Patricia Wilson v. Board of Education of the City of Paterson, Passaic County, 5/15/2024, (#196-24)

196-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Patricia Wilson,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Paterson,
Passaic County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner, a non-tenured special education teacher, challenged the respondent Board’s termination of
her employment following notice of her dismissal on November 20, 2023. Petitioner disputed the basis
for her discharge and maintained that the District defamed her character by terminating her absent
notice of improper conduct or intention to end her employment in advance of her termination.
Petitioner transmitted her petition of appeal on Saturday, March 2, 2024, and the petition was filed with
the New Jersey Department of Education’s Office of Controversies and Disputes on Monday, March 4,
2024. The Board filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer on grounds that petitioner’s appeal was
filed out of time.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(d), a petitioner must file an appeal no later than
the 90th day from the date of receipt of the notice of a final order, ruling, or other action by the district
board of education, individual party, or agency, that is the subject of the contested case; in this matter,
petitioner 	acknowledged 	she 	received 	notice 	of 	the 	Board’s 	termination 	decision 	on
November 20, 2023, when she was escorted from the building; 	that action left no doubt about the
Board’s employment determination; the ninety-day limitation period for the filing of an appeal flows
from that notice and expired on February 21, 2024; petitioner’s appeal was filed on March 4, 2024 and
was indisputably late; and the circumstances of this case do not warrant relaxation of the 90-day rule.
Accordingly, the ALJ granted the Board’s motion to dismiss the petition.
Upon review, the Commissioner, inter alia, concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusions and
adopted the Initial Decision as the final decision in this matter. In so doing, the Commissioner noted
that, to the extent that petitioner may have filed a grievance, it does not toll the 90-day limitations
period. Accordingly, the Board’s motion to dismiss was granted and petition was dismissed.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It has been
neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

196-24
OAL Dkt. No. 04145-24
Agency Dkt. No. 51-3/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Patricia Wilson,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Paterson,
Passaic County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by the petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the Board’s reply
thereto, have been reviewed and considered.
Petitioner was employed by the Paterson Board of Education (Board) as a special
education teacher pursuant to a contract covering the time period from September 18, 2023,
through June 30, 2024. Petitioner’s last day of work was November 20, 2024, when she was
informed by her principal that she was being terminated and was escorted from the building by
school personnel. Petitioner appealed via a petition of appeal emailed on March 2, 2024, which
was a Saturday; it was filed by the Office of Controversies and Disputes on March 4, 2024.
Following the Board’s motion to dismiss, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded
that petitioner’s appeal was due by February 21, 2024 – 90 days after her termination on
November 20, 2024. The ALJ found that petitioner did not provide any excuse for her untimely

2
filing or any basis for relaxation of the 90-day rule. Accordingly, the ALJ granted the Board’s
motion to dismiss.
In her exceptions, petitioner argues that it was unfair for the ALJ to dismiss her appeal
after giving her two separate hearing dates. Petitioner contends that she was not given clear
direction by the PEA1 and thought that the PEA would take further action on her behalf.
Petitioner also indicates that she believes she “performed with the 90-day time at the grievance
level though unknowingly.”
In reply, the Board argues that petitioner had a full opportunity to respond to the
Board’s motion to dismiss and did not identify any procedural impropriety by the ALJ. The
Board further contends that petitioner has failed to provide any explanation or excuse for her
failure to timely file her petition and urges the Commissioner to adopt the Initial Decision.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that the petition of appeal was
untimely pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3. Petitioner unquestionably had notice of her
termination on November 20, 2023, when she was informed of it in person and escorted from
the school building. The 90-day limitations period expired on February 21, 204, and the
petition was not filed until March 4, 2024. It is petitioner’s obligation to comply with the filing
requirements, not her union’s. Furthermore, to the extent that petitioner may have filed a
grievance, it does not toll the 90-day limitations period. Giannetta v. Bd. of Educ. of
Egg Harbor, Commissioner Decision 147-05 (April 25, 2005); Kenny v. Bd. of Educ. of the
Borough of Moonachie, EDU 9284-17, Initial Decision (Aug. 17, 2017), adopted,
Commissioner Decision No. 286-17 (Sept. 27, 2017). Petitioner has made no demonstration of
1 This acronym appears to refer to the Paterson teachers’ union.

3
circumstances that would warrant the relaxation of the timely filing requirement. Finally, the
Commissioner finds that petitioner was afforded the opportunity to respond to the Board’s
motion to dismiss, and that her opposition was considered by the ALJ in issuing the
Initial Decision, such that petitioner’s argument regarding any “unfairness” is unavailing.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter. The
Board’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: May 15, 2024
Date of Mailing: May 16, 2024
2 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1.
Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date
of mailing of this decision.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
DISMISSAL
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04145-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 51-3/24
PATRICIA WILSON,
Petitioner,
v.
CITY OF PATERSON, BOARD OF
EDUCATION, PASSAIC COUNTY
Respondent.
_____________________________________
Patricia Wilson, appearing pro se
Kyle J. Trent, Esq., for respondent (Apruzze, McDermott, Mastro & Murphy,
P.C., attorneys)
Record Closed: April 8, 2024 	Decided: April 10, 2024
BEFORE NANCI G. STOKES, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On Saturday, March 2, 2024, petitioner challenged respondent’s termination of
her employment following notice of her dismissal on November 20, 2023. Is the claim

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04145-24
2
time-barred? Yes. Under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(d), a petitioner must file an appeal "no later
than the 90th day from the date of receipt of the notice of a final order, ruling, or other
action by the district board of education, individual party, or agency, that is the subject
of the [case].” Ibid.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By 	email 	dated 	March 	2, 	2024, 	Patricia 	Wilson 	filed 	a 	Petition 	with 	the
Commissioner of the Department of Education (Commissioner) contesting the Paterson
Public School District’s (District or Board) termination of her position as a special
education teacher at school number five within the District. 	Wilson disputes the basis
for her discharge and maintains that the District defamed her character by terminating
her absent notice of improper conduct or an intention to terminate her job before it did.
Further, Wilson disagrees with the principal’s leadership and asserts that he was
manipulative and micromanaged her.
In response to the petition, the Board filed a Motion to Dismiss in place of an
Answer on March 22, 2024, arguing that Wilson filed her petition out of time. The
Commissioner opted not to address respondent’s motion to dismiss and transmitted this
case to the OAL. On March 26, 2023, the OAL filed the contested case under the
Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, and the act establishing the
OAL, 	N.J.S.A. 	52:14F-1 	to 	-13, 	for 	a 	hearing 	under 	the 	Uniform 	Administrative
Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6.
On April, 1, 2024, this tribunal requested that petitioner submit her opposition to
the motion by April 11, 2024. On April 2, 2024, Wilson supplied her opposition. On April
8, 2024, the Board replied, and I closed the record.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04145-24
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the petition and its supporting documents, I FIND the following as
FACT for purposes of this motion only:
The District employed Patricia Wilson as a special education teacher through an
employment 	contract 	that 	Wilson 	executed 	on 	September 	14, 	2023. 	The 	District
expected Wilson to commence working on September 18, 2023, and end her teaching
service on June 30, 2024. 	The contract did not guarantee employment; either party
could terminate the position.
Wilson 	supplied 	several 	letters 	of 	recommendation 	in 	connection 	with 	her
application for employment. She has been an educator for more than forty years and
has a master’s degree in special education and a doctoral degree in psychology.
On 	October 	16, 	2023, 	the 	District 	notified 	Wilson 	that 	she 	had 	been 	on
unapproved leave since October 4, 2023, and provided Wilson with a blank leave form.
On October 17, 2023, Wilson sought leave under the New Jersey Family Leave
and Medical Leave Act from October 5, 2023, through October 17, 2023. The District
approved her request.
On November 14, 2023, the District notified Wilson by mail that it terminated
Wilson, 	effective 	November 	15, 	2023, 	for 	“documented 	instructional 	shortcomings
witnessed by [Wilson’s] principal.”
Wilson supplied a note dated November 14, 2023, from a physician’s office
stating that Wilson could not work until November 20, 2023.
On November 20, 2023, Wilson went to work and spoke with her principal, Dr.
Ventura. Dr. Ventura advised Wilson that the District was terminating her employment

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04145-24
4
because “things were not working out” and “her classroom function[ed] better when she
was not there.” Dr. Ventura also told Wilson that during an official observation of her
classroom, “she placed a child in danger.” Wilson disputes this assertion and seeks to
reverse her termination through this petition.
Wilson’s last day of work at the District was November 20, 2023, and school
personnel escorted her from the building that day.
From notification of her termination on November 20, 2023, ninety days is
February 18, 2024. 	However, February 18, 2024, is a Saturday, making the next
business day February 21, 2024, given the Presidents’ Day holiday on February 20,
2024. 	Yet, Wilson’s filing date was March 2, 2024. 	Notably, March 2, 2024, is a
Saturday, and the next business day is March 4, 2024. Still, I FIND that Wilson filed her
petition more than ninety days after receiving notification of her job termination.
Although this tribunal allowed Wilson to respond to the motion concerning the
untimeliness of her petition, she does not explain or provide any excuse for her untimely
filing or circumstances that precluded the prompt filing of her petition. Instead, she only
reiterates that her termination requires reversal.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A motion to dismiss under the administrative rule governing education cases,
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.5(g), is the functional equivalent of a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim in the New Jersey Superior Court under R. 4:6-2(e). 	Graves v. State
Operated Sch. Dist. of Newark & Cami Anderson, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS
2417. In ruling on a motion to dismiss,
The judge considers whether all the evidence together with
all legitimate inferences therefrom could sustain a judgment
in favor of the party opposing the motion. The judge is not
concerned 	with 	weight, 	worth, 	nature, 	or 	extent 	of 	the
evidence. The judge must accept all the evidence supporting

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04145-24
5
the party defending against the motion and accord that party
the 	benefit 	of 	all 	inferences 	that 	can 	reasonably 	and
legitimately 	be 	deduced 	therefrom. 	If 	reasonable 	minds
could differ, the motion must be denied.
[37 New Jersey Practice, Administrative Law and Practice §
5.19, at 259-60 (Steven Lefelt, Anthony Miragliotta & Patricia
Prunty) (2d ed. 2000)];
See also Graves, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2417, at 7 (concluding that a court
must determine the adequacy of the pleading and decide whether a cause of action is
"suggested" by the facts when reviewing a Rule 4:6-2(e) motion) (internal citations
omitted).
Timeliness
Under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(d), a party must file an appeal with the Commissioner of
Education “no later than the 90th day from the date of receipt of the notice of a final
order, ruling, or other action by the district board of education, individual party, or
agency, that is the subject of the requested contested case hearing.” This rule "provides
a measure of repose, an essential element in the proper and efficient administration of
the school laws," giving school districts the “security of knowing” that an aggrieved party
cannot challenge its actions after ninety days. Kaprow v. Board of Educ. of Berkeley
Twp., 131 N.J. 572, 582 (1993).
Courts 	strictly 	construe 	and 	consistently 	apply 	the 	ninety-day 	limitation
period. Kaprow, 131 N.J. at 588-89; Nissman v. Bd. of Educ., 272 N.J. Super 373, 380-
81, (App. Div. 1994); Riely v. Bd. of Educ., 173 N.J. Super. 109, 112-14, (App. Div.
1980). This period begins to run when the petitioner "learn[s] from the Local Board the
existence of that state of facts that would enable him to file a timely claim." Kaprow, 131
N.J. at 588-89. Indeed, the "notice of a final order, ruling or other action" is "sufficient to
inform an individual of some fact that he or she has a right to know and that the
communicating party has a duty to communicate." Id. at 587. Notably, a petitioner need

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04145-24
6
not receive official and formal notification that they may have a valid claim to begin the
ninety-day period. Id. at 588.
Even accepting Wilson’s position that the District improperly terminated her
employment, 	she 	needed 	to 	file 	a 	petition 	challenging 	that 	determination 	timely.
Undeniably, Wilson acknowledges she received notice of that decision on November
20, 2023. 	She was escorted from the building, leaving no doubt about the District’s
conclusion. The ninety-day limitation flows from that notice and expires on February 21,
2024. Indeed, I found that her petition was indisputably late.
Still, the Commissioner may exercise her authority under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.1.6 to
relax the application of the 90-day rule "where strict adherence thereto may be deemed
inappropriate or unnecessary or may result in injustice." Ibid. 	Yet, exceptions to the
ninety-day rule are only appropriate where compelling circumstances exist to justify the
enlargement or relaxation of the time limit. See Kaprow, 131 N.J. at 590; DeMaio v.
New Providence Bd. of Educ., 96 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 449, 453.
Wilson offers no circumstances, let alone compelling ones, to justify her lack of
diligence here.
Further, this extraordinary relief is reserved only for situations where the party
presents a substantial constitutional issue or a matter of significant public interest
beyond concern only to the parties. Portee v. Bd. of Educ. of Newark, 94 N.J.A.R.2d
(EDU) 381, 384; Wise v. Trenton Bd. of Educ., EDU 160-00, Initial Decision (July 25,
2000), adopted, Comm'r 	Decision 	(September 	11, 2000), aff'd, St. 	Bd. 	(January 	3,
2001), http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/.
Notably, petitioner's claim has only personal significance, making relaxation of
the rule even less appropriate. If the Commissioner relaxed the filing timeframe for
every 	harsh 	result, 	that 	action 	would 	nullify 	the 	rule's 	salutary 	public 	policy 	of
encouraging prompt resolution of disputes. Pacio v. Bd. of Educ. of Lakeland Reg. High

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04145-24
7
Sch. 	Dist., 1989 	S.L.D. 	2060 	(Comm'r 	July 	29, 	1989). 	Thus, 	I 	CONCLUDE 	that
petitioner does not present exceptional circumstances or a compelling reason that
warrant relaxation of the ninety-day rule and that she filed her petition beyond the
required time frame.
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that the Board’s
motion to dismiss be GRANTED. I further ORDER that the Petition of Appeal be and is
hereby DISMISSED.
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 04145-24
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.
April 10, 2024
DATE 	NANCI G. STOKES, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	April 10, 2024
Date Mailed to Parties: 	April 10, 2024
ljb