Andrew Meehan v. Board of Trustees of the LEAD Charter School, Essex County, 6/23/25 (#312-25)

312-25
OAL Dkt. Nos. 09647-24, 09649-24, 09650-24, and 13245-24 (consolidated)
Agency Dkt. Nos. 159-5/24, 160-5/24, 161-5/24, and 270-8/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Andrew Meehan,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Trustees of the LEAD Charter School,
Essex County,
Respondent.
The record of this consolidated matter and the Order Granting Summary Decision in Part
and Denying Summary Decision in Part of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) have been
reviewed and considered. The Order was submitted to the Commissioner for immediate review,
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A: 1:1-12.5(e). 	The parties were advised of their opportunity to file
exceptions, but did not do so.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that
petitioner lacks standing to pursue the claims raised in his petitions regarding child abuse and
neglect reporting procedures, state-issued high school diplomas, and electronic communications.
The Commissioner further agrees with the ALJ that summary decision regarding petitioner’s
appeal of his termination is not warranted at this stage of the proceedings.
Accordingly, the Order granting respondent’s motion to dismiss Agency Dkt. No. 159-5/24
(EDU 09650-24), Agency Dkt. No. 160-5/24 (EDU 09649-24), and Agency Dkt. No. 161-5/24 (EDU

2
09647-24) is adopted as the final decision as to those matters, and those petitions of appeal are
hereby dismissed. The matter assigned Agency Dkt. No. 270-8/24 (EDU 13245-24) shall continue
at the OAL with such proceedings as the parties and the ALJ deem necessary to bring it to closure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	June 23, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	June 23, 2025
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
ORDER GRANTING
SUMMARY DECISION IN PART
AND DENYING SUMMARY
DECISION IN PART
OAL DKT. NOS. 	EDU 09647-24,
09649-24, 09650-24, & 13245-24
AGENCY DKT. NOS. 161-5/24, 160-
5/24, 159-5/24, & 270-8/24
ANDREW MEEHAN,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LEAD
CHARTER SCHOOL, ESSEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
________________________________
Andrew Meehan, petitioner, pro se
Thomas Johnston, Esq., for respondent (Johnston Law Firm, attorneys)
Record Closed: May 1, 2025 	Decided: May 20, 2025
BEFORE ANDREA PERRY VILLANI, ALJ:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09647-24, 09649-24, 09650-24, and 13245-24
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Andrew Meehan, a former teacher at LEAD Charter School (LEAD), alleges in
three complaints that LEAD took improper action with regard to students (such as
encouraging staff to communicate directly with students via personal cell phones), but
he alleges no personal harm. 	Does Meehan have standing to bring these complaints?
No. 	A substantial likelihood of some harm visited upon the petitioner is needed to
confer standing. In re Adoption of Baby T., 160 N.J. 332, 340 (1999).
In a fourth complaint, Meehan alleges that LEAD retaliated against him for filing
the first three complaints when it terminated his employment. 	LEAD disputes this
material fact and maintains that it terminated Meehan because he sent a threatening
text message to a co-worker. 	Is LEAD entitled to summary decision? 	No. 	Summary
decision may not be rendered when there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact.
See N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On 	May 	22, 	2024, 	Meehan 	filed 	three 	complaints 	with 	the 	Department 	of
Education, Office of Controversies and Disputes. In his first complaint (Complaint One),
Meehan alleges that LEAD violated N.J.A.C. 6A:16-11.1(a) state-mandated reporting
procedures for potentially missing, abused, or neglected children, and he seeks six
months of jail time or a fine up to $1,000 for LEAD’s Director of Student Services. In his
second complaint (Complaint Two), Meehan alleges that LEAD violated N.J.A.C. 6A:20-
1.3, by enrolling students in a GED program for state-issued high school diplomas, and
he states he’s “[n]ot sure what relief could be done about this particular situation.” In his
third complaint (Complaint Three), Meehan alleges that LEAD violated N.J.S.A. 18A:36-
40, 	which 	requires 	schools 	to 	adopt 	a 	written 	policy 	concerning 	electronic
communications between employees and students, and he seeks investigation of all
electronic communications between LEAD employees and students. 	He also seeks
issuance of school cell phones monitored with spyware and placing the school on
probation.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09647-24, 09649-24, 09650-24, and 13245-24
3
On 	July 	11, 	2024, 	the 	New 	Jersey 	Department 	of 	Education, 	Office 	of
Controversies and Disputes, transmitted all three cases as contested cases to the
Office of Administrative Law (OAL) 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 -23.
On August 21, 2024, Meehan filed a fourth complaint with the Department of
Education, Office of Controversies and Disputes. 	In his fourth complaint (Complaint
Four), Meehan disputes the termination of his employment as a violation of N.J.S.A.
18A:27-10 and N.J.S.A. 18A:27-11.
On September 17, 2024, the New Jersey Department of Education, Office of
Controversies and Disputes, transmitted Complaint Four as a contested case to the
OAL 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 -23.
On December 13, 2024, I consolidated all four cases.
On February 13, 2025, LEAD filed a Motion to Dismiss all four of Meehan’s
complaints. 	On April 2, 2025, Meehan filed his response. 	On May 1, 2025, LEAD filed
its reply, and I closed the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon reviewing the four complaints, and treating the allegations contained in
them as true, and giving Meehan the benefit of all legitimate inferences that may be
drawn from them, I FIND the following as FACT for purposes of this Motion only:
Complaint One
From 2021 to 2024, Meehan was a high school math teacher at LEAD Charter
School in Newark, NJ.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09647-24, 09649-24, 09650-24, and 13245-24
4
On April 30, 2024, one of Meehan’s students spoke to him about problems she
was having at home. 	The student informed Meehan that she wasn’t in school for six
months because her mother’s boyfriend moved in with them, smokes crack and steals
their money. The student said that she has young siblings.
The next day, Meehan spoke with the student’s case manager, Melissa Toribio.
Toribio informed Meehan that the student did not want him to call the Division of Child
Protection and Permanency (DCPP) because she did not want to anger her parents.
On May 3, 2024, Meehan contacted DCPP. 	DCPP informed him that they could
not take the case because the student was eighteen years old and an adult. But, DCPP
stated that they would take the case on behalf of the siblings if Meehan could provide
more information, such as full names of the adults in the household, siblings’ names,
and dates of birth.
That same day, Meehan asked Toribio to provide more information. 	She said
that Meehan should meet with Tracy Kuhn, Director of Student Services. 	Kuhn then
sent an email to Meehan stating, “Ms. Toribio has brought to my attention you have
some concerns with a YP. Please do not report anything to DCPP without meeting with
myself and Ms. Toribio first. I will be in at noon to discuss this matter further so we can
collectively make the best decision possible…”
Later that day, Meehan, Toribio, and Kuhn met to discuss the matter. According
to Kuhn’s May 3, 2024 Follow Up Report:
Ms. Kuhn met with Mr. Meehan and Ms. Toribio on 5/3/24 at 12:30 p.m. to
collectively speak to the incident and solidify the details. 	Ms. Kuhn
reiterated the importance of following protocol in any significant incident a
YP 	reports 	to 	a 	teacher: 	1) 	notify 	the 	AC 	and 	then 	myself, 	as
administrative lead, to guide next steps. 	Ms. Kuhn reiterated that it is
important to put supportive measures in place before making such a call
so we know the YP is safe, in the event a call to DCPP escalates a
situation and has the potential of placing the YP in more immediate
harm/danger…
On May 5, 2024, Meehan sent an email to Kuhn. He stated, in part:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09647-24, 09649-24, 09650-24, and 13245-24
5
I do not need administrative approval or the social worker’s approval for
reporting the incident to the State. 	Whether or not you choose to provide
the 	necessary 	information 	to 	the 	State 	is 	your 	decision. 	Mandated
reporters are legally required to follow State Laws about reporting abuse
and neglect. Failing to make a report is a crime…
Kuhn responded. In her email to Meehan, she stated:
I am very clear on the state mandated reporting Laws. 	Please let me be
very clear that I never stated that a report to DCPP required administrative
approval. 	What I reiterated on Friday was the internal protocol before
reporting, which again is notifying the YP, AC and then myself so we can
collect the necessary data/incident before reporting. 	No reporting should
be done without these procedures being executed. 	It’s best for us to
report as a team…
On May 6, 2024, Kuhn called DCPP. 	She provided additional information about
the student, and DCPP opened the case.
Complaint Two
Each year, LEAD educates thirty-five students who plan to take the GED exam.
During his three years at LEAD, Meehan taught GED test prep classes to these
students. LEAD receives funding for the students who plan to take the GED.
On April 10, 2024, Meehan contacted the Office of Career Readiness at the New
Jersey Department of Education about LEAD’s GED students. 	He called Timothy
Giordano, the Coordinator of Adult Education. 	Giordano then emailed the Director of
the Office of Career Readiness, Kathleen Paquette, requesting further investigation:
Mr. Meehan called as he felt something was amiss in being asked to prep
students for the GED. 	I told him that these students, according to our
regulations, are to no longer be enrolled in school. 	The 35 students are
still enrolled at LEAD Charter…I’m not sure how they are being reported
when they leave school. The school is receiving funds to prepare these
students to take the GED…I would ask that this be forwarded to the
County Superintendent in Essex to do a further investigation.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09647-24, 09649-24, 09650-24, and 13245-24
6
Complaint Three
Staff members at LEAD use their personal cell phones to communicate directly
with students and guardians. These communications frequently include text messaging.
The LEAD Charter School Employee Handbook contains a written policy on
electronic communications between staff and students. 	Among other things, the
handbook states, “[a]ll electronic contacts with students should be through the school’s
computer and telephone systems.” 	Also, “[a]s a general rule, school staff shall not
contact students’ cell phones, by voice or text, unless directed to do so by the
parent/guardian or student as indicated in writing on the student contact form.”
Complaint Four
On May 10, 2024, Meehan had his annual teacher review meeting. 	In that
meeting, Meehan’s supervisor, Tyler Blackmore, informed him that he received a
“partially effective” rating in the category of collaboration. 	Meehan disagreed with
Blackmore’s comments in that category, and he also expressed his disagreement in a
follow-up email.
On the same day, LEAD offered to renew Meehan’s contract and Meehan
accepted.
On May 13, 2024, Meehan signed the new employment contract for the 2024-
2025 school year.
On May 16, 2025, Meehan called and texted a coworker multiple times, including
a text at 11:15 p.m., which stated: “…once I submit my documents I will have you
explain your personal views on state mandated reporting, using your cell phone to make
personal calls to students…I would start looking for a new job.☹”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09647-24, 09649-24, 09650-24, and 13245-24
7
On May 21, 2024, Meehan filed Complaint One, Two, and Three against LEAD
with the New Jersey Department of Education.
On May 24, 2024, the New Jersey Department of Education emailed Meehan’s
three complaints to LEAD’s Chief Academic Advisor, Shabani Stewart, and requested
LEAD’s response.
On the same day, Blackmore met with Meehan. 	He told Meehan that he was
required to enter information from the paper copy of Meehan’s annual review into a
computer program called Schoolmint Grow. 	Yet, when he did so, Blackmore lowered
Meehan’s ratings in the categories of collaboration and attendance.
On May 31, 2024, LEAD terminated Meehan’s employment. 	LEAD issued a
letter that stated, “your contract offer for the 24-25 school year is rescinded, by reason
of your conduct toward a peer which he reasonably found menacing.”
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Summary decision may be rendered if the papers and discovery, which have
been filed, together with any affidavits, show that no genuine issue of material fact
exists, and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. 	N.J.A.C. 	1:1-
12.5(b). 	The standard governing agency determinations under N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5 is
“substantially the same as that governing a motion under Rule 4:46-2 for summary
judgment in civil litigation.” Contini v. Bd. of Educ. of Newark, 286 N.J. Super. 106, 121-
22 (App.Div.1995). 	To grant summary judgment, a court or tribunal must ascertain
“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 factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed
issue in favor of the non-moving party.” 	Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J.
520, 523 (1995).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09647-24, 09649-24, 09650-24, and 13245-24
8
Complaints One, Two, and Three
The facts viewed in the light most favorable to Meehan are not sufficient to
resolve Complaints One, Two, and Three in his favor. 	Even accepting all of Meehan’s
allegations as true (e.g., LEAD delayed reporting signs of abuse or neglect of a child to
DCPP; LEAD enrolls students who plan to take the GED exam; and LEAD staff
members use their personal cell phones to contact their students directly), they do not
confer standing on Meehan to bring any claims against LEAD.
The concept of standing in a legal proceeding refers to a litigant's "ability or
entitlement to maintain an action before the court." 	People for Open Gov't v. Roberts,
397 N.J. Super. 502, 508-09 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting Triffin v. Somerset Valley Bank,
343 N.J. Super. 73, 80 (App. Div. 2001)). 	Whether a party has standing is "a threshold
justiciability determination," In re Six Month Extension of N.J.A.C. 5:91-1 et seq., 372
N.J. Super. 61, 85 (App. Div. 2004), neither subject to waiver nor conferrable by
consent, 	In 	re 	Adoption 	of 	Baby 	T., 	160 	N.J. 	332, 	341 	(1999). 	"[A] 	lack 	of
standing…precludes 	a 	court 	from 	entertaining 	any 	of 	the 	substantive 	issues
for determination." 	EnviroFinance Grp. v. Envtl. Barrier Co., 440 N.J. Super. 325, 339
(App. Div. 2015) (quoting Baby T., 160 N.J. at 340).
Restrictions on standing apply to those who initiate administrative proceedings
before the Commissioner. 	The Commissioner has clarified through regulation as well
as case law that only an “interested person,” i.e., one who has standing, may initiate
such proceedings. 	Bedminster Educ. Ass’n v. Bedminster Twp. Bd. of Educ., EDU
6720-05, Comm’r decision (June 16, 2006). 	“[I]n order to bring a complaint to hear a
controversy or dispute arising under the school laws, a person must be an interested
party.” S.J. v. Mountain Lakes Bd. of Educ., EDU 7081-03, Initial Decision (Oct. 7,
2003).
N.J.A.C. 	6A:3-1.2 	defines 	an 	interested 	party 	as 	“a 	person 	who 	will 	be
substantially, specifically, and directly affected by the outcome of a controversy before
the Commissioner.” Consequently, a petitioner must show that they will “be affected by
the outcome in a direct and meaningful way” before they may proceed in a contested

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09647-24, 09649-24, 09650-24, and 13245-24
9
case. U.K. & G.K. ex rel D.K. v. Clifton Bd. of Educ., 93 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 71; Kenwood
v. Montclair Bd. of Educ., EDU 8858-81, Initial Decision (Apr. 23, 1982), adopted,
Comm’r (June 14, 1982)).
The Commissioner has consistently declined to hear cases brought by petitioners
who would not be affected by the outcome in a direct and meaningful way. 	See, e.g.,
U.K. & G.K. o/b/o D.K. v. Clifton Bd. of Educ., 93 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 73 (Nov. 20, 1992)
(parents objecting to discipline of someone else’s child); Kenwood v. Montclair Bd. of
Educ., EDU 8858-81, Initial Decision (April 23, 1982), adopted, Comm’r (June 14,
1982), aff’d, St. Bd. (Sept. 8, 1982) (concerned citizen seeking to rewrite school
attendance policy); Lobis v. Maple Shade Bd. of Educ., EDU 3630-79, Initial Decision
(June 11, 1980), adopted, Comm’r (Aug. 11, 1980), aff’d, St. Bd. (Nov. 5, 1980) (parent
whose child no longer attended school complaining about quality of education received
by remaining students); Delaney v. Woodbridge Bd. of Educ., EDU 382-78, Initial
Decision (Dec. 12, 1979), adopted, Comm’r (June 11, 1980) (taxpayer questioning
propriety of filling job vacancies); Ricardelli v. Newark Bd. of Educ., EDU 1894-79, Initial
Decision (Sept. 26, 1979), adopted, Comm’r (Nov. 16, 1979) (taxpayer challenging
legality of school board’s decision to transfer personnel); G.G. v. New Providence Bd. of
Educ., 1975 S.L.D. 502 (parent of high school graduate challenging attendance policy).
Meehan will not be affected by the outcome of Complaints One, Two, and Three
in a direct and meaningful way. Indeed, Meehan will not be affected by the outcome of
these complaints at all. 	The outcome of the complaints will primarily affect LEAD
students, and Meehan is not a student. 	The outcome of the complaints might affect
some LEAD employees, but Meehan is no longer a LEAD employee. 	He will not be
harmed by an unfavorable decision or benefit from a favorable decision. 	Therefore, I
CONCLUDE that Meehan does not have standing to bring Complaints One, Two, and
Three, and they must be dismissed.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09647-24, 09649-24, 09650-24, and 13245-24
10
Complaint Four
Meehan will be affected by the outcome of Complaint Four in a direct and
meaningful way, so he has standing to bring the complaint. In Complaint Four, Meehan
challenges his termination from LEAD, and he seeks, “[p]otential restoration to position,”
“[f]ront pay,” and “[b]ack pay.” He will clearly benefit from a favorable decision.
Although Meehan has standing to bring Complaint Four, LEAD argues that it
prevails on this complaint as a matter of law. LEAD points out that Meehan only alleged
violations of N.J.S.A. 18A:27-10, which LEAD complied with, and N.J.S.A. 18A:27-11,
which does not apply to Meehan’s situation.
Indeed, LEAD complied with N.J.S.A. 18A:27-10, which requires written notice of
reemployment for nontenured teachers by May 15 TH each year. 	More specifically,
N.J.S.A. 18A:27-10 states that, “[o]n or before May 15 TH of each year, each nontenured
teaching 	staff 	member…shall 	receive 	either…[a] 	written 	offer 	of 	a 	contract 	for
employment from the board of education for the next succeeding year…or written notice
from the Chief School Administrator that such employment will not be offered.” 	In this
case, Meehan acknowledges that LEAD offered him a contract for reemployment on
May 10, 2024, five days before the deadline of May 15th.
Moreover, because LEAD gave Meehan notice of reemployment by May 15,
2024, N.J.S.A. 18A:27-11 does not apply. N.J.S.A. 18A:27-11 states:
Should any board of education fail to give to any nontenure teaching staff
member either an offer of contract of employment for the next succeeding
year or a notice that such employment will not be offered…then said board
of education shall be deemed to have offered to that teaching staff
member continued employment…
In this case, LEAD did give Meehan an offer of contract and continued employment but,
after that, events transpired that led to his termination.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09647-24, 09649-24, 09650-24, and 13245-24
11
Meehan’s more persuasive argument is that LEAD did not have good cause to
terminate his employment under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-30.1. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:6-30.1 states,
“When the dismissal of any teaching staff member before the expiration of his contract
with the board of education shall be decided, upon appeal, to have been without good
cause, he shall be entitled to compensation for the full term of the contract...” For
instance, Meehan argues that LEAD made “arbitrary changes” to his teacher evaluation
and 	“retaliated” 	against 	him 	“for 	submitting 	three 	complaints 	to 	the 	Office 	of
Controversies and Disputes.”
Although Meehan does not explicitly argue “good cause” or reference N.J.S.A.
18A:6-30.1, he should be afforded latitude as a pro se litigant. See Fullerton v. Bd. of
Educ. of the Borough of E. Newark, EDU 09468-22, Initial Decision (January 4, 2023),
modified, 	Comm’r 	(March 	30, 	2023), 	<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>
(Commissioner agreed with the ALJ that a nontenured teacher who was terminated did
not 	properly 	reference 	New 	Jersey 	school 	laws 	but 	nevertheless 	remanded 	the
teacher’s petition for consideration under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-30.1 because she was a pro
se litigant).
The 	parties 	dispute 	the 	material 	facts 	surrounding 	Meehan’s 	termination,
including whether he was terminated for good cause. LEAD maintains that it terminated
Meehan because he sent a threatening text message to a co-worker. 	Meehan argues
that LEAD retaliated against him for filing Complaints One, Two, and Three with the
Department of Education.
Because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding Meehan’s termination, I
CONCLUDE that LEAD is not entitled to summary decision on Complaint Four.
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that LEAD’s Motion to
Dismiss Complaints One, Two, and Three is GRANTED, and LEAD’s Motion to Dismiss
Complaint Four is DENIED.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09647-24, 09649-24, 09650-24, and 13245-24
12
This order granting partial summary decision is being submitted under N.J.A.C.
1:1-12.5(e) for immediate review. 	This recommended order may be adopted, modified
or rejected by COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who/which
by law is authorized to make the final decision in this matter. 	If (title of the agency
head) does not adopt, modify or reject this order within forty-five days and unless such
time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended order shall become a final decision
in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this order was mailed to the parties,
any 	party 	may 	file 	written 	exceptions 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, marked “Attention: 	Exceptions.” 	A copy of any
exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
May 20, 2025 	________________________________
DATE 	ANDREA PERRY VILLANI, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	May 20, 2025
Date Mailed to Parties: 	May 20, 2025
sej

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09647-24, 09649-24, 09650-24, and 13245-24
13
APPENDIX
DOCUMENTS RELIED ON:
Petitioner’s May 22, 2024 Complaints
Petitioner’s August 21, 2024 Complaint
Respondent’s February 10, 2025 Brief
Petitioner’s March 25, 2025 Brief
Respondent’s May 1, 2025 Reply Brief