N.E., on behalf of minor child, L.E.-K. v. Wayne Township Board of Education, Passaic County, 6/24/26 (#220-26E)

220-26E
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 09965-26
Agency Dkt. No. 256-06-26
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
N.E., on behalf of minor child, L.E.-K.,
Petitioner,
v.
Wayne Township Board of Education, Passaic
County,
Respondent.
The record of this emergent matter and the recommended decision of the Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) have been reviewed and considered.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner has failed to
demonstrate entitlement to emergent relief pursuant to the standards enunciated in Crowe v.
DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126, 132-34 (1982), and codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6.
Accordingly, the decision denying petitioner’s application for emergent relief is adopted.
This matter 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.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	June 24, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	June 24, 2026

New Jersey Is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ORDER
EMERGENT RELIEF
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09965-26
AGENCY REF. NO.: 256-06-26
N.E. ON BEHALF OF L.E.- K.,
Petitioner,
v.
WAYNE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION,
PASSAIC COUNTY,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
N.E., petitioner, pro se
John Comegno, Esq., for respondent (Comegno Law Group P.C., attorneys)
BEFORE WILLIAM J. COURTNEY, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner (N.E.) seeks emergent relief requesting this tribunal enter an order
permitting her daughter (L.E.-K) to participate in the Wayne Hills High School (“WHHS”)
graduation ceremony for the class of 2026 and to complete on-line coursework by
6/28/26. Respondent Wayne Township Board of Education (“Board”) maintains that L.E.-
K. has not met the Board’s credit and attendance requirements and is therefore not able
to receive 	a high school diploma at the time of the scheduled graduation ceremony on

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09965-26
2
6/24/26. They also maintain that the online English course L.E.-K. needs to complete in
order to meet her credit requirements does not begin until 6/29/26.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On 5/27/26 the Board notified petitioner that due top her excessive absences the
attendance review committee determined that L.E.-K. could not receive course credit for
English 2 and thus did not meet graduation requirements. Petitioner filed a timely appeal
of the Board’s decision, and the matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL”) on 6/22/26 for an emergent hearing which was held on 6/22/26. The record
was closed on 6/23/26 after receipt of a Certification and letter brief by respondent and
opposition thereto from petitioner.
FACTUAL FINDINGS
After full review of the testimonial and documentary evidence, I FIND the following
facts:
1. 	Michael Rewick is the Principal of Wayne Hills High School, and
has been the Principal of Wayne Hills High School for the last ten
(10) years. See Certification of Michael Rewick (“Rewick Cert.”),
attached hereto as Exhibit 1, at ¶ 1-2.
2. 	L.E.-K. is a twelve-grade student attending Wayne Hills High
School. See Rewick Cert. at ¶ 3.
3. 	At each graduation ceremony, Principal Rewick is tasked with
certifying 	that 	all 	students 	have met 	the 	State and 	District
requirements for a New Jersey high school diploma. Rewick Cert.
at ¶ 4.
4. 	L.E.-K. has not met the attendance and grade requirements in
order to receive a New Jersey sponsored High School diploma
from the Board. Rewick Cert. at ¶ 5.
5. 	Each year, certain students do not graduate due to failure to meet
the credit and/or attendance requirements. Rewick Cert. at ¶ 6.
6. 	L.E.-K.’s attendance issues date back to the 2024-2025 school
year where attendance issues prevented her from getting credit in

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09965-26
3
three courses: Bio for Allied Health, Science and U.S. History 2.
Rewick Cert. at ¶ 8.
7. 	At that time, to work with L.E.-K and her family, the District waived
the attendance requirement for Science and U.S. History 2.
Rewick Cert. at ¶ 9.
8. 	In order to address these attendance concerns for the 2025-2026
school year and further support the student, L.E.-K. was enrolled
in the Work Based Learning program which allows students to
meet their graduation requirements while permitting them to
leave school at 12:05 PM, to go to work. Rewick Cert. at ¶ 10.
9. 	A component of the Work Based Learning program includes a
Work Based Learning course for credit that the student attends in
the morning prior to leaving for work in the afternoon. Rewick
Cert. at ¶ 11.
10. On or about October 21, 2025, the District began notifying the
parent 	of 	L.E.-K.’s 	attendance 	issues 	as 	she 	had 	already
accumulated 10 absences in English, 6 absences in Math, and 6
absences in Forensic Science as of October 31, 2025, for a year
that began on September 4, 2025. Rewick Cert. at ¶ 12.
11. As of the date of the instant Emergent Relief Application, L.E.-K
has accumulated 58 absences in English; 60 absences in
College Algebra and Discrete Math; 47 absences in Forensic
Science; 	33 	absences 	in 	Work-Based 	Learning; 	and 	16
absences in PE. Rewick Cert. at ¶ 13.
12. Board Policy 5200 provides that “[p]prolonged or repeated
absences, excused or unexcused, from school or from class,
deprive students of the educational and classroom experiences
deemed essential to learning and may result in retention at grade
level or loss of credit or removal from a course that would count
toward the high school diploma in accordance with policies of
this Board.” Emphasis added. Rewick Cert. at ¶ 14.
13. Board Policy Regulation 5200 provides that “[a] high school
student may be dropped from a course or denied course credit
when the student has been absent from school more than 13
days, in a full year course, more than 9 days in Physical
Education, more than 6 days in a half-year course, or more than
3 days in a quarter year course (whatever the reason for the
absence, except that absences for the observation of a NJDOE
approved religious holiday, “Take Our Children to Work Day”,
college visits, attendance to a civic event, or absences caused

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09965-26
4
by a student’s suspension will not count toward the total. Rewick
Cert. at ¶ 15.
14. The Board policy mandates has one hundred eighty (180)
instructional days. Rewick Cert. at ¶ 16.
15. Board Policy 5410 provides that “[s]chool attendance shall be a
factor in the determination of a pupil's promotion or retention.
Only extenuating circumstances should permit the promotion of
a pupil who has been in attendance fewer than …one hundred
sixty days during the school year for grades nine through twelve.
Rewick Cert. at ¶ 17.
16. As such, a student who has been in attendance fewer than 160
days should not be promoted barring extenuating circumstances.
Rewick Cert. at ¶ 18.
17. Each year, towards the end of May or early June, the District
convenes an attendance review committee made up of nurses,
teachers, school counselors, CST members, and administrators
to review any students’ attendance throughout the District, at
which 	time 	parents 	and 	students 	submit 	any 	evidence 	of
extenuating circumstances, in order to make determinations with
relation to credit recovery of credit lost due to absenteeism.
Rewick Cert. at ¶ 19.
18. With regard to Seniors, the Committee handles attendance issue
with a “soft hand” often making decisions to help Seniors, as
much as possible, meet graduation requirements and be able to
walk at graduation, including taking off absences to preserve
courses that do not run in summer school such as a specific
elective, work study, and honoring the efforts of a student who is
struggling to overcome life and family issues. Rewick Cert. at ¶
20.
19. During the 2024-2025 school year, as discussed above, the
attendance 	review 	committee 	waived 	L.E.-K.’s 	attendance
requirements for Science and U.S. History 2. Rewick Cert. at ¶
21.
20. During 	the 	2025-2026 	school 	year, 	the 	attendance 	review
committee 	could 	not 	waive 	the 	credit 	and 	attendance
requirements for L.E.-K.’s English 2 course due to over fifty-
five (55) absences at the time the committee reviewed L.E.-K.’s
file. Since then, L.E.-K. was absent an additional three (3) days,
making her total absences in English 2 fifty-eight (58) days.
Rewick Cert. at ¶ 22.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09965-26
5
21. Under Board Policy Regulation 5200, a student is permitted
thirteen (13) absences per year before their ability to receive
credit for a certain course becomes endangered. Rewick Cert.
at ¶ 24.
22. L.E.-K. was absent over four times (4x) the allotted thirteen days
outlined in Board Policy Regulation 5200. Rewick Cert. at ¶ 25.
23. Due to L.E.-K.’s excessive absences, the attendance review
committee 	determined 	that L.E.-K. was not able to receive
course credit for English 2. Rewick Cert. at ¶ 26.
24. This was communicated to Petitioner via a letter sent on or about
May 27, 2026. Rewick Cert. at ¶ 27.
25. Board Policy 5460, with regard to graduation requirements,
provides that under N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1, for a state-endorsed
diploma, the Board of Education shall develop, adopt, and
implement graduation requirements that prepare students for
success in post-secondary degree programs, careers, and civic
life in the 21st century, and that included local student attendance
requirements. Rewick Cert. at ¶ 28.
26. Board Regulation 5200 provides that “[a] high school student
may be dropped from a course or denied course credit when the
student has been absent from school more than 13 days, in a
full year course, more than 9 days in Physical Education, more
than 6 days in a half-year course, or more than 3 days in a
quarter year course (whatever the reason for the absence,
except that absences for the observation of a NJDOE approved
religious holiday, “Take Our Children to Work Day”, college
visits, attendance to a civic event, or absences caused by a
student’s suspension will not count toward the total.” Rewick
Cert. at ¶ 29.
27. Because L.E.-K.’s absences are far greater that the amount
allotted by Board Regulation 5200, L.E.-K. has not met the
requirements for a state-endorsed diploma under N.J.A.C. 6A:8-
5.1, Rewick Cert. at ¶ 30.
28. During Mr. Rewick’s ten (10) years as Principal of Wayne Hills
High School no student has been provided accommodations
during the days leading up to the graduation ceremony in order
to recover credit lost from excessive absences. Rewick Cert. at
¶ 31.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09965-26
6
29. If a student did not attain the credit/attendance necessary to
graduate, 	they 	would 	complete 	any 	of 	the 	remaining
requirements during summer school, or would otherwise repeat
the twelfth grade. Rewick Cert. at ¶ 32.
LEGAL ANALYISIS
In accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.6, emergency relief may be granted "where
authorized by law and where irreparable harm will result without an expedited decision
granting or prohibiting some action or relief connected with a contested case." My
determination in this matter is further governed by the standard for emergent relief set
forth by our Supreme Court in Crowe v. DeGioia, 102 N.J. 50 (1986), as follows:
The 	judge 	may 	order 	emergency 	relief 	.... 	if 	the 	judge
determines from the proofs that:
1. The petitioner will suffer irreparable harm if the requested
relief is not granted.
2. The legal right underlying the petitioner's claim is settled.
3. The petitioner has a likelihood of success on the merits of
the underlying claim; and
4. When the equities and interests of the parties are balanced,
the petitioner will suffer greater harm than the respondent will
suffer if the relief is not granted.
The moving party must satisfy all four prongs of the Crowe v. DeGioia standard to
establish an entitlement to emergent relief. Id. at 132-35. For the reasons set forth below,
I CONCLUDE that 	petitioner 	cannot 	meet 	their 	burden 	under 	the Crowe 	v.
DeGioia standard.
Harm is irreparable when there can be no adequate after-the-fact remedy in law or
in 	equity; 	or 	where 	monetary 	damages 	cannot 	adequately 	restore 	a 	lost

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09965-26
7
experience. Nabel v. Board of Education of the Township of Hazlet, EDU 8026-09 (June
24, 2009); Tomlin v Lower Cape May Regional Board of Education, EDU 4952-09. A
graduation ceremony, once missed, cannot be regained as it is a once in a lifetime event.
See K.H. o/b/o M.G. v. Kingsway Regional Bd. of Educ., EDS 06903-11, Decision on
Emergent Relief (June 17, 2011); R.C. o/b/o M.C. v. Pemberton Twp. Bd. of Educ., EDS
4212-02, Decision on Emergent Relief, (June 17, 2002). 	Petitioner passionately argues
that her daughter’s graduation ceremony is a once in a lifetime opportunity, and no other
relief will be able to restore the ceremony to her daughter after the fact. I agree with
petitioner and CONCLUDE that she 	has met her burden of demonstrating irreparable
harm on this first prong of Crowe. However, petitioner has not demonstrated that she has
met the next two prongs of Crowe; that the law is settled in her favor, and that she has a
likelihood of succeeding on the merits of her claims. 	I CONCLUDE from the evidence
presented the law is well settled in favor of the Board, which has broad discretion to take
the actions needed to effectively operate its public schools. The Commissioner will also
not substitute his or her 	judgment for that of the board of education, whose exercise of
its discretion may not be disturbed unless shown to be "patently arbitrary, without rational
basis or induced by improper motives." Kopera v. W. Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super.
288, 294 (App. Div. 1960). Our courts have held that "[w]here there is room for two
opinions, action is not arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due
consideration, even though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been
reached." Bayshore Sewage Co. v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199-200
(Ch. Div. 1973),aff'd, 131 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1974). Accordingly, at hearing,
petitioner would have had to demonstrate that Board’s actions were arbitrary, capricious
or unreasonable, made in bad faith or in utter disregard of the circumstances before it.
T.B.M. v. Moorestown Bd. of Educ., EDU 2780-07, Initial Decision (February 6, 2008).
Taking into consideration the Board’s proffered rational for its decision it is highly
unlikely that petitioner would be successful in demonstrating the Board acted in an
arbitrary or capricious manner in deciding that L.E.-K. did not meet the requisite
attendance or credit requirements for graduation. Board Policy 5200 states “[p]prolonged
or repeated absences, excused or unexcused, from school or from class, deprive
students of the educational and classroom experiences deemed essential to learning and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09965-26
8
may result in retention at grade level or loss of credit or removal from a course that would
count toward the high school diploma in accordance with policies of this Board.” That
same Board Policy also indicates that a student is limited to 13 absences per year before
their ability to receive credit for a course becomes endangered. The evidence presented
at the hearing clearly shows that L.E.-K.’s 58 absences from her English class were
almost quadrupled the allowable amount. 	These documented and excessive absences
provided a clear and rational basis for the Boards decision not to give L.E.-K. credit for
her English class which in turn caused her to be under the required credit amount to
graduate. I therefor CONCLUDE that the Board’s decision to not award L.E.-K. credit for
her English course due to her excessive absences was appropriate and that petitioner is
not likely to be able to demonstrate that the actions of the Board were induced by improper
motives or were taken in utter disregard of the circumstances before it. 	Accordingly, I
also CONCLUDE that petitioner has failed to satisfy the second and third prongs of
Crowe.
The final prong of Crowe, a balancing of the equities, also weighs against the
petitioner. In W.M. O/B/O J.M. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Borough of Jamesburg, Middlesex
County, EDU- 06407-14, 2014 N.J. Lexis 309, ALJ Ellen Bass found that when a student
seeks permission to participate in a graduation ceremony:
The rights of this petitioner are less weighty than those of the
Board because participating in a graduation ceremony is a
privilege. See: M.A.A. v Edison Bd. of Educ., EDU 4134-98,
Initial 	Decision 	(May 	29, 	1998), aff'd, 	Comm'r 	(June 	12,
1998), ; N.B. v Gloucester Bd. of Educ., EDU 6740-11 Initial
Decision (June 14, 2011). Although I entirely appreciate why
he so strongly wishes to attend, [a student] has no right to
attend this ceremony, and for this reason petitioner cannot
demonstrate a harm weighty enough to tip the balance in favor
of a grant of extraordinary relief. Conversely, the Board has a
strong and valid interest in the effective and orderly operation
of its schools. As the Superintendent of Schools noted in her
certification, this is a policy uniformly applied to all eighth
grade students, and an exception here would be unfair to
J.M.'s classmates and would undermine district policy.
[Id. at pp.8-9]

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09965-26
9
During the hearing, Mr. Rewick testified that during the entire ten-year period he
has served as principal at WHHS, no student has been permitted to participate in a
graduation ceremony if they did not have the requisite credits to graduate and an
acceptable attendance record. There has been no evidence presented to this tribunal to
indicate anything to the contrary. 	Mr. Rewick also testified that during the graduation
ceremony either he or another official at WHHS are required to represent to all who were
present that the candidates presented for graduation meet all the necessary standards
and requirements for graduation. 	To allow students who did not meet the necessary
graduation requirements to participate in a graduation ceremony where school officials
are representing that they have met them would be unfair to those students who did meet
those requirements.
Finally, I turn my attention to petitioner’s request for additional time to complete
online work. Petitioner is seeking to extend the time to complete an online English course
she will need to take in order to meet the credit requirements for graduation. 	At the
hearing, petitioner testified that she was communicating with the Board as recently as
June 6 th to try to find a way she could get credit for her English course. 	Petitioner
maintains that she contacted a company known as Educern to develop a schedule for
L.E.-K. to attend and complete an online summer course in English1. 	She was told
however, that the board needed to set the dates for the online program. 	Ultimately the
Board informed petitioner that they no longer used Educern for summer classes and that
the company they were now using had indicated that the classes did not start until June
29 th. Accordingly, the Board argues that they do not have the ability to modify the on-line
schedule and accelerate the online English course. I Agree and CONCLUDE that
petitioner’s request to extend the completion date for outstanding online courses until
June 28th should be denied.
1 Petitioner testified that the reason she was attempting to accelerate the summer school English program
was to eliminate a potential conflict the summer course would cause. L.E.-K. had been accepted into the
Occupational Therapy program at Seton Hall University. The program required accepted students to attend
a 6-week summer program at the University beginning in late June or early July. Petitioner contends that
it would be difficult and unfair to require that L.E.-K complete her online English course at the same time
she was beginning her mandatory summer college program.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09965-26
10
There has been no credible evidence presented that indicates the Board is treating
L.E.-K. any different than any other student that needs to attend summer school to gain
the necessary credits to advance to the next grade level. There has also been no proof
provided that would indicate that the start date for the online program could be moved up
so it wouldn’t interfere with the summer program at Seton Hall. 	If petitioner wants to
pursue the Occupational Therapy Program at Seton Hall, she will need to complete her
online English course to obtain the necessary credits to graduate from WHHS. 	L.E.-K.
has 2 choices: Either take the on-line course while you are attending Seton Hall or
deferring your acceptance to the Seton Hall program until her high school coursework is
completed. Furthermore, there has been no evidence presented to show that the online
course could even be completed before June 28th which is only 4-days from the date of
this Initial Decision.
IT IS on this 24th day of June, 2026 ORDERED that petitioner's request for
emergency relief is hereby DENIED.
This order on application for emergency relief may be adopted, modified or
rejected by the COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized to make a
final decision in this matter. The final decision shall be issued without undue delay, but
no later than forty-five days following the entry of this order. 	If the Commissioner of
Education 	does 	not adopt, 	modify 	or 	reject 	this 	order 	within 	forty-five 	days, 	this

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09965-26
11
recommended order shall become a final decision on the issue of emergent relief in
accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
June 24, 2026
DATE 	WILLIAM COURTNEY, ALJ
WJC/db

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09965-26
12
PAPERS CONSIDERED
From petitioner:
1. 	June 23, 2026 email from Petitioner containing her post hearing submission.
From respondent:
1. 	June 22, 2026 Certification of Micheal Rewick in Support of Respondent’s
Opposition to Petitioner’s Request for Emergent Relief.
2. 	June 22, 2026 Letter Brief from respondent