Courtney Hambrecht v. Board of Education of the City of Atlantic City, Atlantic County, 12/17/19, (#336-19)

New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
Courtney Hambrecht,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Atlantic City,
Atlantic County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner – formerly employed as a lifeguard in the respondent Board’s school district – sought summary
decision requiring the respondent Board to correct her personnel file to reflect her voluntary resignation
as of January 29, 2019 and remove any references to a termination of her employment. The parties filed
cross motions for summary decision.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	there are no material facts at issue here, and the matter is ripe for
summary decision; 	petitioner argued that her resignation was effective on January 29, 2019 as she
submitted her letter of resignation, the Superintendent recommended her resignation, and the Board
approved the resignation; 	consequently, the Board’s subsequent action to rescind its acceptance of her
resignation was not valid because her employment relationship had already ended; further, without a
recommendation of termination from the Superintendent, the Board had no authority to terminate her; the
Board contended that it acted immediately after learning of compelling reasons to rescind its acceptance
of petitioner’s resignation and terminated her employment the same day; therefore, the Board opines that
petitioner’s personnel file correctly reflects that the Board terminated her; however, pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:27-4.1(a), a personnel action to remove an employee may only be taken upon the recommendation of
the Superintendent; in this case, the Superintendent accepted petitioner’s letter of resignation and there is
no evidence to show that the Superintendent made a subsequent recommendation to terminate
petitioner based on new information. The ALJ concluded that petitioner’s resignation was effective
January 29, 2019. 	Accordingly, the ALJ granted petitioner’s motion for summary decision, denied the
Board’s cross motion, and ordered the Board to correct petitioner’s personnel file to reflect her
resignation.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusion, and adopted the
Initial Decision as the final decision is this matter. 	The Board was ordered to correct petitioner’s
personnel file to indicate that she resigned effective January 29, 2019.
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 17, 2019
336-19

1
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 05627-19
Agency Dkt. No. 83-4/19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Courtney Hambrecht,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Atlantic City,
Atlantic County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions.
In this matter, petitioner – a lifeguard for the Board – was on duty during a near-
fatal drowning incident on January 14, 2019. 	After an attorney for the family informed the
Board of potential legal action, petitioner submitted her letter of resignation on January 29, 2019.
Approximately 	five 	hours 	later 	at 	the 	Board’s 	scheduled 	meeting 	that 	evening, 	the
Superintendent recommended acceptance of petitioner’s resignation, and the Board voted to
accept it. 	Thereafter, the Board went into executive session and, upon emerging, voted to
rescind its earlier approval of petitioner’s resignation and terminate petitioner instead. 	Petitioner
filed the within appeal challenging her termination.
Pursuant N.J.S.A. 18A:27-4.1(a),1 a personnel action to remove an employee may
only be taken upon the recommendation of the Superintendent. 	The Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) found that the Superintendent recommended the acceptance of petitioner’s resignation,
1 	The 	ALJ 	inadvertently cited this 	statute 	as 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:24.4.1(a) 	in several 	places 	in the
Initial Decision. It is clear that the correct statute is N.J.S.A. 18A:27-4.1(a).

2
and there is no evidence in the record that the Superintendent made a new recommendation
during executive session. The ALJ also noted that the Board was aware of the incident and the
potential for litigation before it voted to accept petitioner’s resignation. 	As such, petitioner’s
personnel 	files 	should 	be 	corrected 	to 	reflect 	that 	she 	resigned 	from 	her 	position 	on
January 29, 2019.
Upon review, the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that petitioner’s resignation
was accepted by the Board following the Superintendent’s recommendation, in accordance with
N.J.S.A. 18A:27-4.1(a). 	Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final
decision in this matter for the reasons expressed therein. 	The Board shall correct petitioner’s
personnel 	files 	to 	indicate 	that 	she 	resigned 	from 	her 	position 	of 	employment 	on
January 29, 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	December 17, 2019
Date of Mailing: 	December 18, 2019
2 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).

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05627-19
AGENCY DKT. NO. 83-4/19
COURTNEY HAMBRECHT,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY, ATLANTIC
COUNTY,
Respondent.
Michael A. Armstrong, Esq., appearing for petitioner (Michael A. Armstrong &
Associates, LLC, attorneys)
Tracy L. Riley, Esq., appearing for respondent (Riley & Riley, attorneys)
Record Closed: November 6, 2019 	Decided: November 6, 2019
BEFORE KATHLEEN M. CALEMMO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The 	petitioner 	Courtney 	Hambrecht 	(Hambrecht) 	seeks 	summary 	decision
requiring respondent, Board of Education of the City of Atlantic City (Board), to correct

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05627-19
2
her personnel file and any other files to reflect her voluntary resignation as of January
29, 2019, and remove any and all references to a termination from employment.
The 	Board 	seeks 	summary 	decision 	upholding 	its 	decision 	to 	terminate
Hambrecht effective January 29, 2019.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 26, 2019, the petitioner filed a notice of motion for emergent relief that
was denied by Order dated May 10, 2019. 	Petitioner advised this tribunal that she
intended to continue to pursue her claim through a due process hearing. 	On August 9,
2019, petitioner filed a motion for summary decision and a supporting certification of
counsel 	with 	supporting 	exhibits3. 	By 	letter 	dated 	August 	23, 	2019, 	petitioner
supplemented her statement of undisputed material facts by including respondent’s
answers to request for admissions. 	On September 3, 2019, respondent filed its
opposition and cross-motion to dismiss. 	On September 13, 2019, petitioner filed her
response to respondent’s cross-motion and her reply to respondent’s opposition. 	On
October 22, 2019, respondent supplemented its cross motion with petitioner’s answers
to its request for admissions.
ISSUE
Both parties are 	seeking summary decision. 	Petitioner maintains 	that her
resignation was effective on January 29, 2019, because she submitted her letter of
resignation, the Superintendent of Schools recommended her resignation, and the
Board approved the recommendation. 	(P-1, Exhibits 2 and 3.) 	Consequently, the
Board’s 	subsequent action to rescind its acceptance of 	her resignation must fail
because her employment relationship had ended and without a recommendation of
termination by the superintendent, the Board had no authority to terminate her.
3 Petitioner is also seeking to compel discovery as alternative relief. The parties agreed that the motion for summary
decision would be decided first on its own merits without consideration of the alternative relief request.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05627-19
3
Respondent maintains that although the Board voted to accept Hambrecht’s
resignation during the public session of the meeting, the information divulged during the
closed session provided compelling reasons to overturn that vote. 	The Board acted
immediately 	to 	rescind 	its 	acceptance 	and 	voted 	to 	terminate 	her 	employment.
Therefore, respondent’s personnel file pertaining to petitioner correctly shows that the
Board terminated her employment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The following facts taken directly from the admissions in the moving papers of
both parties are undisputed, and I FIND them to be the FACTS of the case:
1. 	Hambrecht received and signed an offer of employment to work as a
lifeguard for the Board on June 15, 2019, with employment to commence on September
1, 2019. (P-1, Exhibit 1.)
2. 	On January 14, 2019, a near fatal drowning incident occurred involving a
student attending gym class at the pool located in the Atlantic City High School facility.
(R-1, Exhibit A.)
3. 	On January 21, 2019, the attorney for the parents of the student sent a
letter to the Atlantic City High School and the Board informing them of the student’s
intention to pursue a potential claim against the entities and individuals involved
pending an investigation of the near fatal drowning incident. Id.
4. 	On January 29, 2019, Hambrecht submitted her letter of resignation to the
Office of the Superintendent where it was stamped received at 1:17 p.m. (P-1, Exhibit
2.)
5. 	The Board held its regularly scheduled meeting on January 29, 2019, at
6:00 p.m. (P-1, Exhibit 3.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05627-19
4
6. 	As reflected in the minutes from the January 29, 2019, Board meeting,
Barry 	S. 	Caldwell, 	Superintendent 	of 	Schools 	recommended 	the 	acceptance 	of
Hambrecht’s resignation from her position as lifeguard at the Atlantic City High School,
effective January 29, 2019. Id.
7. 	As further reflected in the minutes from the January 29, 2019, Board
meeting, the Board moved to approve Caldwell’s recommendation of Hambrecht’s
resignation and voted to accept it. Id.
8. 	At approximately 6:27 p.m. on January 29, 2019, the Board went into
executive session. Id.
9. 	The Board emerged from executive session two hours later, and after a
motion, voted to rescind it earlier approval of Hambrecht’s resignation. Id.
10. 	Following the vote to rescind, the Board by motion, voted to terminate
Hambrecht’s employment. Id.
11. 	By letter dated January 30, 2019, Diane M. Saunders, Director of Human
Resources for the Atlantic City School District, sent Hambrecht a letter notifying her that
at the January 29, 2019, regular oard meeting, the Board voted to terminate her
employment effective January 29, 2019. (P-1, Exhibit 4.)
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Both parties contend that there are no disputed facts requiring a hearing, and
that the matter is appropriate for summary decision.
Summary decision may be granted when “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). 	The rule further provides that an adverse party must

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05627-19
5
respond by affidavit setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
which can only be determined at an evidentiary hearing. 	Ibid. 	The rule is patterned on
the New Jersey Supreme Court’s rules concerning summary judgment. 	The New
Jersey Supreme 	Court 	has 	explained 	that when 	deciding a 	motion for 	summary
judgment under R. 4:46-2:
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 non-moving party.
[Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540
(1995).]
Here, I CONCLUDE that there are no material facts in dispute and the matter is
appropriate for summary decision.
In 	support 	of 	its 	motion, 	petitioner 	relies 	on 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:27-4.1(a) 	which
provides 	that 	a 	board 	of 	education 	can 	only 	remove 	an 	employee 	upon 	the
recommendation 	of 	the 	chief 	school 	administrator. 	Hambrecht 	maintains 	that
Superintendent Caldwell recommended her resignation as reflected in the minutes of
the January 29, 2019, Board meeting. After the Board voted to approve her resignation,
Hambrecht’s employment ended at that moment.
Petitioner’s legal argument is two-fold. 	Her first argument is that after her
resignation, her employment ceased, and the Board could no longer take any action
regarding her 	employment. 	Stated differently, 	the Board 	could not 	reinstate her
employment to terminate her. 	Her second argument is that the Superintendent’s
recommendation of her resignation was formalized in the minutes of the January 29,
2019 	Board 	meeting. 	Respondent 	had 	not 	submitted 	any 	competent 	evidential
materials to show that during the closed session, the Superintendent changed his public
recommendation for resignation to a recommendation of termination. 	Without the chief

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05627-19
6
school administrator’s recommendation, the Board would be in violation of N.J.S.A.
18A:24-4.1(a) if it acted to terminate her. 	Therefore, whatever happened in the closed
session is irrelevant to the outcome of this matter and her resignation must stand.
Respondent’s argument is that it did not have ample time to evaluate the
situation 	involving 	Hambrecht’s 	resignation 	when 	it 	voted 	to 	approve 	the
Superintendent’s recommendation. 	It was not until certain information was divulged
during the closed session that the Board decided to rescind its acceptance and voted to
terminate Hambrecht.
This is a unique situation with little support in existing case law. 	However, the
controlling statute, N.J.S.A. 18A:24-4.1(a), provides clear guidance. In accordance with
the statute, the key figure is Superintendent Caldwell. 	Respondent argues that there
was insufficient time for Caldwell and the Board to consider all the facts before
accepting Hambrecht’s resignation. 	This argument is not supported by the time-line of
events. 	The incident occurred on January 14, 2019. Hambrecht provided an incident
report, but no immediate action was taken against Hambrecht. 	(P-1, Exhibit 6.) 	The
attorney letter, putting the District and the Board on notice of potential litigation, was
dated January 21, 2019. (R-1, Exhibit A.) Hambrecht submitted her letter of resignation
on the afternoon of January 29, 2019. (P-1, Exhibit 2.) The minutes of the January 29,
2019, Board meeting reflected Caldwell’s recommendation of Hambrecht’s resignation
and the Board’s vote approving same. 	(P-1, Exhibit 3.) 	While it is not known what
occurred during the closed session, the January 21, 2019, letter is proof that both
Caldwell and the Board were aware of possible litigation involving the incident that
directly affected Hambrecht before they voted to accept her resignation. 	By asserting
that the attorney/client privilege applies to everything that was discussed during the
executive session, respondent refused to answer whether Caldwell recommended
termination during the executive session. 	Respondent did not provide a certification
from 	Caldwell 	in 	support 	of 	its 	cross-motion. 	Without 	addressing 	the 	merits 	of
respondent’s attorney/client privilege claim, respondent’s decision to assert the privilege
hinders its ability to effectively defend petitioner’s claim. As Caldwell’s recommendation
is required by statute, the only recommendation in the record before me is Caldwell’s
recommendation to the Board to accept Hambrecht’s resignation.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05627-19
7
Respondent’s equity argument falls short because it is clear from the record that
the parties were aware of the incident and the potential for litigation before the
Superintendent 	recommended 	resignation 	and 	the 	Board 	voted 	to 	accept 	the
Superintendent’s recommendation. Respondent did not maintain that Caldwell was
totally unaware of the severity of the situation when he recommended Hambrecht’s
resignation to the Board.
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that based on the undisputed material facts and in
accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:24-4.1(a), petitioner’s resignation was effective January
29, 2019, based upon the recommendation of Superintendent Caldwell and the vote of
the Board.
ORDER
Petitioner’s motion for summary decision is GRANTED. 	Respondent’s cross-
motion for summary decision is DENIED. 	In accordance with this Order, respondent
will correct its personnel files on petitioner to reflect that she resigned her position of
employment effective January 29, 2019.
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 05627-19
8
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.
November 6, 2019
DATE 	KATHLEEN M. CALEMMO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
KMC/tat

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05627-19
9
APPENDIX
LIST OF EXHIBITS
For petitioner:
P-1 	Exhibits:
1. Offer of employment;
2. January 29, 2019, resignation letter;
3. January 29, 2019, minutes from Board meeting;
4. January 30, 2019, termination letter;
5. Discovery demands;
6. Caldwell’s answers to interrogatories;
7. 	July 	5, 	2019, 	letter 	regarding 	deficiencies 	with 	answers 	to
interrogatories;
8. July 16, 2019, letter requesting conference call;
9. Answers to interrogatories from Business Administrator Ricketts;
10. Cohen v. Board of Education of the Borough of Middlesex, OAL DKT.
NO. EDU 6787-02; and
11. Lippincott v. Riverton Borough Board of Education, OAL DKT. NO.
EDU 5062-89.
P-2 	Respondent’s answers to request for admissions
P-3 	Exhibits:
1. Job description for superintendent
For respondent:
R-1 	Exhibit A – January 21, 2019, letter to Atlantic City High School and Board
regarding January 14, 2019, incident
Exhibit B – Cutro v. Board of Education of the Township of Hazlet – State
Board of Education Decision – EDU #7806-92