Robbinsville Education Association and Danielle Sadock v. Board of Education of the Township of Robbinsville, Mercer County, 1/23/26 (#20-26)

20-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 06016-25 (EDU 12760-23 on remand)
Agency Dkt. No. 266-10/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Robbinsville Education Association and Danielle
Saddock,
Petitioners,
v.
Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Township 	of
Robbinsville, Mercer County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision issued by the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) have been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
In March 2025, the Commissioner adopted the recommendation of the Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) to dismiss Counts IX and X of the petition, but remanded the matter so that
discovery could take place regarding the issues raised in the remaining Counts.
In October 2025, respondent Board of Education of the Township of Robbinsville (Board)
moved for summary decision on grounds that the remaining issues were moot. Educere, which
participated in the matter with the parties’ consent, joined in the Board’s motion. Petitioners
did not oppose the Board’s motion and did not object to dismissal of the petition as moot.
Thereafter, the ALJ granted the Board’s motion and dismissed the petition as moot because the
Board no longer had a contract for virtual instruction with Educere or Michigan Virtual.

2
Upon review, the Commissioner adopts the Initial Decision, for the reasons stated therein,
as the final decision in this matter. 	Accordingly, the Board’s motion for summary decision is
granted and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	January 23, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	January 27, 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.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06016-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 266-10/23
(ON REMAND: EDU 12760-23)
ROBBINSVILLE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
AND DANIELLE SADDOCK,
Petitioners,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF ROBBINSVILLE,
MERCER COUNTY
Respondent.
__________________________________________
Richard A. Friedman, Esq., and Sheila Murugan, Esq., for petitioners (Zazzali,
P.C., attorneys)
Regina M. Phillips, Esq., for respondent (Madden and Madden, attorneys)
Vito A Gagliardi, Esq., for intervenor, Educere (Porzio, Bromberg & Newman,
P.C., attorneys)
Record Closed: November 14, 2025 Decided: December 16, 2025
BEFORE JOAN M. BURKE, ALJ:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06016-25
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 7, 2023, Tiffany Strauss (Ms. Strauss) appealed to the New Jersey
Department of Education (DOE) pursuant to N.J.A.C. 18A:6-9, challenging the
Robbinsville Board of Education’s (Board or BOE) actions regarding the employment of
athletic trainers. On October 11, 2023, the DOE transmitted this matter to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) for plenary hearing as a contested case pursuant to N.J.S.A.
52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13. The case was docketed as EDU 10708-23.
On October 2, 2023, petitioners Robbinsville Education Association (the
Association) and Danielle Saddock (Ms. Saddock) appealed to the DOE pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 18A:6-9, challenging the Board’s use of private entities to provide instruction.
The Board filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of answer. On November 16, 2023, the DOE
transmitted this matter to the Office of Administrative Law for plenary hearing as a
contested case pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13. The case
was docketed as EDU 12760-23 and was assigned to the Honorable Kim Belin, ALJ.
Because the undersigned had the older docket number, the matter was transferred to the
undersigned for further handling on May 10, 2024.
On May 10, 2024, a motion to consolidate the cases was submitted by petitioners’
counsels. I entered an Order of Consolidation on August 23, 2024. Respondent Board
renewed its request to have the motion to dismiss addressed by this tribunal. Petitioners
raised an issue that discovery must be completed before the motion can be considered.
The parties submitted position papers regarding the discovery issue. On November 21,
2024, I decided that discovery need not be completed before the motion can be
considered. A scheduling order for the motion was completed, and thereafter the parties
submitted briefs on the motion. An Order was entered on the Motion to Dismiss on
February 5, 2025, along with an Order to Sever. The Commissioner adopted the
recommendation to dismiss Counts IX and X for different reasons and rejected the
dismissal of the remaining counts. The matter was remanded to the OAL and docketed
as EDU 06016-25 for further proceedings so that discovery could take place regarding
the applicability of Option 2.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06016-25
3
It was determined that Educere was important to the underlying issues, and a
request was made for it to intervene in the matter. On August 28, 2025, Educere
intervened in the case. On June 13, 2025, the matters (EDU 10708-23 and EDU 06016-
25) were consolidated. On October 3, 2025, the parties in EDU 10708-23 notified the
tribunal that petitioner Ms. Strauss was withdrawing her petition as the parties had settled
the matter. On October 7, 2025, an Order to Sever was entered. On October 24, 2025,
respondent submitted a motion for summary decision on the grounds of mootness. On
October 30, 2025, Educere joined in respondent’s motion for summary decision. On
November 13, 2025, the tribunal received a letter from petitioners stating that petitioners
do not oppose the Board’s Motion to Dismiss and have no objection with this tribunal
issuing an order to dismiss the petition as moot.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
By the motion and joinder for summary decision, and with no objection from
petitioners, the parties agree that there are no material facts in dispute. I therefore FIND
as FACT the statements of undisputed fact as set forth in Respondent’s Brief replicated
below:
1. For the 2023–2024 school year, the Board faced a
substantial budget deficit. (See the October 17, 2025
Certification of Nick Mackres (“Mackres Cert.”), Board
CFO, Assistant Superintendent, and School Business
Administrator, ¶¶1–2, attached to the Certification of
Regina M. Philipps (“Philipps Cert.”) as Exhibit “A”;
please also see the Board’s April 2023 Budget
Presentation (the “Budget Presentation”), attached to
the Philipps Cert. as Exhibit “B”).
2. In addressing the deficit, the Board prioritized the
preservation of its staff. (Exh. B, Budget Presentation,
p.2).
3. However, to cover the shortfall, the Board was forced
to engage in a substantial reduction in force (“RIF”) that
resulted in the elimination of 27.5 positions, including

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06016-25
4
one physics teacher position. (Id. at p.7; Exh. A,
Mackres Cert., at ¶3).
4. Specifically, the teaching position for the only AP
Physics-C class for the 2023–2024 school year was
eliminated. (Exh. A, Mackres Cert., at ¶ 4).
5. This AP Physics-C teaching position was offered to the
remaining certified physics teacher during the seventh
teaching period; however, she declined1. (Id. at ¶5;
please also see the October 16, 2023, email
correspondence from Robbinsville High School
(“RHS”) Principal, Molly Avery, to RHS teacher,
Shannon Wesley, attached to the Philipps Cert. as
Exhibit “C”).
6. On July 20, 2023, the Board posted a part-time position
for an AP Physics-C teacher. However, there were no
applicants for this position. (Exh. A, Mackres Cert., at
¶ 6).
7. To ensure that students could receive instruction in AP
Physics-C until a permanent part-time teacher could be
identified, and in lieu of a long-term substitute, the
Board utilized the Option 2 method for students to earn
credits through online learning by contracting with
Michigan Virtual to provide AP Physics-C instruction for
the 2023–2024 school year, and the Board authorized
the Purchase Order for Michigan Virtual’s instruction on
August 17, 2023. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-8).
8. The Board’s RIF also eliminated the Board’s only
teacher for advanced Italian classes, AP Italian and
Italian III. (Id. at ¶ 9).
9. On or about July 20, 2023, the Board posted a part-
time position for an advanced Italian teacher.
However, there were no applicants for this position. (Id.
at ¶ 10).
10. To ensure that students could receive instruction in
Italian IV until a permanent part-time teacher could be
identified, and in lieu of a long-term substitute, the
Board utilized the Option 2 method for students to earn
credits through online learning by contracting with
1 According to the contract with the Robbinsville Education Association, Article 5.1.1g, teachers may only
be assigned a seventh teaching period if they volunteer to do so. As such, the Board could not assign AP
Physics-C to the teacher without her consent.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06016-25
5
Educere to provide Italian IV instruction for the 2023–
2024 school year, and the Board authorized the
Purchase Order for Educere’s instruction on October 2,
2023. (Id. at ¶¶ 11,13).
11. For the 2023–2024 school year, there were three
students enrolled in AP Italian and fifteen students
enrolled in Italian III. The decision to contract with
Educere was made to allow these students to continue
their World Language coursework in Italian, as many
students seeking enrollment in a competitive college
must have taken four years in a single World
Language. (Id. at ¶ 12).
12. The Board no longer has a contract with Michigan
Virtual or Educere to provide any virtual instruction for
the present 2025–2026 school year. (Id. at ¶¶ 15-16).
[Respondent’s Brief in Support of Summary Decision, at 2-4.]
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6,
which govern the conduct of contested cases before the OAL, a party may file a motion
for summary decision on substantive issues in a contested case. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a).
The motion “shall be served with briefs and with or without supporting affidavits.” N.J.A.C.
1:1-12.5(b). The regulations provide that, “the determination [of] whether there exists a
genuine issue with respect to a material fact challenged requires the motion judge to
consider whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party in consideration of the applicable evidentiary
standard, are sufficient to permit a rational fact finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue
in favor of the non-moving party.” Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995).
In making this determination, the analysis is “'whether the evidence presents a sufficient
disagreement to require submission to a [fact finder] or whether it is so one-sided that
one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 533 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251–52 (1986)). Summary decision is also proper when the opposing
party “points only to disputed issues of fact that are ‘of an insubstantial nature.’” Id. at
529. If the non-moving party’s evidence is “merely colorable or is not significantly

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06016-25
6
probative,” the judge should not deny summary judgment. Bowles v. City of Camden,
993 F. Supp. 255, 261 (D.N.J. 1998).
Here there are no facts in dispute, and I therefore CONCLUDE that this matter is
ripe for summary decision.
Review of Mootness Claim
An action is moot when the decision sought “can have no practical effect on the
existing controversy.” Redd v. Bowman, 223 N.J. 87, 104 (2015). For reasons of judicial
economy and restraint, it is appropriate to refrain from decision-making when an issue
presented is hypothetical, judgment cannot grant effective relief, or the parties do not
have a concrete adversity of interest. Anderson v. Sills, 143 N.J. Super. 432, 437 (Ch.
Div. 1976); Fox v. Twp. of E. Brunswick Bd. of Educ., EDU 10067-98, Initial Decision
(March 19, 1999), aff’d, Comm’r (May 3, 1999), https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/;
J.L. and K.D. ex rel. J.L. v. Harrison Twp. Bd. of Educ., OAL Dkt. No. EDS 13858-13, Final
Decision (January 28, 2014).
A review of the facts here leads to the conclusion that no issue remains as to which
judgment can grant effective relief. Respondent posits that “the Board has no contract
with Educere or Michigan Virtual for any virtual instruction in the District, including but not
limited to Italian and Physics . . . . Thus, any alleged violations by the Board in connection
with the virtual instruction provided by these entities during the 2023–2024 school year
that are at issue in the Petition have been rendered moot.” (Respondent’s Brief in support
of Summary Decision at page 7.) I agree. Petitioners also agree as they have no
opposition to the granting of the motion for summary decision on mootness. (Letter from
the Petitioners.)
Based on the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that the petition should be dismissed with
prejudice as moot because judgment for petitioners cannot grant effective relief.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06016-25
7
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the motion of respondent, Robbinsville Board of
Education, Mercer County, for summary decision dismissing the petition of Robbinsville
Education Association and Danielle Saddock on the grounds that the petition is moot is
GRANTED and the petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify, or reject this decision within forty-five days and 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 06016-25
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. Exceptions may be filed by email to
ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of Controversies
and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
December 16, 2025
DATE JOAN M. BURKE, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
JMB/sa/jm

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06016-25
9
APPENDIX
Exhibits
For petitioner:
Letter Response, November 13, 2025
For respondent:
Motion for Summary Decision, October 24, 2025
For intervenor:
Letter Joining the Respondent’s Motion, October 28, 2025