S.G., on behalf of minor child, B.H. v. Board of Education of the Township of Montvale, Morris County, 1/26/2024, (#85-24)

85-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
S.G., on behalf of B.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Montville,
Morris County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner S.G. challenged the determination of the respondent, Board of Education of the Township
of Montville (Board), regarding a Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying (HIB) complaint filed on behalf of
her daughter, B.H., who had been a member of the Montville High School cheerleading team during the
2022-2023 school year. The petition expressed general complaints about supposed misconduct by other
team members and their parents and made allegations that B.H. was excluded by team members during a
trip to a cheer competition; further, the petition requested that the cheerleading coach be fired for
allowing such behavior. The Board determined that petitioner’s allegations did not constitute HIB. As B.H.
had turned eighteen and was no longer a minor when petitioner appealed the Board’s decision, the petition
of appeal form included a signed statement from B.H. that she gave petitioner full authorization to
represent her in this matter. The Board filed a motion to dismiss.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: the handwritten note on the appeal form was not dated or notarized; the
note was not sufficient to transfer B.H.’s rights to her mother; even if an adjournment had been permitted
to allow B.H. to provide additional documentation regarding her authorization, the petition did not show
that the cheerleading coach committed an act of HIB against B.H. as none of the allegations met the legal
standards of the HIB statute; for a finding of HIB, the alleged behavior must reasonably be perceived as
being motivated by an actual or perceived distinguishing characteristic, and must have substantially
disrupted or interfered with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of students; further, one of
the three criteria regarding the effect of the conduct, as enumerated in the Act, must also be satisfied. The
ALJ concluded that the factual allegations in the petition were insufficient to support a claim upon which
relief could be granted. Accordingly, the ALJ granted the Board’s motion to dismiss the petition.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ that the petition must be dismissed. In so
determining, the Commissioner found, inter alia, that in the absence of any distinguishing characteristic,
any conduct by the coach did not meet the definition of HIB, and therefore the Board’s decision was not
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Accordingly, Board’s motion to dismiss was granted. 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.

85-24
OAL Dkt. No. 12591-23
Agency Dkt. No. 286-10/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
S.G., on behalf of B.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Montville, Morris County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the reply thereto by the
Montville Township Board of Education (Board), have been reviewed and considered.
Petitioner’s daughter, B.H., was a member of the Montville Township High School
cheerleading team when she was a senior during the 2022-2023 school year. In June of 2023,
petitioner filed a harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) complaint alleging – in addition to
general complaints about alleged misconduct by other team members and their parents – that
B.H. was excluded by team members during a trip to a competition and requesting that the
cheerleading coach be fired for allowing such behavior. The Board determined that there was
no act of HIB committed against B.H. When petitioner appealed, because B.H. was eighteen
years old and no longer a minor, the petition of appeal form included a signed statement from
B.H. that she gave petitioner full authorization to represent her in this matter.

2
Following the Board’s motion to dismiss, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that
the handwritten note on the petition was not sufficient to transfer B.H.’s rights to S.G.
Additionally, the ALJ found that even if an adjournment had been permitted to allow B.H. to
provide additional documentation regarding her authorization, the petition does not show that
the cheerleading coach committed an act of HIB against B.H. The ALJ found that the petition
did not allege that the coach’s actions: would reasonably be perceived as being motivated by
an actual or perceived distinguishing characteristic; substantially disrupted or interfered with
the orderly operation of the school or the rights of students; had the effect of physically or
emotionally harming a student or damaging the student’s property; had the effect of insulting
or demeaning any student or group of students; or created a hostile education environment.
In her exceptions, petitioner repeats the allegations in her petition that the coach
engaged in abusive behavior or condoned such behavior committed by the parents of other
cheerleading team members. Petitioner also indicates that B.H. is willing to provide a notarized
statement authorizing petitioner to proceed with the case, and that B.H. wants to be heard.
In reply, the Board argues that the Initial Decision was correct and should be adopted.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that the petition must be
dismissed. When a local board of education acts within its discretionary authority, its decision
is entitled to a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed unless there is an
affirmative showing that the decision was “patently arbitrary, without rational basis or induced
by improper motives.” Kopera v. W. Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App. Div.
1960). Furthermore, “where there is room for two opinions, action is not arbitrary or
capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration[,]” and the Commissioner will

3
not substitute his judgment for that of the board. Bayshore Sewerage Co. v. Dep’t. of Envtl.
Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199 (Ch. Div. 1973), aff’d, 131 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1974).
The Act defines HIB as follows:
[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 of
P.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.
Therefore, a finding of HIB requires three elements. First, the conduct must be reasonably
perceived as being motivated by any actual or perceived enumerated characteristic or other
distinguishing characteristic and, second, the conduct must substantially disrupt or interfere
with the rights of other students or the orderly operation of the school.1 The third condition
requires that one of the three criteria enumerated in the Act, regarding the effect of the
1 The conduct must also take place on school property, at a school-sponsored function, on a school bus, or off
school grounds as provided for in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15.3.

4
conduct, must also be satisfied. Wehbeh v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of Verona, Essex County,
Commissioner Decision No. 51-20 (decided February 4, 2020).
Petitioner does not identify any distinguishing characteristic of B.H. that she believes
motivated, or could reasonably be perceived to have motivated, the cheerleading coach’s
actions. In the absence of any distinguishing characteristic, any conduct by the coach does not
meet the definition of HIB, and therefore the Board’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.2
Although the Commissioner concludes that dismissal is appropriate because petitioner
has failed to demonstrate that an act of HIB occurred, in light of petitioner’s exceptions, the
Commissioner finds that clarification regarding the issue of standing is appropriate. Here,
petitioner included a signed statement from B.H. on her petition of appeal, whereby B.H.
authorized petitioner to represent her in this matter. This statement was sufficient for the
Office of Controversies and Disputes to accept the petition for filing and to transmit the matter
to the OAL. However, such a determination does not preclude the ALJ from finding that a
petitioner lacks standing to pursue the matter further, as occurred here.
Additionally, the Commissioner notes that there are circumstances under which a
parent may pursue a petition of appeal on behalf of an adult child even though the parent lacks
standing to pursue the matter on their own behalf. For example, in I.C.W., on behalf of minor
child, J.W. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Borough of Mountain Lakes, Morris County, Commissioner
Decision No. 432-11 (decided Oct. 14, 2011), the petitioner, I.C.W., submitted a signed
2 Additionally, to the extent that petitioner’s allegations relate to a meeting that occurred in June 2022, any claims
related to that incident are untimely pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i), which requires petitions to be filed no later
than 90 days from the order, ruling, or other action that is the subject of the requested contested case hearing.

5
statement from his adult child, J.W., similar to the one at issue here. The ALJ afforded J.W. the
option of filing a Certificate of Substitution or appearing before the ALJ to demonstrate that
J.W. wished to have his parent proceed on his behalf. However, J.W. did not exercise either
option, and the matter was dismissed. Here, petitioner requested an adjournment to allow
B.H. to provide additional documentation regarding her authorization. The ALJ correctly
concluded that an adjournment was unnecessary because even if B.H. provided the proper
document to allow petitioner to proceed on her behalf, there was no evidence of an act of HIB,
for the reasons described above.
Accordingly, the Board’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the petition of appeal is
hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.3
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: January 26, 2024
Date of Mailing: January 31, 2024
3 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 12591-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 286-10/23
S.G. ON BEHALF OF B.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD 	OF 	EDUCATION 	OF 	THE
TOWNSHIP 	OF 	MONTVILLE, 	MORRIS
COUNTY,
Respondent.
__________________________________
S.G., petitioner, pro se
Stephen J. Edelstein, Esq. for respondent (Weiner Law Group, LLP)
Record Closed: December 1, 2023 	Decided: December 8, 2023
BEFORE KIMBERLY A. MOSS, ALJ:
On November 7, 2023 the Board of Education of the Township of Montville
(Board or respondent) filed a Motion to Dismiss in lieu of its answer to the petition filed
by petitioner S.G. on behalf of her daughter B.H. 	On November 14, 2023, the matter
was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law. 	On November 16, 2023, an email
was sent to the parties stating that pursuant to the rule, petitioner’s response was due

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12591-23
2
on November 17, 2023, however, additional time would be allowed for petitioner to
respond.
Petitioner filed opposition to the motion on December 1, 2023. 	Petitioner, S.G.
requested the motion be adjourned to allow her daughter, B.H., to sign a consent
transferring B.H. rights to proceed in this matter to her. 	I have declined to grant the
adjournment.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
B.H. is over the age of eighteen. 	On the appeal form is a note written by B.H,
which states that she authorizes her mother to represent her. 	This note is signed but
not dated or notarized. When B.H. was in Montville High School, she was a member of
the cheer team. S.G. states that in June 2022, she and four other senior mothers of the
cheer team met. 	This meeting was arranged by the Coach Gentile and held in front of
the cheer team. 	During the meeting while they were discussing a fund raiser, three of
the senior mothers yelled at S.G. that no one wanted to fundraise, and they were not
going to listen to her. 	According to S.G., these three mothers also began to lie. 	After
this meeting these mothers continued to scream at S.G. 	B.H. came home crying and
had an anxiety attack.
S.G was given the Code of Conduct from R.B. and told that if the conduct
between S.G. and three other mothers continues, they would not be allowed to watch
the students perform at the high school games.
The cheer team was going to the Nationals competition in Florida. 	Initially S.G.
did not sign the permission slip. 	Gentile told some of the other mothers this. 	Gentile
told B.H. in her office that S.G. had not signed the permission slip. S.G. told the coach
that since the three other senior mothers destroyed the fundraiser, those mothers could
pay for B.H. to go to the Nationals, then she would sign the permission slip. Apparently,
this matter was resolved and B.H. went to the Nationals with the cheer team.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12591-23
3
One of the mothers who had previously screamed at S.G. was preparing the
event. 	Once they were on the plane, three senior members of the cheer program sat
together and B.H. sat with the juniors and sophomores in the back of the plane. Gentile
did not require B.H. to sit with the other seniors. 	While at the Nationals, one of the
senior mothers attacked S.G. on social media.
S.G. asked coach Gentile to act against the other senior mothers. Coach Gentile
did not act.
On May 22, 2023, S.G. met with the school to discuss bullying and abuse on the
cheer team. 	On May 23, 2023, S.G requested a harassment, intimidation and bullying
(HIB) investigation into the cheer coach and staff. The investigator wanted to meet with
B.H. but S.G. stated they could only meet with B.H. if she was present. 	The meeting
took place on June 6, 2023. 	B.H. stated that she felt excluded by not sitting with the
other seniors on the flight to the Nationals in Florida. 	She also stated that Gentile did
not do anything to make her feel uncomfortable. The Board found that the allegations in
the investigation report did not constitute an HIB violation.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.5(g) provides:
Nothing in this section precludes the filing of a motion to dismiss in lieu of
an answer to a petition, provided that such motion is filed within the time
allotted for the filing of an answer. Briefing on such motions shall be in the
manner and within the time fixed by the Commissioner, or by the ALJ if the
motion is to be briefed following transmittal to the OAL.
N.J.A.C. 6a:3-1.10 provides:
At any time prior to transmittal of the pleadings to the OAL, in the
Commissioner's discretion or upon motion to dismiss filed in 	lieu 	of
answer, the Commissioner may dismiss the petition on the grounds that
the petitioner has advanced no cause of action even if the petitioner's
factual allegations are accepted as true or for lack of jurisdiction, failure to
prosecute or other good reason.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12591-23
4
On 	a 	motion 	made 	pursuant 	to 	R. 	4:6-2(e) 	"the 	inquiry 	is 	confined 	to 	a
consideration of the legal sufficiency of the alleged facts apparent on the face of the
challenged claim." P. & J. Auto Body v. Miller, 72 N.J. Super. 207, 211 (App.Div.1962).
The court may not consider anything other than whether the complaint states a
cognizable cause of action. Ibid. For this purpose, "all facts alleged in the complaint and
legitimate inferences drawn therefrom are deemed admitted." Smith v. City of Newark,
136 N.J. Super. 107, 112 (App.Div.1975). See also Heavner v. Uniroyal, Inc., 63 N.J.
130, 133 (1973); Polk v. Schwartz, 166 N.J. Super. 292, 299 (App.Div.1979). A
complaint should not be dismissed under this rule where a cause of action is suggested
by the facts and a theory of actionability may be articulated by way of amendment.
Muniz v. United Hsps. Med. Ctr. Pres. Hsp., 153 N.J. Super. 79, 82-83 (App.Div.1977).
However, a dismissal is mandated where the factual allegations are palpably insufficient
to support a claim upon which relief can be granted. Reider v. State Department of
Transportation 221 N.J. Super. 547,522 (App. Div. 1987)
A party must have standing to have the “ability or entitlement to maintain
an action before the court.” In re Baby T., 160 N.J. 332, 340 (N.J.,1999).
Standing is "a threshold justiciability determination whether the litigant is
entitled to initiate and maintain an action before a court or other tribunal."
In re Six Month Extension of N.J.A.C. 5:91-1 et seq., 372 N.J. Super 61,
85 (App. Div. 2004).
In this matter B.H. is an adult. 	A handwritten note written on a page of the
appeal notice that is not dated or notarized is not enough to transfer from B.H.’s rights
to S.G. in this matter.
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14 defines harassment, intimidation or bullying as:
“Harassment, intimidation or bullying” means any 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 of P.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:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12591-23
5
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.
Here, the petition did not allege that any action of Gentile would be 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. There was no distinguishing characteristic of B.H. noted in
the petition.
The 	petition 	did 	not 	allege 	that 	Gentile’s 	actions 	substantially 	disrupts 	or
interferes with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of other students and that
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, has the effect of insulting or demeaning any student or group of
students; or create 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.
S.G. 	wanted 	Gentile 	to 	reprimand 	the 	three 	senior 	mothers 	that 	she 	had
problems with. B.H. stated that Gentile never made her feel uncomfortable.
S.G. requested an adjournment for B.H. to sign an authorization for S.G. to
proceed for her. 	I decline to grant the adjournment because even if B.H. signed the
proper document to allow S.G. to proceed on her behalf, the petition does not show that
an HIB was committed against B.H. by Gentile.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12591-23
6
I 	CONCLUDE 	that 	the 	factual 	allegations 	of 	the 	complaint 	are 	palpably
insufficient to support a claim upon which relief can be granted.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the request for the petition to be
dismissed be and is hereby GRANTED.
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 12591-23
7
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.
December 8, 2023
DATE 	KIMBERLY A. MOSS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	December 8, 2023
Date Mailed to Parties: 	December 8, 2023
ljb