board of education, including any student
teacher or person assigned to other professional pre-teaching
field experience, for any act or omission arising out of and in
the course of the performance of the duties of such office,
position, employment or student teaching or other assignment
to professional field experience, the board shall defray all
costs of defending such action, including reasonable counsel
fees and expenses, together with costs of appeal, if any, and
shall save harmless and protect such person from any
financial loss resulting therefrom; provided that
a. no employee shall be entitled to be held harmless or
have his defense costs defrayed in a disciplinary
proceeding instituted against him by the board or when
the employee is appealing an action taken by the
board; and
b. indemnification for exemplary or punitive damages
shall not be mandated and shall be governed by the
standards and procedures set forth in N.J.S. 59:10-4.
Any board of education may arrange for and maintain
appropriate insurance to cover all such damages, losses and
expenses.
In Bower v. Board of Education, 149 N.J. 416 (1997), the Supreme Court
addressed the statutory prerequisite. It held that the statute requires “mere proof by a
preponderance of the evidence that the act on which the charges are predicated arose
out of and in the course of performance of the duties of employment.” Id. at 434; see also
Waters v. Bd. of Educ. of Toms River, 2011 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3083, *12

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01642-23
6
(December 22, 2011)1 (“In the context of the defense of a civil action, the outcome of the
litigation is irrelevant, the statute protects both successful and unsuccessful litigants as
long as” the cause of action arose out of the performance of the employee’s duties and
occurred in the performance of the duties) (citing Lonky v. Bd. of Educ. of Bayonne, EDU
07205-07, final decision (July 7, 2008), https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/). In
Lonky, the ALJ observed that, because N.J.S.A. 18A:16-6 does not require a disposition
in favor of the employee, “there is an entitlement to indemnification if the sole criteria for
satisfying the statute has been met by showing that the employee was performing the job
she was hired for when the act occurred.” Lonky, EDU 07205-07, initial decision (May
22, 2008), https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/.
Azzaro held that employees seeking indemnification pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:16-
6 must provide the district reasonable notice after the initiation of the proceeding for which
representation is sought. “What constitutes a reasonable time may be a fact-specific
inquiry in certain cases.” 477 N.J. Super. at 443. Petitioners argue that they could not
have notified the District prior to the dismissal of the OSC due to the potential conflict of
interest between Rome and the District. However, Azzaro rejected the argument that a
potential conflict of interest prevented this notice, concluding that “if there was in fact a
conflict, the Board could have assigned outside counsel or ‘come to an agreement with
counsel of [petitioner’s] choosing. . . and the costs thereof.’" Id. at 442 (App. Div. 2023)
(quoting Edison v. Mezzacca, N.J. Super. 9, 16 (App. Div. 1977)). Moreover, Azzaro held
that the notice requirement was not obviated by the prospect that a school district might
reject the request to provide defense costs based upon its determination that the actions
that were the subject of the underlying matter were not related to the employee’s job
duties.
Despite the Board’s arguments here that there was no
indication it would have declined to provide defense costs, we
are mindful the Board could have determined the allegations
against Azzaro were outside the scope of her employment.
However, the fact that the Board may have declined
petitioner’s request for defense costs is not a basis to refrain
from requesting defense and indemnification under N.J.S.A.
1 Unpublished Appellate Division and administrative decisions are not precedential. They are referenced
here because they provide relevant guidance.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01642-23
7
18A:16-6. To the extent the Board would have denied
Azzaro’s request for defense costs, she was not without a
remedy. Petitioners would be entitled to challenge such a
determination similar to the parties in L.A.[2]
An evidentiary hearing may have been required, or an
adjudication of the underlying OSC, to determine if Azzaro
was acting within the scope of her employment to resolve the
issue. Nevertheless, unlike N.J.S.A. 18A:16-6.1, which
requires an employee to wait until the dismissal of a criminal
action to seek reimbursement of legal fees, N.J.S.A. 18A:16-
6 has no such requirement. Petitioners were obligated to
request the Board to provide defense costs even if the request
may have initially been rejected. Although a board may
initially deny defense costs, the board will ultimately be
responsible for reasonable legal fees if it is later determined
the employee was, in fact, working within the scope of their
employment.
[Id. at 441.]
While petitioners argue that Azzaro is distinguishable because there was an
adversarial relationship and conflict of interest between Rome and the District, Azzaro
rejected this type of argument. Rather, it directed employees not to predetermine the
outcome and allow a school district to decide how it will act in response to a request for
the provision of defense costs.
Moreover, in a case with facts similar to those presented here, Lawless v. Board
of Education of Bridgeton, Cumberland County, 2024 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 805, adopted,
Comm’r, 2024 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 757 (September 30, 2024), the Commissioner found
that a five-year delay in providing notice was unreasonable. The school board served the
school employee with tenure charges in September 2017. The board did not certify the
charges, as the parties reached an agreement that the employee would resign. The board
thus did not vote on the tenure charges and accepted the employee’s resignation. On
September 21, 2018, the SBE, “on its own initiative,” issued an OSC seeking to revoke
the employee’s teaching certificates. 2024 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 805 at *12. The OSC was
based on the tenure charges. The employee retained counsel to defend against the OSC
2 Where a hearing was required to determine whether the school employee’s actions fell within the scope
of his employment duties. L.A., 221 N.J. at 204–05.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01642-23
8
and counsel represented him from October 1, 2018, through June 30, 2023. On June 29,
2023, the SBE voted to vacate the OSC. The employee filed a petition seeking
indemnification on October 13, 2023. He did not notify the board of his intention to seek
indemnification for his legal fees and costs associated with his defense of the OSC prior
to then. Noting that the employee did not offer an explanation of the delay other than the
same legal arguments that were rejected by Azzaro, the ALJ found, and the
Commissioner agreed, that it was unreasonable for him to have waited five years to notify
the board of his intention to seek indemnification.
For these reasons, I CONCLUDE that petitioners have not demonstrated that their
five year delay was reasonable and, therefore, they are not entitled to the relief they seek
from the District.
ORDER
I ORDER that respondent’s cross-motion for summary decision is GRANTED and
petitioners’ cross-motion for summary decision is DENIED.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. If the Acting 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 ACTING
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,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01642-23
9
New Jersey 08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the
other parties.
March 18, 2025
DATE JUDITH LIEBERMAN, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: March 18, 2025
Date Mailed to Parties:
JL/mg
c: Clerk OAL-T

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01642-23
10
APPENDIX
For petitioners:
Brief in support of motion for summary decision, December 16, 2024
P-A Verified Petition for Indemnification, January 25, 2023
For respondent:
Brief in opposition to motion for summary decision and in support of cross-motion for
summary decision, February 4, 2025
R-A Motion to Dismiss, February 17, 2023, with exhibits:
R-1 Tenure Charges, January 27, 2017
R-2 Superior Court complaints
R-3 Settlement Agreement and General Release
R-4 Transcript of settlement proceedings