In the Matter of the Certificates of Luke Maginnis, State Board of Examiners, New Jersey Department of Education, 4/21/26 (#141-26)

1
141-26
State Board of Examiners Dkt No. 2021-177
OAL Dkt. No. EDE 08865-21
Agency Dkt. No. 3-2/25A
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of the Certificates of
Luke Maginnis, State Board of Examiners,
New Jersey Department of Education.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and the papers filed in connection with
appellant Luke Maginnis’s appeal of the Order of the State Board of Examiners (Board), dated
January 16, 2025, suspending his Teacher of Physical Education Certificate of Eligibility with
Advanced Standing and standard Teacher of Physical Education certificate for one year.
Appellant was employed as a non-tenured health and physical education teacher and
athletics coordinator in the Califon Public School District (District). On or about April 27, 2021,
the District terminated appellant’s employment following allegations that, upon his initial
employment, he misrepresented that he held a special education certification issued by the New
Jersey Department of Education and a master’s degree from Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU).
After receiving this information from the District, on August 5, 2021, the Board issued an Order
to Show Cause (OSC) for the suspension of appellant’s certificates. 	The OSC alleged that
appellant’s resume indicated that he graduated from FDU in May 2018 with a Master’s in Art of
Teacher – Major: Special Education & Supervision. However, FDU confirmed that appellant did
not complete the program and therefore did not obtain the degree. 	It was also alleged that
appellant’s employment application for the District indicated that he held both a New Jersey
Physical Education and a New Jersey Special Education certification. 	However, the District

2
confirmed via the online teacher certification system for New Jersey that appellant does not hold
a certificate to teach special education. On September 16, 2021, respondent filed an answer to
the OSC. Thereafter, the matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL).
On April 2, 2024, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the Board’s cross-motion for
partial summary decision, concluding that appellant misrepresented the status of his teaching
certificates and higher learning on his employment application and resume. 	Regarding the
penalty, the ALJ concluded that summary decision was not appropriate and ordered a hearing.
Following a contested hearing, the ALJ determined that “the charge of conduct unbecoming is
sustained,” warranting a six-month suspension. 	Initial Decision at 21. 	In reaching her
determination, the ALJ found that appellant did not fabricate a document to secure a position
for which he was not qualified like other educators who had been penalized by the Board. The
ALJ also found the following mitigating circumstances: 1) appellant’s misrepresentations did not
affect his eligibility for the position he sought; 2) the unofficial transcript he relied on to
determine that he completed the FDU master’s program was obtained from an official FDU
source; 3) he was not responsible for the discrepancy between his official and unofficial FDU
transcripts; and 4) he received excellent performance reviews from the District and there was no
evidence of prior discipline.
However, the ALJ found that appellant’s unbecoming conduct was aggravated by the
following factors: 1) appellant plainly wrote that he earned a special education certificate, which
is a false statement, and he failed to provide a reasonable explanation for having done so; 2) it
was concerning that he did not question why he did not receive a diploma; and 3) he seemed to
blame others for not having explained the steps required for graduation or certification, rather

3
than researching them himself. Ultimately, the ALJ concluded that when weighing the mitigating
and aggravating factors and considering the periods of suspension imposed in other similar cases,
a six-month suspension was warranted.
After considering the exceptions filed by both parties and appellant’s reply thereto, the
Board adopted the ALJ’s Initial Decision with modification as to the penalty. The Board agreed
with the ALJ that appellant engaged in unbecoming conduct when he misrepresented his
credentials on his resume and District employment application. The Board reasoned that schools
must be able to rely on educators to provide accurate information regarding their certification
status and qualifications to teach students. As for the penalty, the Board disagreed with the ALJ
that a six-month suspension was sufficient and found that a more substantial suspension was
warranted. 	The Board explained that as a holder of two valid teaching certificates, appellant
knew the process to obtain certification and knew that he did not complete the process to obtain
a Teacher of Students with Disabilities certificate. 	In addition, the Board explained that even
though appellant’s misrepresentation did not include “the submission of an altered or fraudulent
certificate, [his] conduct in misrepresenting his eligibility to teach more than what he was actually
certificated for is similarly egregious and warrants a significant penalty.” Id. at 9. Accordingly,
the Board ordered that appellant’s teaching certificates be suspended for one year.
On appeal, appellant argues that the Board erred in upholding the ALJ’s determination
that appellant engaged in unbecoming conduct. Appellant maintains that he had no reason to
believe that he did not complete the master’s degree because he relied on an unofficial transcript
from FDU, which indicated that he had earned the requisite 36 credits to graduate. Appellant
also maintains that neither a master’s degree nor a special education certificate was required for

4
his position in the District. Appellant contends that the cases cited by the ALJ are inapposite to
the 	instant 	matter 	because 	they 	involved 	more 	egregious 	facts, 	the 	intentional
misrepresentation of certificates, and misrepresentations as to criminal history. Lastly, appellant
argues that the one-year suspension of his certificates is excessive considering his pristine
employment evaluations, and because his misrepresentations were unintentional and caused no
harm.
In response, the Board asserts that its decision to increase the suspension of appellant’s
certificates to one year is reasonable and sufficiently supported by the record. Next, the Board
contends that appellant is incorrect that the Board’s decision in In Re Certificates of Ramo, St. Bd.
of Exam’rs, Dkt. No. 1213-172 (Feb. 27, 2014), is inapposite to the instant matter because 1) the
ALJ acknowledged, as mitigating factors, that appellant’s misrepresentation did not affect his
eligibility for the position he sought and that appellant relied on documentation from an official
FDU source to determine that he completed the FDU master’s degree program; and 2) the ALJ
found that, unlike the teacher in Ramo, appellant did not provide a credible explanation for his
misrepresentations, and therefore considered this to be an aggravating factor. The Board further
contends that it was reasonable in issuing appellant a greater penalty than the six-month
suspension it issued in Ramo, where the teacher provided a credible explanation for his
misrepresentation, but a shorter penalty than the two-year suspension it issued in In re
Certificates of Powell, where the teacher submitted a fraudulent document with his employment
application. 	OAL Dkt. No. EDE 00950-13, Initial Decision (June 23, 2014), adopted with
modification, St. Bd. of Exam’rs Dkt. No. 1213-109 (Oct. 23, 2013).

5
In reply, appellant reiterates the following arguments: 1) the Board’s Suspension Order
fails to address that appellant relied upon the unofficial FDU transcript; 2) the District knew, at
least one year prior to appellant’s suspension, that he had not yet obtained the Special Education
certificate; 3) Ramo and Powell are distinguishable from the instant matter; and 4) no evidence
exists indicating that appellant’s misrepresentations affected the morale, efficiency, or public
perception of the school.
In reviewing appeals from decisions of the State Board of Examiners, the Commissioner
may not substitute her judgment for that of the Board so long as the appellant received due
process and the Board’s decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. The
Commissioner’s role in reviewing appeals is constrained by N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a), which specifies
that “the Commissioner shall ascertain whether the decision is supported by sufficient credible
evidence in the record and shall not disturb the decision unless the appellant has demonstrated
the State Board of Examiners . . . acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law.” See Morison v. Willingboro Bd. of Educ., 478 N.J. Super. 229, 238 (App. Div. 2024) (citing
N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a)).
“[T]eachers . . . are professional employees to whom the people have entrusted the care
and custody of . . . school children . . . . This heavy duty requires a degree of self-restraint and
controlled behavior rarely requisite to other types of employment.” IMO Tenure Hearing of
Sammons, 1972 S.L.D. 302, 321. Teachers “hold positions demanding public trust, and in such
positions they teach, inform, and mold habits and attitudes, and influence the opinion of their
pupils.” IMO Tenure Hearing of Tordo, 1974 S.L.D. 97, 98-99. “Conduct unbecoming” is an
“elastic” concept that includes “conduct which adversely affects the morale or efficiency” of the

6
public entity or “which has a tendency to destroy public respect for [public] employees and
confidence in the operation of [public] services.” In re Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136, 140 (App. Div.
1960). Accord Bound Brook Bd. of Educ. v. Ciripompa, 228 N.J. 4, 13 (2017). A finding of
unbecoming conduct “may be based merely upon the violation of the implicit standard of good
behavior which devolves upon one who stands in the public eye as an upholder of that which is
morally and legally correct.” Bound Brook Bd. of Educ., 228 N.J. at 14 (quoting Karins v. City of
Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532, 555 (1998)). Unfitness to hold a position in a school system may be
demonstrated through just one incident, “if sufficiently flagrant.” Redcay v. State Bd. of Educ.,
130 N.J.L. 369, 371 (1943), aff’d, 131 N.J.L. 326 (E & A 1944).
Upon a comprehensive review, the Commissioner finds that the Board was not arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable in determining that appellant committed unbecoming conduct when
he misrepresented the status of his teaching certificates and higher learning on his employment
application and resume. It is undisputed that although appellant had not attained a certificate in
special education, he wrote on his employment application that he had obtained the certificate.
Likewise, appellant had not received a Master’s in Art of Teaching – Major: Special Education, yet
his resume indicated that he had graduated from FDU’s master’s degree program in May 2018.
Appellant’s contentions that FDU is to blame because it generated an inaccurate transcript, that
he was confused about the status of his master’s degree, and that the District was aware that he
did not have a special education certificate at least a year before he was suspended, do not
negate the fact that he misrepresented his credentials. Moreover, appellant is responsible for
ensuring the accuracy of his credentials before providing such information to the District because
schools 	must 	be 	able 	to 	rely 	on 	the 	information 	educators 	provide. 	Appellant’s

7
misrepresentation of his credentials was inappropriate and had the tendency to destroy the
public trust and confidence in school employees and the operation of public schools. As such,
the Commissioner finds no basis to overturn the finding of unbecoming conduct.
As to the penalty, appellant has not demonstrated that the Board was arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable in increasing his suspension from the six months recommended by
the ALJ to a period of one year. His arguments are unavailing. His claims that he had excellent
performance reviews while at the District, that the discrepancy between the unofficial and official
transcripts was not his fault, and that his misrepresentations did not affect his eligibility for the
position for which he was hired, were already recognized by the ALJ as factors mitigating
appellant’s unbecoming conduct. 	The Commissioner agrees with the ALJ and the Board that
these mitigating factors do not outweigh the gravity of appellant’s misconduct, and as such, a
penalty is warranted.
Appellant also takes issue with the cases the ALJ reviewed in the penalty analysis in the
Initial Decision, particularly Ramo and Powell. Appellant argues that both matters are inapposite
because they included more egregious facts and intentional misrepresentations. 	While the
Commissioner finds Ramo and Powell to be factually distinct from the instant matter because
they concern misrepresentations on applications for certification, the ALJ was not unreasonable
in citing either case for guidance.
Ramo demonstrates that the Board has disciplined educators who misrepresented their
information on an application for a teacher's certificate, regardless of intent. There, the Board
suspended a teacher’s certificate for six months for failing to disclose his criminal history on his
application for a teaching certificate. 	The teacher admitted to his failure to disclose but

8
contended that his misrepresentation was unintentional. The Board found that teachers serve
as role models for their students, and although Ramo provided a credible explanation for his
misrepresentations, “his conduct cannot go unremarked.” In Re Ramo, supra, at 3. 	Ultimately,
the Board found that Ramo’s “sincere sense of remorse coupled with his cogent explanation of
what transpired in his life during that time period, militate against the revocation of his
certificates.” Id. at 3-4. The same logic applies here. Although appellant may not have intended
to misrepresent his credentials on his job application, his behavior did not comport with the role
model standard expected of teachers; thus, action against his certificates is warranted. Further,
as in Ramo, the ALJ recognized circumstances militating against revocation. However, unlike
Ramo, the ALJ also found circumstances that aggravated the unbecoming conduct.
The Commissioner also finds Powell to be instructive. In that case, the Board suspended
Powell’s certificates for two years for unbecoming conduct because he submitted fraudulent
employment verification letters with his application for certification as a principal and supervisor.
At the OAL, the ALJ noted that a finding of unbecoming conduct does not require that conduct
“actually undermine morale or efficiency or destroy respect for the delivery of government
services. The focus is on the individual’s conduct. The tendency to cause said effects, whether
the conduct in question actually does so or not, makes it unbecoming.” In re Powell, supra, Initial
Decision at 9. 	Applying this reasoning to the instant matter, the fact that the ALJ found no
evidence that appellant’s misrepresentations affected his ability to perform his position or
affected the school environment is not dispositive. The Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that
the act of misrepresentation is the focus of the analysis. The Commissioner further agrees with
the ALJ that appellant’s misrepresentations were significant even without evidence that it

9
negatively impacted his ability to perform his job because schools must be able to rely on
employees to accurately report their credentials. The Commissioner does not find that the ALJ
improperly considered Powell or Ramo, nor does the Commissioner find that the Board was
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in adopting the Initial Decision as modified.
Accordingly, the Order of the State Board of Examiners suspending appellant’s certificates
for a period of one year, effective January 16, 2025, is affirmed.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	April 21, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	April 22, 2026
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.

IN THE MATTER OF 	: 	NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
THE CERTIFICATES OF 	: 	STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS
LUKE MAGINNIS 	: 	ORDER OF SUSPENSION
_______________________ 	: 	DOCKET NO: 2021-177
Luke Maginnis is the holder of a Teacher of Physical Education Certificate of Eligibility
with Advanced Standing, issued June 2016, and a standard Teacher of Physical Education
certificate, issued October 2022.
At its meeting of June 25, 2021, the State Board of Examiners (Board) reviewed
information it received from the Califon Public School District (Califon) regarding Maginnis. On
or about April 28, 2021, Califon terminated Maginnis following allegations that, upon his initial
employment, he misrepresented that he held a special education certification issued by the
Department of Education and a master’s degree from Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU).
Specifically, it was alleged that Maginnis’ resume indicated that he graduated in May 2018
from FDU with a Master’s in Art of Teaching – Major: Special Education & Supervision. Califon
contacted FDU and the Assistant Director of Enrollment Services for Records at FDU confirmed
that Maginnis did not finish the master’s in arts degree with a specialization in Teacher of Students
with Disabilities and thus did not obtain the degree. Further, Maginnis’ employment application
in Califon indicated that he holds both a New Jersey Physical Education and a New Jersey Special
Education certificate. Califon confirmed via the online teacher certification system for New Jersey
that Maginnis does not hold a certificate to teach special education.
After reviewing the above information, at its July 30, 2021 meeting, the Board voted to
issue an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Maginnis as to why her certificates should not be revoked.

2
On or about August 5, 2021, the Board sent Maginnis the OSC by regular and certified
mail. The OSC provided that Maginnis must file an Answer within 30 days pursuant to N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-4.6(b). 	On September 16, 2021, Maginnis submitted an answer in which he denied the
allegations that he misrepresented his credentials. 	See Answer, dated September 16, 2021.
Specifically, he stated that he provided Califon with an “unofficial” transcript from his master’s
program at FDU and neither admitted nor denied whether he finished his master’s degree. Id. at ¶
3. Further, he neither admitted nor denied what Califon did to confirm or deny the allegations and
stated that there would be no reason to mislead anyone as he did not financially benefit. Id. at ¶ 6.
He acknowledged that Califon terminated him, that his resume indicated that he graduated in May
2018 from FDU with a Master’s in Art of Teaching – Major: Special Education & Supervision,
and that his employment application indicated that he held a certificate in Physical Education and
a certificate in Special Education. Id. at ¶ 3, 5. As there were material facts in dispute, the Board
transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a hearing on October 27,
2021.
On April 2, 2024, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Judith Lieberman granted the Board’s
cross-motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that Maginnis had misrepresented the
status of his teaching certificates and higher education on his application and resume. 	In the
Matter of the Certificates of Luke Maginnis, OAL Dkt. No. EDE 08865-21 (Initial Decision,
November 4, 2024), pp.2-3. Specifically, the ALJ found that Maginnis misrepresented the status
of his teaching certificates and higher education on his employment application and resume. Id.
at 3. The ALJ further found that these misrepresentations were conduct unbecoming an educator.
Ibid. In reaching this decision, the ALJ explained that the “misstatements were significant even
though there was no evidence they impacted his ability to serve as a physical education and health

3
teacher and athletic coordinator.” Ibid. The ALJ also reasoned that the submission of inaccurate,
misleading or fraudulent information is a serious offense because “schools must rely on the
trustworthiness of information and documents provided by teaching or administrative applicants”
and “[s]chool employees are held to a high standard, and it is axiomatic that they must be expected
to accurately report their own credentials.” Ibid. The ALJ concluded that summary decision was
not appropriate with respect to penalty, however, and thus a hearing in this matter was held in-
person on August 2, 2024 and the record closed on October 22, 2024. Id. at 3-4.
On November 4, 2024, the ALJ issued an Initial Decision in the case. Ibid. The ALJ found
that the evidence supported that Maginnis committed conduct unbecoming a teacher warranting a
six-month suspension of his certificates. Id. at 20-21. In so doing, the ALJ found as uncontested
facts that Maginnis was employed by Califon as a non-tenured health and physical education
teacher and athletic coordinator, and that he was subsequently terminated after he was accused of
misrepresenting his credentials. 	Id. at 4. 	Further, the ALJ found that Maginnis did not hold a
Teacher of Special Education certificate or a master’s degree from FDU. 	Ibid. 	The ALJ also
found that when Maginnis applied to work at Califon, his resume indicated he graduated in May
2018 from FDU with a “Master’s in Art of Teaching – Major: Special Education & Supervision”
and that he held certifications in physical education and special education. Ibid. The ALJ further
found that Califon confirmed with FDU that Maginnis had not obtained the master’s degree he
indicated, that Califon advised Maginnis of same, and that Califon advised the Board of same and
provided supporting documents. Id. at 5-6.
The ALJ heard testimony from one witness, Luke Maginnis. Id. at 7-12. The ALJ found
that while Maginnis testified “politely, professionally, and respectfully,” and was “sincere and
well-motivated[,]” some aspects of his testimony were difficult to reconcile in that his explanations

4
were inconsistent and stained credulity. 	Id. at 13-14. 	Specifically, although Maginnis testified
that he assumed he graduated based on the number of credits on his unofficial transcript, he never
received a diploma, never inquired as to why he did not, and testified that it must have “slipped”
his mind to inquiry why he didn’t receive a diploma. Id. at 13. Further, Maginnis’ claim that he
did not participate in the graduation ceremony because he did not like to celebrate himself was
“puzzling” when coupled with his failure to inquire about the status of his diploma and “call[ed]
into question the veracity of his explanation. Ibid.
The ALJ also found it troubling that Maginnis wrote on his application that he earned a
special education certificate when his transcript did not indicate he did earn the special education
degree. Ibid. Further, Maginnis acknowledged that he was required to apply for his Teacher of
Physical Education certificate and pass the required exams, and thus his professed assumption that
similar steps were not required before obtaining his Teacher of Special Education certificate strains
credulity. 	Ibid. 	The ALJ found that it was reasonable to expect a professional pursuing higher
education and certification to ensure understanding of the prerequisites for certification that his
profession requires. 	Ibid. 	For these reasons, the ALJ found that Maginnis’ conduct was
unbecoming of an educator. Id. at 21.
In determining the appropriate penalty, the ALJ noted that the Board has revoked
certificates when teachers purposefully altered proof of their credentials. Id. at 16. Further, the
Board has taken action on an educator’s certificate where there was misrepresentation of
credentials without any alteration of documents, including falsified or misrepresented information
regardless of intent. Id. at 16-17. The ALJ also noted that any action on an educator’s certificate(s)
would have prospective and not retrospective application. Id. at 19.

5
The ALJ found aggravating circumstances in this matter. Id. at 20. Specifically, Maginnis
clearly declared that he had obtained a Teacher of Special Education certificate which was a false
statement, for which he did not offer a reasonable explanation. Ibid. 	Further, it was concerning
that he did not question why he did not receive a diploma. Ibid. Lastly, he seemed to blame others
for not having explained the required steps for graduation or certification instead of independently
researching them himself. Ibid.
The ALJ also found that Maginnis demonstrated mitigating circumstances. 	Id. at 19.
Specifically, the misrepresentations did not alter his eligibility for the position at the school he
sought. Ibid. Further, although irresponsible, the unofficial transcript he relied on was obtained
from an official FDU source. 	Ibid. 	Additionally, Maginnis received excellent performance
reviews and there was no evidence of any prior discipline. Ibid.
Although Maginnis argued that the misrepresentations were irrelevant because Califon did
not rely upon them when employing him, the ALJ found that the act of misrepresentation is the
focus and that the misrepresentations are significant because school employees are held to a high
standard and must be expected to report accurately their own credentials. Id. at 20. As a result,
the ALJ concluded a six-month suspension was appropriate. Id. at 20. The ALJ noted that because
Maginnis did not fabricate a document to obtain employment for which he was not qualified, his
misrepresentations did not impact his eligibility for employment. 	Ibid. 	However, he did
misrepresent his credentials and failed to offer a reasonable explanation for doing so. Ibid. The
ALJ reasoned that in weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors a six-month suspension was
warranted in this matter. Ibid.
On November 18, 2024, Maginnis filed Exceptions. 	In his exceptions, Maginnis argues
that given the nature of the allegations and the facts and credibility determinations made, no

6
unbecoming conduct can be found. (Maginnis Exceptions, p. 7). 	Further, Maginnis argues that
the ALJ’s determinations are unsupported by the evidence. Id. at 2. Maginnis also argues that the
cases noted by the ALJ are distinguishable from the instant matter because they involved more
egregious facts, involved misrepresentations as to prior criminal status and breach of NJASK
security, and did not affect the morale or efficiency of the department. Id. at 4-6. Lastly, Maginnis
argues that the six-month suspension is excessive and not proportionate to the facts as the
misrepresentation regarding the special education credential “had zero connection to [Maginnis’]
position at Califon wherein he was highly regarded with pristine employment evaluations.” Id. at
7.
On November 18, 2024, the Deputy Attorney General (DAG) representing the Board also
filed Exceptions which argue that Maginnis’ conduct here warrants more than a six-month
suspension. (Board Exceptions, p.4). The DAG argues that Maginnis knowingly misrepresenting
his credentials on his employment application warrants a more significant penalty because accurate
information regarding teachers’ credentials is imperative for the orderly administration of our
schools and the safety of school children. Id. at 6. Further, the DAG argues that the Board has
taken serious disciplinary action when educators have falsified or misrepresented information on
employment and certification applications, regardless of intent, and that it is incumbent upon the
educator submitting the information to confirm the information is accurate. Id. at 9-10.
The DAG also argues that Maginnis’ did not testify credibly regarding why he thought he
had graduated from FDU and held a special education certificate. Id. at 13-17. Further, the DAG
argues that the ALJ’s ruling on the three mitigating factors are inconsistent with her prior findings
on Maginnis’ self-serving testimony which was “inconsistent,” “puzzling,” “strain[s] credulity,”
and “calls into question the veracity of his explanations” and are inconsistent with established case

7
precedent. 	Id. at 17. 	Lastly, the DAG argues that the ALJ incorrectly found that there was no
evidence in the record that Califon had disciplined Maginnis because Califon had terminated him
for his actions here in misrepresenting his credentials. Id. at 19.
On November 25, 2024, Maginnis filed Reply Exceptions, wherein he argues that the six-
month suspension is not justified because Maginnis’ conduct here does not establish conduct
unbecoming. (Maginnis Reply Exceptions, p.2). Maginnis also argues that there are significant
mitigating factors that require no suspension. Ibid. Specifically, he argues that the evidence is a
single handwritten note filled out after he was already hired for a position that did not require a
special education certificate. Ibid. He also argues that he was a highly successful teacher. Id. at
2-3. Further, he argues that he has had all positive evaluations since this incident, that he is a well-
respected teacher contributing to a benefitting each school at which he has taught, he has had a
long and unblemished career, and the record is devoid of any negative criteria for the Board to
review. Id. at 3-4. Lastly, Maginnis requests that the Board “do the right thing and not suspend
[his] certificate for any period of time.” Id. at 5.
The Board must now determine whether to adopt, modify, or reject the Initial Decision in
this matter. 	At its meeting of December 6, 2024, the Board reviewed the Initial Decision,
Exceptions filed by both parties, and the Reply Exceptions filed by Maginnis. After full and fair
consideration of the Initial Decision and submissions, the Board voted to adopt the Initial Decision,
with modification as to penalty.
The Board, in reviewing the matter, does not find the ALJ’s factual and credibility findings
to be arbitrary or not based on sufficient credible evidence. The ALJ’s credibility determinations
were well supported and based on his first-hand observations. 	Accordingly, the Board is

8
constrained by the ALJ’s findings of facts and credibility determinations in this matter. The Board
does not find a sufficient basis by which it could overturn same. N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.6(b).
The Board’s long-standing belief is that teachers must serve as role models for their
students. “Teachers… are professional employees to whom the people have entrusted the care and
custody of … school children. This heavy duty requires a degree of self-restraint and controlled
behavior rarely requisite to other types of employment.” Tenure of Sammons, 1972 S.L.D. 302,
321. A “violation of the implicit standard of good behavior which devolves upon one who stands
in the public eye as an upholder of that which is morally and legally correct” may provide the basis
for a finding of unbecoming conduct. 	Bound Brook Bd. of Educ. v. Ciripompa, 228 N.J. 4, 14
(2017) (quoting Karins v. City of Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532, 555 (1998)) (internal quotation marks
omitted). 	The “elastic” concept of “conduct unbecoming” includes “conduct which adversely
affects the morale or efficiency” of the public entity or “which has a tendency to destroy public
respect for . . . [public] employees and confidence in the operation of [public] services.” 	In re
Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136, 140 (App. Div. 1960) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see
also Bound Brook Bd. of Educ., 228 N.J. at 13.
As noted above, after reviewing the record, the ALJ concluded that the Board sustained its
burden of proof that Maginnis engaged in conduct unbecoming by demonstrating Maginnis’
actions in misrepresenting his credentials on his resume and an employment application. In this
case, Maginnis’ conduct was certainly unacceptable and certainly unbecoming of a teacher. The
Board agrees that Maginnis’ conduct of misrepresenting his credentials by holding himself out as
having obtained a master’s degree in special education as well as a having obtained a certificate to
teach special education when he did not obtain either the degree or the certificate to teach does not
comport with “role model” behavior. 	The schools must be able to rely on educators to provide

9
accurate information as to their certification status and qualifications to teach our students. Thus,
the Board agrees that Maginnis engaged in unbecoming conduct.
As to the penalty to be applied, the ALJ determined that a six-month suspension was
appropriate for the conduct based on the weighing of the aggravating and mitigating factors she
found. However, the Board disagrees that a six-month penalty is warranted in this matter and finds
that a more substantial suspension is warranted. Through misrepresentations on his resume and
employment application, Maginnis held himself out in a professional capacity as an educator
capable of teaching special education when in fact he did not hold a Teacher of Students with
Disabilities certificate. 	As a valid holder of two separate teaching certificates – a Teacher of
Physical Education Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced Standing and a standard Teacher of
Physical Education certificate – Maginnis knew the process to obtain certification and knew he
did not complete that process for a Teacher of Students with Disabilities certificate. Additionally,
he never completed a master’s degree in special education although he held himself out as having
obtained the degree. Although the instant matter does not involve the submission of an altered or
fraudulent certificate, Maginnis’ conduct in misrepresenting his eligibility to teach more than what
he was actually certificated for is similarly egregious and warrants a significant penalty. Thus, the
Board finds that a one-year suspension is warranted in this matter.
Accordingly, on December 6, 2024, the Board voted to adopt the Initial Decision with
modification as to penalty and ordered a one-year suspension of Maginnis’ certificates from the
date of this Decision. 	On this 16th day of January 2025, the Board formally adopted its written
decision to adopt, with modification as to penalty, the Initial Decision in this matter and it is
therefore ORDERED that Luke Maginnis’ Teacher of Physical Education Certificate of Eligibility
with Advanced Standing and standard Teacher of Physical Education certificate are hereby

10
SUSPENDED for a period of one year, effective immediately. It is further ordered that Maginnis
return his certificates to the Secretary of the State Board of Examiners, Office of Certification and
Induction, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, NJ 08625-0500 within 30 days of the mailing date of this
decision.
_______________________________
Rani Singh, Secretary
State Board of Examiners
Date of Mailing:
via certified and regular mail
Appeals may be made to the Commissioner of Education pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A.
18A:6-38.4.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
AGENCY DKT. NO. 2021-177
IN THE MATTER OF CERTIFICATES OF
LUKE MAGINNIS.
___________________________________
Michael Lombardi Deputy Attorney General, for petitioner New Jersey State
Board of Examiners (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey,
attorney, Erin Herlihy, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief)
Steven D. Farsiou, Esq., for respondent Luke Maginnis (Trinity & Farsiou, LLC,
attorneys)
Record Closed: October 22, 2024 Decided: November 4, 2024
BEFORE JUDITH LIEBERMAN, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The New Jersey State Board of Examiners (SBOE or petitioner) issued an Order
to Show Cause (OTSC) as to why the teaching certificates of respondent Luke Maginnis
should not be suspended because he misrepresented his education and professional
credentials. Petitioner filed a motion for summary decision, which was granted with
respect to the alleged misrepresentation but not with respect to penalty. A hearing was
conducted to address the appropriate penalty.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner issued the OTSC on July 30, 2021. Respondent filed an answer to the
OTSC on September 16, 2021. Thereafter, the SBOE transmitted the case to the Office
of Administrative Law (OAL) for hearing, where it was filed on October 27, 2021. N.J.S.A.
52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
Multiple prehearing status conferences were conducted, and the hearing was
ultimately scheduled to be held November 7, 2022. The hearing was adjourned in
response to the SBOE’s request and because the parties had not conducted discovery.
During a November 18, 2022, status conference, respondent sought leave to file a motion
to compel discovery. An Order on the motion to compel was issued on May 17, 2023.
On September 20, 2023, the parties advised that discovery was sufficiently
complete such that dispositive motions were appropriate. A brief filing schedule was
established: respondent’s motion for summary decision was to be filed by November 8,
2023; petitioner’s brief in opposition to respondent’s motion and cross-motion for
summary decision was to be filed by December 12, 2023; and respondent’s reply brief
was to be filed by December 29, 2023. In response to petitioner’s request, its deadline
was extended to December 29, 2023, and the deadline for respondent’s reply was
extended to January 15, 2024. All briefs were received by January 18, 2024. On April 2,
2024, petitioner’s cross-motion for partial summary decision was granted with respect to
the underlying charge against respondent but not the penalty. Respondent’s motion for
summary decision was denied. The Order provided:
Here, it is undisputed that although respondent had not
obtained a special education certificate, he wrote on his
employment application that he earned the certificate.
Similarly, he wrote on his resume that he obtained a master’s
degree from FDU. It is undisputed that he had not been
awarded the certificate or degree. While he asserted that he
was confused about the status of his master’s degree and
blamed FDU for generating an inaccurate transcript, this does
not negate the fact that he incorrectly represented his
credentials. Also, he did not offer an explanation for his own

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
3
misrepresentation of his certification status, except to suggest
that he still had to teach a period of years before he could be
eligible for the certificate. There is not a genuine issue of
material fact with respect to these issues.
These misstatements are significant even though there is no
evidence in the record that they impacted respondent’s ability
to serve as a physical education and health teacher and
athletic coordinator. As noted above, “Since schools must rely
on the trustworthiness of information and documents provided
by teaching or administrative applicants, the submission of
inaccurate, misleading or fraudulent information is a serious
offense.” [In re the Certificates of Stasiuk, 2006 N.J. AGEN
LEXIS 484 at *7 (July 26, 2006), adopted with modification,
St. Bd. of Exam’rs (Nov. 2, 2006),
https://www.nj.gov/education/legal/examiners/2006/nov/0405
-318.pdf.] School employees are held to a high standard, and
it is axiomatic that they must be expected to accurately report
their own credentials. For these reasons, I CONCLUDE that
summary decision is appropriate with respect to the charge
that respondent misrepresented the status of his teaching
certificates and higher education on his employment
application and resume.
However, I CONCLUDE that summary decision is not
appropriate with respect to penalty. There are no statutory or
regulatory guidelines addressing when revocation or
suspension is the appropriate remedy. [In re Certificate of
Fargo, 91 N.J.A.R.2d (EDE) 1 at 3.] That “decision is
discretionary, on a case-by-case basis, after considering the
individual facts and circumstances.” Ibid. Consideration shall
be given to factors such as the nature and gravity of the
offense, any evidence as to provocation, extenuation or
aggravation, and any harm or injurious effect that the
teacher’s conduct may have had on the maintenance of
discipline and the proper administration of the school system.
See In re Fulcomer, 93 N.J. Super. 404, 422 (App. Div. 1967).
. . . .
Here, respondent has offered explanations for his purported
confusion about his credentials and his lack of intent to
mislead. He has also asserted that his capacity to serve
Califon was not adversely impacted. A hearing is required to
address the credibility and assess the relevance and weight
to be given to the evidence offered to support these
assertions.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
4
A hearing concerning the penalty was conducted on August 2, 2024. The parties’
post-hearing briefs were due thirty days after they received the hearing transcript. All
briefs were received by September 23, 2024, and the record closed that day. The record
was reopened on October 15, 2024, for the parties to submit the final version of their joint
statement of facts. It was received on October 22, 2024, and the record closed that day.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
Because the following is undisputed1, I FIND it as FACT.
Respondent Maginnis was employed as a non-tenured health and physical
education teacher and athletic coordinator by the Califon Board of Education (Califon or
Board). He was terminated after he was accused of misrepresenting his credentials.
Respondent holds a Teacher of Physical Education Certificate of Eligibility with
Advanced Standing. He does not hold a New Jersey Certificate in Special Education or
a master’s degree from Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU).
At the time of his application for employment with the Board, respondent supplied
an “unofficial transcript” from FDU. R-4. It lists several courses but does not list
certificates awarded by the New Jersey Department of Education (DOE). Ibid.
When respondent applied to work for Califon, his resume indicated that he
graduated in May 2018 from FDU with a “Master’s in Art of Teaching—Major: Special
Education & Supervision.” R-1 at 97. He wrote on his employment application that he
held certifications in physical education and special education. R-3 at 22.
1 The parties stipulated to most of the facts referenced here. OAL-1

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
5
On February 25, 2020, Principal Daniel Patton sent the following email to Interim
Superintendent Ruberto:
Before I forget my conversation with Luke:
Through Fairleigh Dickinson’s Masters Certification program,
they told him that upon completion of three years of teaching
(under his undergrad work I assume—hence PE/Health
certificate), he would then be eligible for his certificate for both
Supervision and Special Education (Dual Certification). He
has already finished his classes in these topics, which I
believe he provided us transcripts for in his personnel file.
Bottom line is that the way I understand it and according to
the certificates listed on DOE website, he has to teach one
more year (if they count his first several months at the charter
school) to be eligible for the CE or CEAS for Supervision
and/or Special Education. So it seems to me that he is still in
a “college” preparation program for his special ed certificate
attainment.
[J-1.]
On April 27, 2021, Dr. Cone advised respondent that he was suspended from his
employment based upon an investigation conducted by Califon. The investigation
“revealed that upon [his] initial employment . . . [respondent] misrepresented that [he]
obtained a Master’s Degree from [FDU].” R-25. Califon confirmed that he had not
obtained the degree. Dr. Cone continued:
Indeed, in comparing the FDU transcript you submitted with
your application to the transcript provided to us by FDU, you
also materially misrepresented some of your grades, i.e.,
indicated passing grades in courses when you, in fact, failed
them. In other words, your entire transcript was fraudulent.
Equally disturbing is the fact that you represented that you
hold a Special Education Certification from the Department of
Education which I verified that you do not hold.
Given this material misrepresentation of your credentials,
which is an egregious act of unbecoming conduct, I am

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
6
recommending your termination at our Board of Education
meeting tomorrow night.
[Ibid.]
Respondent met with Califon representatives and his union representative. He
was advised that the Board would address his certifications.
On April 29, 2021, Dr. Cone advised the SBOE that the Board terminated
respondent during its April 28, 2021, meeting.
Dr. Cone supplied the SBOE with the April 26, 2021, email from FDU Assistant
Director of Enrollment Services for Records, Fernando Motando, respondent’s
employment application and the resume he submitted with the application, a list of
respondent’s DOE-issued certificates, and an unofficial transcript from FDU. Dr. Cone
wrote that the unofficial transcript “indicates course grades that are not the same as the
document submitted by the employee. Two courses (6704 and 7812) were actually failed
although the employee represented those as ‘A-.’ And another course (7624) was a ‘C’
but was represented a ‘B’ by the employee. See transcript form [sic] FDU with letterhead
then the one provide by the employee when hired.”
On July 30, 2021, the SBOE issued an OTSC in which it wrote that “the level and
nature of [respondent’s] conduct provide[] just cause for consideration of the suspension
of his certificates.” The SBOE did not address any alleged misrepresentation of
respondent’s grades. It ordered respondent to show cause as to why “all certificates and
credentials he holds” should not be suspended.
Respondent submitted an answer to the OTSC. He wrote that he “had no reason to
believe that he did not successfully complete the [master’s degree] program. In addition,
[he] did not intentionally misrepresent his credentials so that he could have his pay
increased by $500 on a yearly basis.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
7
Respondent neither admitted nor denied “the allegation about whether he did not
finish his master’s degree” because he was “trying to contact personnel at FDU to
determine if the official transcript is correct.”
In his answer to the OTSC, respondent wrote that his “resume indicated that he
graduated in May 2019 from FDU with a Master’s in Art of Teaching—Major: Special
Education & Supervision.” He also wrote that his employment application “indicates that
he held a certificate in New Jersey Physical Education and a certificate in New Jersey
Special Education.” He concluded by writing that he “did not knowingly make any false
representations.”
Respondent further wrote in his answer that the “‘misrepresentation’ resulted in a
$500 increase in pay for the entire year. There would be no reason for [him] to mislead
anyone as he did not financially benefit.”
A special education certificate or master’s degree was not required for
respondent’s positions with Califon. The master’s degree program required thirty-six
credits to graduate.
Maginnis has been unable to obtain a full-time, permanent teaching position
pending the outcome of this matter.
Testimony
The following is not a verbatim recitation of the testimony. It is a summary of the
testimony that is relevant to determining the appropriate penalty.
Respondent Luke Maginnis pursued a career as a teacher and coach because
several members of his family, including his parents, are teachers and coaches. His
mother taught at Califon while he worked there. In college, he majored in physical
education and health for kindergarten through twelfth grade. He was motivated to pursue
a degree in special education because his younger brother has Down Syndrome. He
sought to incorporate physical education with special education.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
8
Califon’s announcement seeking a health and physical education teacher and
athletic coordinator for the 2018–2019 school year did not list certification requirements.
R-1 at 23. Maginnis had a physical education certificate and understood that neither a
master’s degree nor special education certificate was required. No one from Califon told
him that they were required, and the health and physical education positions did not
involve special education.
To apply for the advertised position, Maginnis submitted a January 6, 2019, cover
email to Dr. Ruberto, to which he attached a letter, his resume, and his physical education
teaching certificate. Id. at 126. He did not write in the letter that he had a master’s degree
or special education certificate. Rather, he wrote that, before his then-current
employment, he “was a graduate assistant football coach at [FDU] and was also pursuing
. . . [a] Master’s Degree in Special Education and Supervision.” Id. at 128. His resume,
however, reported that he graduated from FDU in May 2018 with a “Master’s in Art of
Teaching—Major: Special Education and Supervision.” Id. at 97. He believed that he
graduated from FDU because the master’s degree program required thirty-six credits and
his unofficial FDU transcript showed that he had earned that many credits. R-4. However,
he opted to not participate in the graduation ceremony because he was not the “type of
person to . . . celebrate my accomplishments.” T2 30:6–7.
The unofficial transcript also showed that in 2017, he failed the Correction of
Learning Disabilities class. R-4. He took the class again in 2018, while he taught and
coached at a charter school that did not require teaching certifications. He earned a B
grade. Ibid. His other grades included an A- in Curriculum Development and Program
Improvement and an A- in Final Project. Ibid.
Maginnis was interviewed by Principal Daniel Patton and Dr. Ruberto. Neither
asked if he had a master’s degree or special education certificate. Their discussion was
exclusively about physical education. In response to Dr. Ruberto’s request for his school
2 T refers to the transcript of the August 2, 2024, hearing. It is followed by the referenced page and line
numbers.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
9
transcript, he asked if she required an official transcript. Because she said it was not
required, he obtained a copy of his unofficial transcript via the student portal. She did not
ask for a special education certificate. Dr. Ruberto offered him the position in January
2019.
Maginnis acknowledged that he did not receive a diploma and that he should have
inquired about its status. Had he been aware of the discrepancies between his official
and unofficial transcripts, he would have addressed them immediately. He explained his
failure to inquire in multiple ways: having received the unofficial transcript he believed “it
was completed.” T 45:13. He also explained that “it slipped my mind.” T 45:11. He also
suggested that his busy schedule as a coach and graduate assistant at FDU left him
limited time to attend to other matters. Also, whether he completed the FDU graduate
program or earned a special education certificate was irrelevant to his then-current
position or the position he sought.
With respect to the special education certificate, Maginnis relied upon the number
of credits he earned while at FDU, as reported by the unofficial transcript. However, he
acknowledged that he needed to first apply for the certificate and that he needed to wait
three years after graduation to do so. T 109:14–24. Thus, he would necessarily not have
had the certificate when he started working for Califon. Consequently, he acknowledged
that he should not have represented that he had earned the certificate. T 108:24 to 109:3.
However, he noted that when he spoke with Principal Patton in February 2020, he did not
tell Patton that he held the certificate. J-1. Also, neither Patton nor Dr. Ruberto
questioned him about the special education certificate, and neither they nor Dr. Cone took
action to ensure that he had the certificate prior to April 2021.
Maginnis stressed that he did not intend to intentionally mislead Califon, which
offered him the teaching position before he completed the employment application. He
surmised that only the school secretary and business administrator read his application.
He noted that, when he sent a letter introducing himself to parents, he did not write that
he had a master’s degree or special education certification. He wrote only that he had a
Bachelor of Science degree in kinesiology with an emphasis on physical education and
health. R-10.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
10
He highlighted that, while working for Califon, he was not disciplined or told he was
not performing well as the physical education and health teacher, athletic coordinator,
recess supervisor, and coach. Rather, he was commended three times, and between
March 11, 2019, and February 21, 2021, he was observed while teaching and received
positive evaluations for his performance. R-13–R-20. Dr. Cone evaluated him on
February 21, 2021, and gave him the highest rating for each of the evaluation
components. R-20. A summary of his ratings for the 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 school
years shows that he was rated “highly effective.” R-21.
However, in April 2021, Dr. Cone told him that due to budget cuts his job duties
would be reduced by 80 percent. Given his performance, she wanted to find a way to
employ him full-time. She posited that he could work as an in-class support specialist for
special education students and asked him to provide a copy of his diploma and/or official
transcript to provide proof of his degree. She wrote in an April 20, 2021, email, “I need
the proof before the May meeting in order to keep you at the current level. If I do not
receive it, you will be placed at a BA +303 on the May agenda.” R-23. On April 21, 2021,
she further explained, “Although we can accept the diploma copy, it must be accompanied
by the official transcripts.” R-24. This was the first time he was asked to provide a copy
of his official transcript.
In April 2021, Dr. Cone alerted Maginnis that the grades on his official FDU
transcript were not the same as the grades on his unofficial transcript. The official
transcript reported that Maginnis received grades of F in Curriculum Development,
Correction of Learning Disabilities, and Final Project. It did not include the B grade for
the 2018 Correction of Learning Disabilities Class that is reflected in the unofficial
transcript. R-5. FDU did not alert him that he earned F grades or that he did not graduate.
After Dr. Cone sent her April 27, 2021, letter, Maginnis was in “shock.” T 87:10.
He was confused by the discrepancy between the transcripts. Based upon the unofficial
transcript, which he did not create or alter, he believed he completed the courses required
3 Maginnis understood that “BA +30” meant a salary reduction.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
11
for a master’s degree and he did not believe he was required to participate in the
graduation ceremony to obtain his degree. He tried to reach someone at FDU who could
help him understand why the unofficial and official transcripts were different. Two or three
weeks after he was terminated, he spoke with FDU’s Director of Special Education, who
could not explain why they were different or direct him to someone who could explain it.
“[T]his is the first time that [he] realized that maybe [he] didn’t graduate because of the
discrepancy[.]” T 95:3–5. However, when asked if he believed he “passed the Master’s
Course[,]” he replied that he did. T 95:11–12.
After he was terminated, respondent held several positions at other schools as a
leave replacement. Even though his employers wanted to hire him, even after he
disclosed the pending OTSC, they could not do so until the matter was closed. He
currently works as a part-time paraprofessional and head football coach. His employer
would like to hire him for a full-time special education position, which he can hold while
pursuing his special education certification. Each of the schools for which he has worked
since leaving Califon has reviewed him favorably, and none has disciplined him.
In summary, respondent stressed that he would never intentionally mislead his
employer and that teaching and coaching is extremely important to him. He explained
that teaching is the “livelihood of my father and mother, my brother, my sister-in-law[.] I
would sit around dinner . . . tables and have conversations about teaching and coaching,
it’s my life, I would never mislead anybody or even try to.” T 116:9–13. He added that
the OTSC has “halted” his career and that he has been “de facto . . . suspended” for three
years while this matter has been pending. T 116:16–21. In reiterating why he did not
confirm with FDU that he obtained a master’s degree, and instead relied upon the
unofficial transcript, he queried, “[W]hy would I think that was a lie[?]” T 152:13–14. He
also noted that he did not need the degree when he began working for Califon. 4
4 In its post-hearing submission, SBOE supplied evidence that was not offered during the hearing or
discussed by a witness: an FDU Graduate Student Bulletin that addresses student obligations with respect
to graduation, responses provided by FDU in response to a subpoena issued by SBOE, and New Jersey
Department of Education requirements for certificates of eligibility to teach students with disabilities. OAL-
2 (Certification of Michael Lombardi, DAG, Exhibits A-C.) This evidence was not considered here because
it was submitted after the hearing record closed. The parties were to only submit closing summations of
the evidence presented during the hearing along with their legal arguments based upon that evidence. A

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
12
On cross-examination, Maginnis explained the process he followed to obtain his
physical education teaching certificate, which included applying for the certification and
passing post-graduation examinations. His college explained the entire process to him.
He did not recall how long he was required to teach before he could apply for a standard
physical education certification. FDU did not explain the process for obtaining a special
education certificate after graduate school. He was “really never made . . . aware” that
he had to apply for a teaching certificate to teach special education. T 130:21–22. He
“wasn’t made aware of what [he] need[ed] to do moving forward from there and when
Califon accepted [his] unofficial transcript [he] thought [he] was done[.]” T 131:16–18.
ADDITIONAL FACTUAL FINDINGS
It is the obligation of the fact finder to weigh the credibility of the witnesses before
making a decision. Credibility is the value that a fact finder gives to a witness’ testimony.
It is best described as that quality of testimony or evidence that makes it worthy of belief.
“Testimony to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but
must be credible in itself. It must be such as the common experience and observation of
mankind can approve as probable in the circumstances.” In re Estate of Perrone, 5 N.J.
514, 522 (1950). To assess credibility, the fact finder should consider the witness’ interest
in the outcome, motive, or bias. A trier of fact may reject testimony because it is inherently
incredible, or because it is inconsistent with other testimony or with common experience,
or because it is overborne by other testimony. Congleton v. Pura-Tex Stone Corp., 53
N.J. Super. 282, 287 (App. Div. 1958).
motion to reopen the record prior to the issuance of the initial decision was not made, and, moreover, SBOE
has not presented extraordinary circumstances that would warrant reopening the record. N.J.A.C. 1:1-
18.5(c).
Furthermore, even though N.J.A.C. 6A:4-2.5 provides that the “record on appeal shall include all papers
and exhibits, including audio and video recordings, on file with the State Board of Examiners or School
Ethics Commission; all entries as to matters made on the record; any stenographic transcript; and all papers
filed with the Commissioner[,]” petitioner did not represent that the newly submitted exhibits were on file
with the SBOE. See OAL-2. Also, the pleadings transmitted by the Department of Education to the OAL
do not include or reference these documents.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
13
Maginnis testified politely, professionally, and respectfully. He comported himself
in a manner that indicates that he is sincere and well-motivated. His dedication to his
profession is clear and underscored by his family’s close involvement with public
education and his positive performance reviews. He does not present as a person who
would intentionally attempt to mislead his employer or anyone else about his credentials.
Indeed, there is neither evidence in the record nor an assertion that he is responsible for
the discrepancy between his unofficial and official FDU transcripts.
Nonetheless, some aspects of his testimony about his graduation status were
difficult to understand or reconcile. First, he assumed he graduated based upon the
number of credits reported on his unofficial transcript; however, he did not receive a
diploma and did not inquire about it. His claim that he did not inquire about it because it
“slipped” his mind is difficult to understand. Second, he stated that he did not participate
in the graduation ceremony because he did not like to celebrate himself. This is puzzling.
This, coupled with his failure to inquire about the status of his diploma—regardless of
whether it slipped his mind—calls into question the veracity of his explanation.
Also troubling is that, relying upon the unofficial transcript, Maginnis wrote on his
job application that he earned a special education certificate. The transcript did not
indicate that he earned the certificate. Importantly, he acknowledged that he was required
to apply for his physical education certificate and pass post-graduation courses. His
professed assumption that similar steps were not required before he could obtain a
special education certificate, because no one told him what those steps were or Califon
accepted his unofficial transcripts, strains credulity. It is reasonable to expect a
professional who is pursuing higher education and certification to ensure that he
understands the prerequisites to obtaining the degrees and certifications that his
profession requires. Furthermore, when he first expressed interest in the Califon position,
he did not represent that he had a special education certificate. He added this information
when he submitted his application approximately two weeks later.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
14
Accordingly, having considered the credibility of the witness’ testimony, I FIND the
following additional FACTS:
It has already been established that Maginnis misrepresented his education and
certification status when he applied to work for Califon. His explanations for this are
inconsistent and strain credulity. While he expressed remorse for his actions, his
explanations were not entirely cogent, and he seemingly placed blame on others who
allegedly did not inform him of the prerequisites for graduation or certification. Califon
expected his credentials to be as he represented; Dr. Cone understood that he could take
on a special education assignment.
LEGAL DISCUSSION
The issue here is the appropriate penalty, if any, to be imposed in response to the
prior finding that Maginnis misrepresented his credentials. There are no statutory or
regulatory guidelines addressing when revocation or suspension is the appropriate
remedy. Fargo, 91 N.J.A.R.2d (EDE) at 16–17. That “decision is discretionary, on a
case-by-case basis, after considering the individual facts and circumstances.” Id. at 17.
Consideration shall be given to factors such as the nature and gravity of the offense, any
evidence as to provocation, extenuation, or aggravation, and any harm or injurious effect
that the teacher’s conduct may have had on the maintenance of discipline and the proper
administration of the school system. See In re Fulcomer, 93 N.J. Super. 404, 422 (App.
Div. 1967).
As discussed at length in the Order on the SBOE’s motion for summary decision,
the agency is entrusted with the issuance and revocation of certificates to teach pupils in
public schools. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38. N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.4 identifies the grounds for
revocation and suspension of certification. It provides:
(a) The Board of Examiners may revoke or suspend the
certificate(s) of any certificate holder on the basis of
demonstrated inefficiency, incapacity, conduct
unbecoming a teacher, or other just cause.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
15
. . . .
(b) The Board of Examiners may revoke or suspend a
certificate upon evidence that the certificate holder did not
meet the qualifications for the certificate at the time of
issuance or no longer satisfies the criteria set forth at
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-5.1(b).[5]
(c) The Board of Examiners shall not revoke or suspend a
certificate without providing the certificate holder an
opportunity to be heard, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.5.
The SBOE bears the burden of proving its claims against certificate holders by a
preponderance of the competent, credible evidence. See In re Certificate of Papadaniil,
2002 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 100 (March 13, 2002), adopted, State Bd. of Exam’rs, 2002 N.J.
AGEN LEXIS 1393 (May 9, 2002); In re Polk, 90 N.J. 550 (1982); Atkinson v. Parsekian,
37 N.J. 143 (1962). It has held that the “tort standard for proving intentional fraud is not
applicable here.” In re the Certificates of Mesh, 2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 548, *7 (May 16,
2006). During the hearing, the certificate holder is permitted “to demonstrate facts or
circumstances that might counter the charges set forth in the Order to Show Cause,” State
Bd. of Exam’rs v. Brown, 91 N.J.A.R.2d (EDE) 5, 7. They shall be permitted to present
mitigating circumstances toward the determination regarding what licensing sanction, if
any, is appropriate. In re Certificates of Mantone, 96 N.J.A.R.2d (EDE) 5, 6.
“Conduct unbecoming” includes a broad range of behavior that impacts a
certificate holder’s ability to perform his or her duties or otherwise renders the certificate
holder unfit to have the responsibility for the custody and care of students. See State Bd.
of Exam’rs v. Charlton, 96 N.J.A.R. 2d (EDE) 18; In re Certificate of Fargo, 91 N.J.A.R.2d
(EDE) 1. It has been described as an “elastic” phrase that includes “‘conduct which
adversely affects the morale or efficiency’” of the public entity or “‘which has a tendency
to destroy public respect for [public] employees and confidence in the operation of [public]
services.’” In re Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136, 140 (App. Div. 1960) (citation omitted).
5 N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-5.1(b) provides, “the certificate holder shall obtain any license, certificate, or authorization
required by State or Federal law, a licensing board, or N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.1 and 4.2 for the individual to serve
in a position. The district board of education that is considering employing the individual shall ensure the
candidate holds all necessary licenses, certificates, or authorizations.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
16
Guiding this is the well settled principle that “teachers are held to a high standard of
conduct because of the influence they exercise over the students.” In re Tenure Hearing
of Brewer, 2000 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 630, *24; see also In re Grossman, 127 N.J. Super.
13, 30 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 65 N.J. 292 (1974) (“That the school authorities have
the right and the duty to screen the officials, teachers, and employees as to their fitness
to maintain the integrity of the schools as a part of ordered society, cannot be doubted”
(citation omitted)).
Dishonesty about eligibility for a teaching position has been found to constitute
unbecoming conduct. Certificates have been revoked when teachers purposefully altered
proof of their credentials. See, e.g., In re Certificate of Tannen, Agency Dkt. No.
471-04/98-161, State Bd. of Exam’rs (September 24, 1998),
http://www.state.nj.us/education/legal/. (“A teacher who knowingly alters her certificate
in order to teach a subject matter for which she is not qualified does a great disservice to
her students and her school district” and “has no place in a classroom”); In re Certificates
of Escurra, Agency Dkt. No. 0304-196, State Bd. of Exam’rs (January 20, 2005),
http://www.state.nj.us/education/legal/ (SBOE revoked a certificate for unbecoming
conduct when the holder altered a date on an employment approval letter from the Office
of Criminal History Review).
Misrepresentation of credentials, without altering documents, has also been found
to be conduct unbecoming a teacher. In In re the Certificates of Stasiuk, 2006 N.J. AGEN
LEXIS 484 (July 26, 2006), adopted with modification, State Bd. of Exam’rs (Nov. 2,
2006), https://www.nj.gov/education/legal/examiners/2006/nov/0405-318.pdf, the ALJ
found:
Although respondent did not submit any forged documents in
support of her application for employment with the Ramsey
Public Schools, she made a material oral misrepresentation
as to her holding a certificate for Spanish that went to the core
of her eligibility and qualification for the open position—
namely, that of a Spanish teacher. Under the circumstances,
respondent’s conduct constitutes conduct unbecoming a
teacher pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9-17.5 as it breaches an
implicit standard of good behavior. In re Emmons, 63 N.J.
Super. 136, 140 (App. Div. 1960).

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
17
Just as the submission of a fraudulent teaching certificate
demeans the value of the entire certification system, the
submission of material oral misrepresentations upon which a
school district relies, albeit temporarily, subverts the integrity
of the process emplaced to protect children. See In re
DeBello, 97 N.J.A.R.2d (EDE) 1. Since schools must rely on
the trustworthiness of information and documents provided by
teaching or administrative applicants, the submission of
inaccurate, misleading or fraudulent information is a serious
offense.
[2006 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 484 at **6–7.]
Stasiuk’s certificates were suspended for two years.
The SBOE has disciplined educators who falsified or misrepresented information
on a teaching certificate application, regardless of intent. In In re the Certificates of Ramo,
the SBOE suspended a teacher’s certificate for six months for failing to list his federal
fraud convictions on his application for a teaching certificate in New Jersey. State Bd. of
Exam’rs, Agency Dkt. No. 1213-172 (February 27, 2014),
www.nj.gov/education/legal/examiners/2014decisions.shtml. The teacher admitted his
failure to disclose his convictions but said that he did not do so intentionally. While the
SBOE acknowledged that “the level of stress and responsibilities Ramo undertook at the
time of his application were daunting and could easily have led to his incorrect answer,
nonetheless the Board believes that his conduct cannot go unremarked.” Id. at *3. The
SBOE determined that Ramo’s “sincere sense of remorse coupled with his cogent
explanation of what transpired in his life during that time period, militate against the
revocation of his certificates,” and instead suspended his certificates for six months. Id.
at **3–4.
In In re Certificates of Powell, EDE 00950-13, Initial Decision (June 23, 2014),
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/, adopted with modification, State Bd. of Exam’rs
(October 23, 2014), http://www.state.nj.us/education/legal/, the ALJ found that Powell
submitted fraudulent employment-verification letters in support of his application for
certification as a supervisor and principal. The ALJ noted, “[I]t is not necessary to actually
undermine morale or efficiency or destroy respect for the delivery of government services.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
18
The focus is on the individual’s conduct. The tendency to cause said effects, whether the
conduct in question actually does so or not, makes it unbecoming.” Id. at *9. He
recommended a one-year suspension of Powell’s certificates, citing the following
mitigating factors: the absence of evidence of improper conduct during Powell’s ten-year
career; evidence that he solely intended to obtain accurate information through
appropriate means; he had the requisite experience; and his fraudulent conduct related
only to the submission of documents.
The SBOE adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions but not the
recommended penalty. It wrote:
As noted above, the ALJ concluded that, when applying for
certification, Powell had altered an employment experience
letter to increase the length of his employment and signed an
individual’s name to the letter on two occasions without
authorization. (Initial Decision, slip op. at 10). When weighing
that unbecoming conduct against several mitigating factors,
the ALJ concluded that a one-year suspension of Powell’s
certificates was appropriate in this case. The Commissioner
has long held that teachers serve as role models for their
students. The Board does agree with the ALJ that, although
Powell’s fraud does not comport with “role model” behavior,
the mitigating factors in this case militate against the harsher
penalty of revocation, which this Board has imposed when an
individual has submitted a fraudulent certificate to gain
employment. See, e.g., In the Matter of the Certificate of
Michael Bonsu, Dkt. No. 1112-225 (Examiners, January 17,
2014) (Individual who held only Teacher of the Handicapped
certification fabricated Supervisor certificate for a promotion
within his district); In the Matter of the Certificate of Deborah
Cantz, Dkt. No. 1213-109 (Examiners, February 28, 2013)
(Elementary school teacher fabricated Teacher of
Mathematics certificate to obtain employment); In the Matter
of the Certificates of Karen Ledden, Dkt. No. 0910-174
(Examiners, March 31, 2011) (Elementary school teacher
fabricated two Teacher of the Handicapped certificates and
submitted them to various districts). The Board diverges from
the ALJ’s decision, though, as to the penalty to be imposed.
“Teachers . . . are professional employees to whom the people
have entrusted the care and custody of . . . school children.
This heavy duty requires a degree of self-restraint and
controlled behavior rarely requisite to other types of
employment.” Tenure of Sammons, 1972 S.L.D. 302, 321. In

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
19
this case, the initial unsigned employment verification letter
from Pride that Powell submitted was legitimately sent to him
by Pride. However, Powell’s acts of forging his former
employer’s name on his employment verification letter on two
occasions and altering his employment end date at Pride in
order to gain an additional year of experience, call for
something more than a one-year suspension of his
certificates. Powell’s conduct was not de minimis in nature
and should not be treated as such. The Board believes that
the appropriate response to Powell’s breach is a two-year
suspension of his certificates. The Board therefore adopts the
Initial Decision with modification as to the penalty.
[In re Certificates of Powell, Final Decision at **4–5 (October
23, 2014), http://www.state.nj.us/education/legal/.]
Maginnis argued that any penalty should be reduced or negated because he has
effectively been penalized while this matter has been pending. However, he did not cite
authority for this argument. Although the SBOE has the discretion to revoke or suspend
a certificate, N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.4 does not authorize waiver or reduction of a suspension
when a teacher has been “effectively suspended” pending a hearing. Rather, a
suspension or a revocation goes into effect on the date it is ordered. See Ramo, State
Bd. of Exam’rs, Agency Dkt. No. 1213-172,
www.nj.gov/education/legal/examiners/2014decisions.shtml (directing that SBOE’s
suspension order shall be immediately effective). This indicates prospective, not
retrospective application.
Maginnis demonstrated mitigating circumstances. First, his misrepresentations
did not touch on his eligibility for the position he sought. Second, while irresponsible, he
relied upon the unofficial transcript, which he obtained through an official FDU source, to
determine that he completed the FDU master’s degree program. As noted, there is
neither an allegation nor evidence suggesting that he altered the unofficial transcript or
was otherwise responsible for the discrepancy between it and the official transcript. Third,
there is no evidence in the record that he has been disciplined by Califon or his other
employers. Rather, he received excellent performance reviews and some
commendations.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
20
However, there are also aggravating circumstances. First, and most importantly,
Maginnis plainly wrote that he obtained a special education certificate, which was a false
statement, and he did not offer a reasonable explanation for having done this. Second,
notwithstanding the fact that he did not cause the discrepancy between the FDU
transcripts, it is concerning that he did not question why he did not receive a diploma. His
rationale for not inquiring about it and for not attending his graduation ceremony is also
concerning. Third, he seemingly blames others for not having explained the steps
required for graduation or certification, which he should have independently researched.
Finally, it should be noted that while Maginnis seeks to argue that his
misrepresentations are irrelevant here because no one from Califon relied upon them,
this does not constitute a mitigating circumstance. As the above-referenced cases
demonstrate, the act of misrepresentation is the focus of the analysis. Even though there
is no evidence in the record that the misrepresentations impacted his ability to
competently serve as a physical education and health teacher and athletic coordinator,
they are nonetheless significant because school employees are held to a high standard,
and it is axiomatic that they must be expected to accurately report their own credentials.
Here, unlike some of the educators whose cases are cited above, Maginnis did not
fabricate a document in an effort to obtain a position for which he was not qualified.
Because he was qualified for the position for which he was hired, his misrepresentations
did not impact his eligibility. However, while he asserted that he was confused about the
status of his master’s degree and blamed FDU for generating an inaccurate transcript,
this does not negate the fact that he incorrectly represented his credentials. Also, he did
not offer a cogent explanation for his own misrepresentation of his certification status.
Accordingly, weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, and considering as
guidance the periods of suspension imposed in other cases,6 I CONCLUDE that a six-
month suspension is warranted.
6 Recognizing, of course, that those cases are not binding here.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
21
ORDER
It is ORDERED that the charge of conduct unbecoming a teacher is sustained and
that respondent’s teaching certificates be suspended for six months.
I hereby FILE my initial decision with the STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS for
consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified or rejected by the STATE
BOARD OF EXAMINERS, which by law is authorized to make a final decision in this
matter. If the State Board of Examiners 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 SECRETARY OF THE
STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS, 100 Riverview Plaza, 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 4, 2024
DATE JUDITH LIEBERMAN, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
JL/mg

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
22
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For petitioner:
None
For respondent:
Luke Maginnis
Exhibits
Court:
OAL-1 Joint Stipulation of Facts
OAL-2 Certification of Michael Lombardi, DAG, attached to post-hearing brief
Joint Exhibit:
J-1 Email Patton to Ruberto, February 25, 2020
For petitioner:
P-1 through 7 Not in evidence
P-8 Email Cone to Maginnis, April 20, 2021
P-9 Email Cone to Maginnis, April 21, 2021
P-10 Not in evidence
For respondent:
R-1 Job Posting
R-2 Not in evidence
R-3 Employment application
R-4 FDU unofficial transcript
R-5 FDU official transcript
R-6 Letter, Patton to Maginnis, December 16, 2019
R-7 Letter, Ruberto to Maginnis, May 24, 2019

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 08865-21
23
R-8 Letter, Patton to Maginnis, May 28, 2019
R-9 Not in evidence
R-10 Maginnis introduction letter
R-11 through 12 Not in evidence
R-13 Califon classroom observation, March 11, 2019
R-14 Summative evaluation report, 2018–19
R-15 Califon observation, October 30, 2019
R-16 Califon observation, December 11, 2019
R-17 Califon observation, February 13, 2020
R-18 Califon observation, October 16, 2020
R-19 Califon observation, December 2, 2020
R-20 Califon observation, February 24, 2021
R-21 Evaluation ratings
R-22 Not in evidence
R-23 Email, Cone to Maginnis, April 20, 2021
R-24 Email, Cone to Maginnis, April 21, 2021
R-25 Letter, Cone to Maginnis, April 27, 2021
R-26 Zoom invitation from FDU, May 20, 2021
R-27 through 28 Not in evidence
R-29 Resume
R-30 Highlights since May 2021
R-31 Bernardsville observation
R-32 Bernards Township observation, April 8, 2022
R-33 Observation, April 18, 2023
R-34 Observation, April 26, 2023
R-35 Summative Conference, April 26, 2023
R-36 Hanover Park observation
R-37 through 39 Not in evidence
R-40 Email Patton to Ruberto, February 25, 2020