K.W. and S.W., on behalf of minor child, A.W. v. Board of Education of the School District of the Chathams, Morris County, 3/15/2024, (#139-24)

139-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
K.W. and S.W., on behalf of minor child, A.W.,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the School District of the
Chathams, Morris County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioners appealed the decision of the respondent Board that their son, a ninth grader at Chatham
High School during the 2022-2023 school year, committed an act of harassment, intimidation, and
bullying (HIB), pursuant to the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq, against a
fellow classmate. Petitioners contended, inter alia, that the Board’s determination of HIB against their
son was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable; 	they sought an order reversing the decision and
removal of any mention of the HIB finding from A.W.’s school record. A hearing in the matter was held
on February 14, 2024 in the Office of Administrative Law (OAL).
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	an action by a board of education is entitled to a presumption of
correctness and will not be undermined unless it can be shown that the decision was arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable; here, the HIB complaint at issue resulted from A.W.’s posting of the word
“NIGERs” to a SnapChat chat group using a Chat Bot artificial intelligence app (AI) that could create
words; 	the chat group consisted of several ninth grade boys, one of whom is black; although A.W.
contends that he quickly deleted the post, a few of the other boys screenshot the post, thereby
preserving its content; this electronic communication occurred on school property during school hours,
disrupted the orderly operation of the school and triggered the HIB investigation; the posting of the
word “NIGERs” was an intentional act that could not be accidently generated; A.W. should have known
that posting the word “NIGERs” to a group chat where one of the members is black could have the
effect of emotionally harming that student or placing him in reasonable fear of harm to his person; and
the chat post was insulting and demeaning to the black member of the group. The ALJ concluded that
petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Board’s determination of HIB was arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable in this case. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ that the Board did not act in an arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable manner in rendering its HIB determination in this case. 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.

139-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 10064-23
Agency Dkt. No. 241-9/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
K.W. and S.W., on behalf of minor child, A.W.,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the School District of the
Chathams, Morris County,
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 petitioners
failed to demonstrate that respondent’s determination that A.W. committed an act of harassment,
intimidation, or bullying (HIB) was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Accordingly, the Commissioner adopts the Initial Decision as the final decision in this matter,
and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: March 15, 2024
Date of Mailing: March 20, 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
OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 10064-23
AGENCY REF. NO.: 241-09/23
K.W. AND S.W. ON BEHALF OF
MINOR CHILD A.W.,
Petitioners,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CHATHAMS,
MORRIS COUNTY,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
Charles F. Clark, Jr., Esq., for Petitioners (Clark & Noonan, LLC, attorneys)
Janice Arellano, Esq., for Respondent (Cleary, Giacobbe, Alfieri, Jacobs, LLC,
attorneys)
Record Closed: February 14, 2024 	Decided: February 15, 2024
BEFORE THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10064-23
2
Petitioner 	filed 	a 	Petition 	of 	Appeal 	with 	the 	New 	Jersey 	Department 	of
Education, Office of Controversies and Disputes, dated December 8, 2023, challenging
the Board’s harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) determination.
The Office of Controversies and Disputes transmitted the contested case to the
Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as a contested matter, where it was filed on
September 28, 2023.
A 	prehearing 	conference 	was 	held 	on 	October 	13 	and 	17, 	2023, 	and 	a
Prehearing Order was entered on October 17, 2023.
A hearing on the matter was held on February 14, 2024, whereupon the record
closed.
ISSUE
Did Respondent err in determining that the minor child A.W. committed an act of
HIB within the meaning of the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.2 et
seq.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 	The incident that led to the HIB investigation occurred on April 21, 2023, a
Friday. (R-1, P-2, Hendersen testimony)
2. 	A.W. posted the word “NIGERs” to a SnapChat chat group using a Chat
Bot artificial intelligence app (AI) that could create words. 	A.W. used this
to 	create 	the 	word 	“NIGERs” 	multiple 	times. 	(R-1, 	P-2, 	Hendersen
testimony)
3. 	There are several members of the chat group called the “Nice Fellers”.
A.W. was a member of this group. 	S.R., the alleged HIB victim, was also
a member. (R-1, P-2, Hendersen testimony)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10064-23
3
4. 	Other members of this chat group, not A.W., posted the word “NIGGA”
and tagged S.R. with the post. (R-1, P-2, Hendersen testimony)
5. 	Tagging is when the person you tag is notified of the post so he or she can
see it immediately. (Hendersen testimony and S.R. testimony)
6. 	All posts to SnapChat are deleted within 24 hours. The only way to save a
post is to take a screen shot. (Hendersen testimony)
7. 	The incident was reported by a schoolteacher who overheard S.R. and
another member of the chat group talking about what was posted to the
chat. (Hendersen testimony)
8. 	The school’s anti bullying specialist, Conner Hendersen, commenced an
investigation. 	He spoke with A.W. on April 21, 2023. 	He also spoke with
S.R. the same date. (R-1, P-2, Hendersen testimony)
9. 	Several other members of the chat group were also interviewed that date.
They were: C.N., S.D., and S.N. (R-1, P-2, Hendersen testimony)
10. 	On the following Monday, April 24, 2023, S.R. was again interviewed and
revealed he had spent the weekend with the group chat members and
reported they had apologized and said he felt “fine”. (R-1, P-2, Hendersen
testimony and S.R. testimony)
11. 	Also interviewed again on April 24, 2023 were S.D. and S.N. 	B.R. was
interviewed for the first time on this date.
12. 	All 	participants 	in 	the 	chat 	group, 	other 	than 	S.R., 	offered 	various
explanations as to why they posted the two versions of the N word. 	No
one admitted it was done to target S.R.
13. 	S.R. told Mr. Hendersen at his April 21, 2023, interview that the use of the
N word bothered him. 	Mr. Hendersen admitted that he did not so state in
his HIB report. 	S.R. confirmed he advised Mr. Hendersen that he stated
so during the April 21, 2023 interview. 	(R-1, P-2, Hendersen testimony
and S.R. testimony)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10064-23
4
14. 	S.N., S.D. and B.R. tagged S.R. with the post of the word Nigga. A.W. did
not tag S.R. with his post of the word NIGERs. 	(R-1, P-2, Hendersen
testimony)
15. 	In order for the AI Chat Bot app to generate a word must enter words
which the app will use the first letters of to generate an acronym. 	The
words are not generated by the app without input. 	(R-1, P-2, Hendersen
testimony)
16. 	Based on the above, the only logical conclusion is that the words were
purposely generated, and not attributable to some accident. 	This was an
intentional act. (R-1, P-2, Hendersen testimony)
17. 	Mr. Hendersen concluded in his HIB report that A.W. committed an act of
HIB 	by 	posting 	the 	word 	NIGERs 	into 	the 	chat 	group. 	(R-1, 	P-2,
Hendersen testimony)
18. 	After the completion of his initial HIB report, Mr. Hendersen received
additional information from petitioners in the form of a screen shot of a
message from S.R. to A.W. wherein he used the N word to refer to A.W.
(R-2, P-3 and Hendersen testimony)
19. 	Mr. Hendersen then completed a supplemental report dated May 18,
2023, wherein he concluded that the additional information did not alter his
conclusion that an act of HIB was committed by A.W. (R-2, P-3 and
Hendersen testimony)
20. 	S.R. admitted to using the N word in addressing A.W. in a text. 	He
maintained he could use this word as he is black. 	He further stated A.W.
could not use the word as he is white.
21. 	Petitioners contested that determination and appealed to the Board of
Education. 	A hearing was held on June 5, 2023, and considered the HIB
report, a statement by A.W. read into the record by his father and
arguments of counsel. The Board upheld the HIB determination. (P-1 and
Daquila testimony)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10064-23
5
22. 	There was a second addendum to the HIB report dated June 7, 2023,
regarding additional posts to the chat group from April 21, 2023. 	Those
posts do not involve A.W. and were not part of the HIB finding as to him.
(R-2 and P-4)
23. 	This 	incident 	involved 	an 	electronic 	communication 	that 	occurred 	on
school 	property 	during 	school 	hours 	that 	substantially 	disrupted 	and
interfered with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of other
students. That disruption was the catalyst for the ABS, Mr. Hendersen, to
conduct a HIB investigation. 	This entailed pulling students out of class to
be interviewed. 	Those students, admittedly the perpetrators of the HIB,
should have been in class but for their actions. 	The disruption continued
into the next week as more interviews were required. 	Other staff such as
the teacher who made the initial report were not engaged in their ordinary
duties to address this incident. 	That includes S.R.’s case manager, who
had to address his concerns regarding the incident.i 	The incident further
disrupted school operations by requiring the Board to conduct a hearing,
something but for A.W.’s actions would not have occurred.
24. 	I find that the posting of the word NIGERs to the group chat was an
intentional act as the word could not be accidentally generated. (R-1, P-2,
Hendersen testimony)
25. 	I find that a reasonable person should know that posting the word NIGERs
to 	a 	group 	chat 	where 	one 	of 	the 	members 	is 	a 	black, 	under 	the
circumstances, will have the effect of emotionally harming a student. or
placing a student in reasonable fear of emotional harm to his person. (R-1,
P-2, Hendersen testimony)
26. 	I find that it had the effect of insulting or demeaning S.R. (S.R. testimony)
27. 	I 	find 	that 	it 	created 	a 	hostile 	educational 	environment 	for 	S.R. 	by
interfering with his education by causing him to lose focus and not be able
to concentrate on his studies. (R-1, P-2, Hendersen testimony and S.R.
testimony)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10064-23
6
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (“Act”), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq., is designed
“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.”3 N.J.S.A. 	18A:37-13.1.(f). 	Under 	the 	Act,
“harassment, intimidation or bullying” (HIB) is defined as:
[A]ny gesture, any written, verbal or physical act, or any
electronic communication, whether it be a single incident or
a series of incidents, that is reasonably perceived as being
motivated either by any actual or perceived characteristic,
such 	as 	race, 	color, 	religion, 	ancestry, 	national 	origin,
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression,
or a mental, physical or sensory disability, or by any other
distinguishing 	characteristic, 	that 	takes 	place 	on 	school
property, at any school-sponsored function, on a school bus,
or 	off 	school 	grounds 	as 	provided 	for 	in 	section 	16
ofP.L.2010, 	c.122 (C.18A:37-15.3), 	that 	substantially
disrupts or interferes with the orderly operation of the school
or the rights of other students and that:
a. 	a 	reasonable 	person 	should 	know, 	under 	the
circumstances, 	will 	have 	the 	effect 	of 	physically 	or
emotionally harming a student or damaging the student's
property, or placing a student in reasonable fear of physical
or emotional harm to his person or damage to his property;
b. has the effect of insulting or demeaning any student or
group of students; or
c. creates a hostile educational environment for the student
by interfering with a student's education or by severely or
pervasively 	causing 	physical 	or 	emotional 	harm 	to 	the
student.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.]
Each school district must adopt a policy that prohibits HIB and provides for a
prompt response to any alleged HIB incident. N.J.S.A 18A:37-15. Once an alleged HIB
incident is reported to the school principal, the principal must initiate an investigation
within one school day of the report. N.J.S.A 18A:37-15(b)(6). The investigation shall be
conducted by a school anti-bullying specialist, and shall take no longer than ten school

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10064-23
7
days to be completed. 	The results of the investigation shall then be quickly reported to
the superintendent of schools, who may take certain remedial action. 	The results shall
also be reported to the board of education “no later than the date of the board of
education 	meeting 	next 	following 	the 	completion 	of 	the 	investigation, 	along 	with
information on any services provided, training established, discipline imposed, or other
action taken or recommended by the superintendent.” Ibid.
Pursuant to the Act, the parents of the students involved in any alleged HIB
incident are entitled to receive information about the nature of the investigation and the
result of the investigation. The parents may request a hearing before the board, and the
hearing must be held within ten days of the request. 	Any hearing shall be held in
executive session to protect the identity of any students involved. The board may hear
from the anti-bullying specialist about the incident, recommendations for discipline or
services, and any programs instituted to reduce such incidents. The board must issue a
decision at the first meeting after its receipt of the investigation report. 	The board may
affirm, reject, or modify the superintendent’s decision. 	The board’s decision may be
appealed to the Commissioner of Education.
An action by a board of education “is entitled to a presumption of correctness and
will not be upset unless there is an affirmative showing that such decision was arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable.” Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327,
332 (App. Div. 1965). Thus, in order to prevail, those challenging an HIB decision made
by a board of education “must demonstrate that the Board acted in bad faith, or in utter
disregard of the circumstances before it.” G.H. & E.H. ex rel. K.H. v. Bd. of Educ. of the
Bor. of Franklin Lakes, EDU 13204-13, Initial Decision (February 24, 2014) (citation
omitted) <http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>, adopted, Comm’r (April 10, 2014).
Also, a board’s decision may be overturned if its determination violates the legislative
policies expressed or implied in the governing act. J.A.H. ex rel. C.H. v. Twp. of
Pittsgrove 	Bd. 	of 	Educ., 	EDU 	10826-12, 	Initial 	Decision 	(March 	11, 	2013)
(citing Campbell v. Dep’t of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556 (1963), 562 (1963)), adopted,
Comm’r (April 25, 2013) <http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10064-23
8
There are reported cases in which HIB determinations by boards of education
have been both affirmed and overturned. In R.G.B. v. Vill. of Ridgewood Bd. of Educ.,
EDU 	14213-12, 	Initial 	Decision 	(May 	15, 	2013)
<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>, adopted, Comm’r (June 24, 2013), the ALJ
found that the Board did not act in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner in
determining that a student engaged in HIB when he repeatedly called a female student
“fat,” “fat ass,” and “horse.” According to the ALJ, such verbal statements satisfied all of
the necessary elements under N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14. And, in G.H., supra, the ALJ also
upheld a Board’s finding that a white student who repeatedly called a black student
“Kool-Aid” engaged in HIB. The ALJ found that the “use of the word ‘kool-aid’ was
directed at [the other student] because of his race; insulted and demeaned [the other
student]; and . . . interfered with [the other student’s] education” because “[u]pset and
embarrassed children are not fully available for learning.” However, in J.A.H., supra, the
Board’s finding that an incident in which one student stuffed a crumbled piece of paper
down the shirt of another student constituted an act of bullying was overturned as
arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because the incident was merely a prank that
was part of an ongoing, mutual conflict between the two boys and did not “contain the
more 	serious 	and 	aggravating 	elements 	either 	‘expressed 	or 	implied’ 	under
[N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.]” The ALJ found that the incident was not improperly motivated by
a distinguishing characteristic and that the facts “only support[ed] a finding of ordinary
student conflicts rather than the more serious behavior of bullying.”
In the instant matter, there is no question that A.W. posted the word “NIGERs” to
a SnapChat group called the NICE FELLERS. 	This group consisted of A.W., the victim
S.W., and several other freshman boys. That act by A.W. was intentional. This was not
inadvertent tapping of some buttons. 	The word could only be generated by prompting
the app to do it. 	Argument that the disruption to the school and to S.R. were only
caused 	by 	the 	HIB 	investigation, 	and 	not 	the 	act 	of 	HIB 	itself, 	are 	completely
unconvincing. 	The only logical conclusion is that it was done intentionally and was
directed at S.R. based upon his race; and, that it harmed S.R. and disrupted school
functions.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10064-23
9
Given the totality of the facts in the instant matter, I cannot conclude that the
Board acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner in determining that an
HIB incident did occur. See In Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327,
332 (App. Div. 1965); R.G.B. v. Vill. of Ridgewood Bd. of Educ., EDU 14213-12, Initial
Decision (May 15, 2013) <http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>, adopted, Comm’r
(June 24, 2013); and, J.A.H. ex rel. C.H. v. Twp. of Pittsgrove Bd. of Educ., EDU 10826-
12, Initial Decision (March 11, 2013) (citing Campbell v. Dep’t of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556
(1963), 	562 	(1963)), adopted, 	Comm’r 	(April 	25, 	2013)
<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>.
While the undersigned may have come to a different conclusion than a finding of
HIB, based on the intent of A.W. in making the post to Snap Chat, that does not mean
that the Board acted in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner.
Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that Petitioners have failed to sustain the burden of
establishing that the Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably in finding that
HIB did occur.
Based upon the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that the Petition must be DISMISSED.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner’s Amended Petition be DISMISSED with
prejudice.
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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10064-23
10
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
08625-0500, marked “Attention: Exceptions.” A copy of any exceptions must be sent to
the judge and to the other parties.
February 15, 2024
DATE 	THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
db

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10064-23
11
APPENDIX
List of Witnesses
For Petitioner:
Connor Hendersen
Peter Daquila
For Respondent:
J.W., mother of S.W.
S.W.
List of Exhibits
For Petitioner:
P-1 	Petition of Appeal
P-2 	ABS Hendersen’s HIB report, 4/28/23
P-3 	ABS Hendersen’s HIB Addendum Report, 5/18/23
P-4 	ABS Hendersen’s HIB Addendum Report, 6/7/23
For Respondent:
R-1 	Unredacted Confidential HIB report (Same as P-1)
R-2 	Unredacted Confidential HIB report addendums (same as P-3 and P-4)
R-3 	letters to family of S.R. and A.W.
R-4 	Screenshot of Group Chat regarding HIB incident
R-5 	Group Chat talking/Poems about S.R.
R-6 	Petition of Appeal (same as P-1)
i S.R. receives special education and related services pursuant to his Individualized Education Program or IEP.