In the Matter of the Certificates of Joseph Piparo, State Board of Examiners, New Jersey Department of Education, 6/9/25 (#296-25)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

296-25 State Board of Examiners Dkt. No. 1415-215 OAL Dkt. No. EDE-01620-16 Agency Dkt. No. 11-10/24A
New Jersey Commissioner of Education Final Decision
In the Matter of the Certificates of Joseph Piparo, State Board of Examiners, New Jersey Department of Education.
Order of Revocation by the State Board of Examiners, dated May 23, 2024
For the Respondent-Appellant, Sanford R. Oxfeld, Esq.
For the Petitioner-Respondent State Board of Examiners, Vijayasri G. Aryama, Deputy Attorney General (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey)
The Commissioner has reviewed the record, hearing transcripts from the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), and submissions filed in connection with Joseph Piparo's appeal of the Order of the State Board of Examiners (Board), dated May 23, 2024, revoking his Teacher of Social Studies Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced Standing, Teacher of Social Studies Certificate, Supervisor Certificate, Principal Certificate of Eligibility, Teacher of Students with Disabilities Certificate of Eligibility, and Provisional Teacher of Students with Disabilities Certificate.
On October 8, 2024, appellant filed a notice of appeal and certification claiming that he never received the February 20, 2024, Initial Decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) or the Board's May 23, 2024, Order of Revocation. He concedes, however, that both documents were sent to his attorney of record at the time, Michael G. Brucki, Esq., who represented him during the contested hearing at the OAL. Upon learning in July 2024 from his

2
employer, the Ramapo Indian Hills Board of Education, that his certificates had been revoked, he
retained a different attorney, Sanford R. Oxfeld, Esq., to represent him.1 On appeal, he contends
that he is entitled to a new hearing at the OAL because the ALJ deprived him of his procedural
due process right to confront witnesses and excessively delayed the issuance of the Initial
Decision.
In its opposition brief, the Board contends that the appeal is untimely and should be
dismissed. Additionally, the Board contends that appellant is not entitled to a new OAL hearing
because his due process rights were sufficiently protected by the ALJ. 	Moreover, the Board
asserts that the record shows that appellant and Brucki were the cause of multiple delays during
the OAL proceedings. Finally, the Board emphasizes that appellant cited the wrong standard of
review in his brief and neither established nor claimed that the Board’s Order of Revocation was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
In reviewing appeals from decisions of the State Board of Examiners, the Commissioner
may not substitute his 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
that the State Board of Examiners . . . acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law.”
1 On September 26, 2024, Brucki signed a Substitution of Attorney form consenting to the substitution of
Sanford R. Oxfeld, Esq., as the attorney for appellant in this matter.

3
Initially, the Commissioner finds that the appeal is untimely and can be dismissed on that
basis. Appeals of Board decisions revoking certificates must be submitted to the Commissioner
per N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38.4, and in accordance with the rules at N.J.A.C. 6A:4. Those rules provide, in
relevant part, that “[a]ppeals of final State Board of Examiners decisions shall be filed within 30
days of the filing date of the decision being appealed.” N.J.A.C. 6A:4-2.2(a). The record reflects
that the Board issued its Order of Revocation on May 23, 2024, and emailed it to Brucki on May
24, 2024. Additionally, the Board sent a paper copy of the Order to Brucki’s office via certified
mail, which was delivered on May 30, 2024. Yet, the Office of Controversies and Disputes did not
receive the appeal until October 8, 2024—more than three months after the filing deadline had
passed. Even if the Commissioner were to accept that the appeal deadline began to run on July
17, 2024, when appellant certified he first learned about the Board’s Order, the appeal was over
a month late. Appellant has not established any unusual or compelling circumstances that would
warrant relaxation of the 30-day filing deadline for appeals in the interest of justice.
Moreover, upon a comprehensive review of the voluminous record and OAL hearing
transcripts, the Commissioner rejects appellant’s procedural due process claims. 	At no point
during the OAL hearing did appellant or Brucki assert that appellant’s due process rights were
violated in any way, or that he was not given the opportunity to confront witnesses. Therefore,
appellant’s claims need not be considered for the first time on appeal. Nieder v. Royal Indem.
Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973); State v. Williams, 219 N.J. 89, 98-101 (2014).
At any rate, the record reflects that the ALJ took reasonable measures during the
proceedings to protect witnesses who had obtained a final restraining order against appellant
while preserving appellant’s procedural due process rights. Because of a final restraining order

4
obtained by witness L.S., prohibiting appellant from having any contact with L.S. or her son,
witness D.S., the ALJ arranged for appellant to listen to L.S.’s testimony via telephone outside of
the hearing room. She instructed both appellant and Brucki that appellant could take notes and
confer with Brucki prior to the beginning of cross-examination of L.S. Appellant and Brucki had
more than ample time to confer prior to L.S.’s cross-examination as it took place more than a
year after her direct examination. Witness D.S. testified remotely via Zoom as he was attending
college out-of-state. 	No objections were made regarding D.S.’s remote testimony. 	The ALJ
allowed appellant to watch D.S.’s testimony in the hearing room while he was seated behind
Brucki, and Brucki cross-examined D.S. without voicing any objections to the procedure utilized
by the ALJ.
Furthermore, appellant’s reliance upon In the Matter of the Tenure Hearing of Wolf, 231
N.J. Super. 365 (App. Div. 1989), is unavailing because that matter is distinguishable for several
reasons. There, over the repeated objections of counsel, the ALJ excluded Wolf from the hearing
room based upon a belief that his intense physical appearance would frighten the child witnesses.
Id. at 373-74. No final restraining order was in effect between Wolf and any of the witnesses,
and the ALJ did not make arrangements for attorney and client to confer prior to the cross-
examination of the witnesses. Here, appellant’s exclusion from the hearing room during L.S.’s
testimony had nothing to do with his physical appearance, and he was present in the hearing
room during D.S.’s testimony. Unlike in Wolf, neither appellant nor Brucki voiced any objections
to the procedures utilized by the ALJ, an active final restraining order prevented appellant from
having any contact with L.S. or D.S., and the ALJ recognized appellant’s right to confer with Brucki
prior to Brucki’s cross-examination of the witnesses.

5
Regarding this matter’s protracted history at the OAL, the Commissioner finds that the
delay in concluding the proceedings did not violate appellant’s procedural due process rights.
Indeed, the record confirms that some of the delays were attributable to appellant and Brucki.
Other tragic and unforeseen circumstances caused delays, including the death of a Deputy
Attorney General handling the matter, and the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. 	The ALJ
reasonably decided to prolong the proceedings so that appellant had an opportunity to testify,
and to give Brucki an opportunity to submit a closing brief. Appellant arguably benefited from
the delays as he continued working as a teacher while this matter was pending until the end of
the 2023-2024 school year.
Finally, the Commissioner finds that the Board’s Order of Revocation is supported by
sufficient, credible evidence in the record, and that appellant has neither established nor claimed
that the Order was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
Accordingly, appellant’s appeal is hereby dismissed, and the decision of the State Board
of Examiners revoking appellant’s certificates is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	June 9, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	June 9, 2025
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.

IN THE MATTER OF 	: 	NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
THE CERTIFICATES OF 	: 	STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS
JOSEPH PIPARO 	: 	ORDER OF REVOCATION
_______________________ : 	DOCKET NO: 1415-215
At its meeting of April 17, 2015, the State Board of Examiners (Board) reviewed the
decision it received in In the Matter of the Tenure Hearing of Joseph Piparo (Decision Approving
Settlement Agreement, December 26, 2014). The Lodi Public Schools Board of Education (Lodi)
certified tenure charges against Joseph Piparo on or about August 26, 2014, for alleged
insubordination, offensive and unprofessional conduct, and conduct unbecoming an educator.
Specifically, it was alleged that Piparo was reprimanded for making inappropriate statements to
students regarding personal matters; the district imposed a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP);
Piparo made numerous unprofessional and inappropriate statements regarding student D.S. whom
he coached and who was the son of a former Lodi employee with whom Piparo had a romantic
relationship, many of which included foul language and disparaging statements against D.S.;
Piparo was found, following a six day court trial, to have committed harassment under the domestic
violence statute after he refused to cease contact and communications with a former Lodi employee
after their romantic relationship ended, which resulted in the issuance of a final restraining order;
Piparo made numerous disparaging, unprofessional and inappropriate statements regarding other
district staff members, including foul language, racial slurs and name calling; Piparo sent text
messages threatening violence towards others and made numerous unprofessional statements
regarding Lodi administrators, including name calling, foul language, and exhibited an unhealthy

2
anger toward those in positions of authority in the district; Piparo violated district policy regarding
the use of cell phones during class time by sending and receiving numerous text messages during
his teaching assignment periods; had threatened violence towards others in the district; and failed
to submit to a psychological examination with Lodi’s approved physician. On December 26, 2014,
the Arbitrator approved a Settlement Agreement wherein Piparo resigned from his position with
Lodi.
Piparo currently holds a Teacher of Social Studies Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced
Standing, a Teacher of Social Studies certificate, a Supervisor certificate, a Principal Certificate of
Eligibility, a Teacher of Students with Disabilities Certificate of Eligibility, and a Provisional
Teacher of Students with Disabilities certificate. 	After reviewing the above information, at its
May 21, 2015 meeting, the Board voted to issue an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Piparo as to
why his certificates should not be revoked.
The Board sent Piparo the OSC by regular and certified mail on June 9, 2015. The OSC
provided that Piparo must file an Answer within 30 days pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.6(b).
Piparo responded on August 5, 2015.
In his Answer, Piparo vigorously denied the truth of the allegations in the tenure charges,
states he had been working in a hostile environment of which he made his administrators aware of
the issues, claims all of the charges were dismissed by Lodi who gave him a monetary settlement,
and states that he resigned from Lodi in good standing. See Answer. Piparo claims that he received
an email from his attorney, that was sent by the arbitrator in his tenure proceeding, stating that “the
State Board indeed approved the settlement” and was shocked when he received the OSC. Id. at
⁋ 2&3. Piparo acknowledges he was issued a PIP and states he “never signed [his] name to the

3
plan, but [he] did follow what was stated.” Id. at ⁋ 4. He further claims that the “only reason that
[his] text messages have been put into question is because [he] provided them to the Hackensack
Court and paid a forensic analyst [himself] so that I could prove that there were lies being
told regarding the context of those texts” and that the former employee was never threatened by
him in any way. Id. at ⁋ 4B (emphasis in original). He further states that the presentation of those
text messages to Lodi was politically motivated. Ibid.
Additionally, Piparo acknowledges sending text messages regarding student D.S. to his
mother, and claimed they were private texts between two adults. Id. at ⁋ 5&6. He denies sending
text messages to D.S. or ever threatening D.S., and claims he never acted in any inappropriate
manner where D.S. or any other student was concerned. 	Ibid. 	Piparo claims that certain
testimonies presented at his tenure proceeding were fraudulent and politically motivated, that the
text messages presented had been “altered[,]” and that he was never given the opportunity to
testify. Ibid. He also claims that the judicial process relating to the restraining order issued against
him was politically motivated. Ibid. Further, he claims that student D.S., the wrestling coach and
athletic director made up the story about going to D.S.’s lunch table and making him cry, to try to
harm him. Ibid. Piparo states that he never once acted unprofessionally in or out of school and
that there is nothing in his personnel file at Lodi stating otherwise. Ibid. He acknowledges that
texting and emailing during class time was prohibited by district policy. Ibid. Piparo claims that
he offered to pay for a neutral psychological evaluation from a “list of three neutral doctors” that
he provided to Lodi and that Lodi never responded. 	Ibid. 	Lastly, he claims that all of his
observations show that he was a good educator with high regards for his students, even though he

4
worked in a hostile environment, and asks that he be given the opportunity to continue teaching
and providing for his family. Ibid.
Since there were material facts in dispute, on January 12, 2016, the Board transmitted the
matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for hearing as a contested case. On February
20, 2024, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Danielle Pasquale issued an Initial Decision in the
case. 	In the Matter of the Certificates of Joseph C. Piparo, Dkt. No. EDE 01620-16 (Initial
Decision, February 20, 2024).
After reviewing the testimony and the record, the ALJ found that the “sheer volume and
the racist and threatening language of the texts paint a picture of a teacher who refused to take
accountability for anything at his job or in his relationships, and who was unrelenting in his
pursuits of the women, inappropriate with the student in question and racist and insubordinate with
his co-workers.” 	Id. at 27. 	The ALJ found that most of Piparo’s behavior occurred during the
school day or during school-sponsored activities. 	Ibid. 	Further, the ALJ found the Board’s
witnesses “extremely credible and forthright” and harbored no motive or bias to fabricate their
testimony. Id. at 31. And that Piparo’s testimony was “entirely lacking in credibility.” Ibid.
The ALJ’s findings of fact included, among many others, that Piparo refused to testify
truthfully even when presented with documents at the hearing, his unwarranted advances toward
Ms. Melissa Grant, a former colleague with whom he had an intimate relationship, after she
discontinued the relationship led to the PIP, the investigation before the PIP required at least eight
students to be interviewed who confirmed Piparo attempted to dispel rumors of his relationship
and that it was part of his history lesson, he violated the PIP by going into her classroom and
involving students in an attempt to rekindle that relationship, and he pushed and shoved Ms. Grant

5
during arguments in school during school hours. Id. at 31-32. Further, he interrupted the school
day by pestering his co-workers and supervisors because he was unsatisfied with the PIP and the
fact that he was made a scout rather than an assistant coach; he failed to appear at his scheduled
psychological examination; he appeared in the Head Coach’s office knowing from L.S. that D.S.
was extremely upset in an effort to confront the distraught and understandably angry D.S., his
student and athlete; and he “lurked” over D.S. during his lunch period after his supervisors told
him not to. Id. at 32-33. He sent and receivedover 30,000 texts during school hours, used harassing
language against D.S., made inappropriate statements against Lodi staff, including racial slurs, and
threatening language, threatened violence against D.S.’s father, and used offensive language to
school administrators exhibiting contempt for them. Id. at 33.
As to his conduct, the ALJ found Piparo’s behavior toward student D.S. was “reprehensible
and totally inappropriate, particularly for someone who was his teacher and coach and who stood
in a position of trust and respect.” Id. at 28. Piparo’s interactions with his students, co-workers
and Principals were also “totally inappropriate and crossed the permissible line of his duties as a
teacher and coach.” Id. at 29. Further, “Piparo exhibited extremely poor judgment by becoming
an active participant in a personal relationship with co-workers, especially the married parent of
his student and star wrestler” and “represented a significant departure from what the public is to
expect from those who teach their children.” 	Id. at 29-30. 	The ALJ also found that Piparo
retaliated against individuals who tried to stop him from discrediting others and that his behavior
was not confined to a single incident but evolved into a pattern. Id. at 30.
According to the ALJ, Piparo should have used restraint in his reactions to the situations
that he created rather than engage in egregious, continuing conduct. 	Ibid. 	He should not have

6
been in the locker room knowing that D.S. learned of Piparo’s relationship with his mother and
knowing that he was devasted and angry and told by other school personnel not to be present for
fear of escalation. 	Ibid. 	He also should not have shown outward contempt for his co-workers,
boldly violated his PIP, harassed D.S., eventually requiring a Final Restraining Order. Ibid. The
ALJ even notes that she had to conduct the hearing with the student and mother separated from
Piparo in order not to run afoul of that order. Id. at 39.
Accordingly, the ALJ found that “Piparo’s continued harassment and anger toward co-
workers, administrators, parents and students through offensive, racist, homophobic and distasteful
comments showed that Mr. Piparo failed to meet the standard of certificate holders as role models.”
Id. at 38. And Piparo’s unfitness to teach was shown through his continued harassment of D.S.,
both in school and through the unrelenting texts to his mother. Id. at 38. 	The ALJ concluded that
Piparo engaged in conduct unbecoming a teacher and that his conduct was so “unrelenting, wide-
ranging and flagrant as to warrant the revocation of his teaching certificates” as well as any other
supervisory certificates he holds. Id. at 30, 37, 41.
Neither party filed exceptions to the ALJ’s Initial Decision.
The Board must now determine whether to adopt, modify, or reject the Initial Decision in
this matter. At its meeting of April 11, 2024, the Board reviewed the Initial Decision. After full
and fair consideration of the Decision, the Board voted to adopt the Initial Decision and accept the
recommended penalty of revocation.
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

7
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 record established
that Piparo continued a pattern of totally inappropriate and unacceptable behaviors in his dealings
with students, staff, and administrators. 	In this case, Piparo’s interactions with, and behavior
towards, his students, coworkers, and administrators were completely unacceptable and certainly
unbecoming of a teacher. There were numerous opportunities for Piparo to change the course of
events by his reactions or inaction to certain situations and instead he made poor choices to
continue his inappropriate behavior which exacerbated the situations. 	The Board finds that
Piparo’s conduct, harassing students and co-workers, blatantly violating district policy, using
disparaging and demeaning language to and against students and co-workers, does not comport
with “role model” behavior. Thus, the Board finds Piparo engaged in unbecoming conduct. The
Board agrees with the ALJ that the only appropriate penalty in this matter is revocation of his
educator certificates.

8
Accordingly, on April 11, 2024, the Board voted to adopt the Initial Decision and ordered
a revocation of Piparo’s certificates. On this 23rd day of May 2024, the Board formally adopted
its written decision to adopt the Initial Decision in this matter and it is therefore ORDERED that
Joseph C. Piparo’s Teacher of Social Studies Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced Standing,
Teacher of Social Studies certificate, Supervisor certificate, Principal Certificate of Eligibility,
Teacher of Students with Disabilities Certificate of Eligibility, and Provisional Teacher of Students
with Disabilities certificate are hereby REVOKED, effective immediately. 	It is further ordered
that Piparo 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.

x
~ .~
~. ~ _
'~ ~	~ ~ n~
~.: .~ .'~
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDE-01620-16
AGENCY DKT. NO. 1415-215
IN THE MATTER OF THE CERTIFICATES)
OF JOSEPH C. PIPARO,
Michael Czarnecki, Deputy Attorney General, for petitioner (Matthew J.
Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey)
Michael G. Brucki, Esq., for respondent, Joseph C. Piparo
Record Closed: February 16, 2024 Decided: February 20, 2024
BEFORE DANIELLE PASQUALE, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Joseph Piparo, a tenured teacher, engaged in improper communications
with students regarding another teacher; harassment of a parent and students of
the district that resulted in a Final Restraining Order against him under the
domestic violence statute; used harassing language against a student (D.S.);
made inappropriate statements against Lodi staff that included racial slurs and
threatening language; threatened violence against student D.S.'s father; showed
contempt of school administrators through the use of offensive language; used his
New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
cell phone during school hours against school policy; and failed to appear for a
mandated psychological examination as required by the Lodi Board of Education;
violated his Performance Improvement Plan by continuing to harass a co-worker
who was no longer romantically interested in him, requiring her to file a police
complaint against him. Do Piparo's actions constitute "conduct unbecoming,"
warranting a penalty? Yes. Unbecoming conduct encompasses actions "tending
to destroy respect in the delivery of government services," Karins v. City of Atlantic
maC , 152 N.J. 532, 554 (1988), for which the Board of Examiners (Board) may
revoke or suspend a teacher's certificates under N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.4.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners,
(Board) seeks the revocation or suspension of Joseph C. Piparo's ("Piparo")
Principal certificate of Eligibility and Teacher of Social Studies, and Supervisor
certificates under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38 and the implementing regulation, N.J.A.C.
6A:9-17.5, for conduct unbecoming a teacher or other just cause. After his
resignation and losing his tenure pursuant to an arbitration pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:6-16 the Arbitrator approved the settlement on December 26, 2014.
Thereafter, incorporating the tenure charges, the Board used an Order to Show
Cause for unbecoming conduct and other just cause. It sought for Piparo to show
cause for why all his certificates and credentials should not be revoked in pertinent
part:
4. The district alleged that in January 2008, Piparo was
reprimanded for making inappropriate statements to students
regarding personal matters. The district also imposed a
Performance Improvement Plan. Lodi ~Iso noted that after a
romantic relationship with a former district employee ended,
Piparo refused to cease contact and communications with her,
sending her hundreds, if not thousands, of text messages. In May
2

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
2013, the former employee filed a charge of harassment against
Piparo and, after a six-day trial, the judge entered a final
restraining order and found that Piparo committed an act of
harassment under the domestic violence statute.
5. Lodi also alleged that, Piparo made numerous unprofessional
and inappropriate statements regarding D.S., a student whom
Piparo coached on the wrestling team and who was the son of
the former district employee with whom Piparo had a romantic
relationship. In many of these texts, Piparo used foul language
and made disparaging statements against D.S. Piparo also
made many disparaging, unprofessional and inappropriate
statements regarding other district staff members. The
statements included foul language, racial slurs and name calling.
6. Piparo also sent text messages threatening violence towards
others and made numerous unprofessional statements regarding
Lodi School District Administrators. Those statements also
included name calling, the use of foul language and exhibited an
unhealthy anger toward those positions of authority in the district.
Lodi also alleged that Piparo violated the district's policy
regarding the use of cell phones during class time by sending and
receiving numerous text messages during his teaching
assignment periods.
7. Lodi also alleged that Piparo never kept his appointment for a
psychological examination with the district's approved physician.
As a result, the Board found just cause for the revocation of Piparo's
certificates as a result of the conduct alleged in the tenure charges as
3

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
outlined above and ordered on May 21, 2015 that Piparo show cause why
his certificates and credentials should not be revoked. [P1].
n response, Piparo filed a timely Answer to the Order to Show Cause denying
any wrongdoing.
The Board transmitted this matter to the Office of Administrative Law for
determination as a contested case. The parties requested settlement conferences
at which were initially promising. Atone point, those negotiations were unsuccessful,
and a hearing was scheduled. This case was laden with both avoidable and
unavoidable delays. Tragically, the originally assigned DAG Ms. Lori Prapas, died
unexpectedly after she tried most of the dates listed below. Mr. Piparo was originally
pro se, and Mr. Brucki was his third attorney. There were many adjournment
requests by Mr. Brucki, some due to his own court conflicts and some due to the
illness of both his client and his client's wife who was undergoing treatment for
cancer. Other delays included witness and attorney unavailability and the COV'ID-
19 pandemic. Some of Mr. Brucki's adjournment requests were so repeated and
sometimes wholly meritless that I threatened sanctions if the situation continued. A
hearing was finally held in person on October 25, 2017, March 14, 2018, October 7,
2019, July 6 and 7, 2021. DAG Czarnecki did an excellent job of getting up to speed
after the case was transferred to him and after a very long hiatus due to all of the
above, he finished up the presentation of the State's case in 2021.
During the COVID-19 shutdown neither side reached out to finish the hearing
until sometime in 2021 since upon information and belief, Mr. Piparo was applying
for another teacher's license, specifically a special education certificate. As a result,
contacted the parties and conferenced the case, where Mr. Brucki confirmed that
his client wanted to move forward to complete the trial and call additional witnesses.
As of May 6, 2021 there was still no response, so I reached out to the parties yet
again via email to set up a peremptory trial date due to the age and previous
scheduling challenges in this case. Those hearing dates were held accordingly on
4

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
July 6 and 7, 2021 via Zoom which I listed on a peremptory basis to prevent further
delays.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the record remained open for the receipt of
transcripts and post-hearing submissions. Again, there was a backup in transcripts,
and I reached out to the parties to ask the parties where the post-hearing
submissions were as the record remained open. DAG Czarnecki responded that
9/1/2023 was enough time for him to write his post-hearing submission in response
to my request. Thereafter, due to his caseload, he asked for atwo-week extension
which was unopposed and as such I granted it. As of the date of this decision, I have
yet to hear from Mr. Brucki. The case was then transferred to DAG Colin Klicka. On
February 8, 2024, I emailed Mr. Brucki as I had yet to receive apost-hearing
submission. I gave him until February 16, 2024 to submit anything. As I did not
receive a response, I closed the record accordingly on February 16, 2024 and issued
this opinion February 20, 2024.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
L.S. is a former employee of the Board of Education of Lodi and the mother
of D.S. L.S. testified that she met Joseph Piparo ("Mr. Piparo"), her son's wrestling
coach, when she called him to talk about an issue between D.S. and another
student wrestler in February 2012. L.S. and Mr. Piparo were eventually involved
in a romantic, sexual relationship from February 2012 to May 2013. Both Mr.
Piparo and L.S. were married to other people, and L.S. was a teacher's aide in the
grammar school and middle schools. During their relationship, L.S. testified that
she and Mr. Piparo texted "all the time," saw each other after school, and spent
lunch together. She communicated with him via text messages, until D.S.'s father
found out about the affair when L.S. and Mr. Piparo began using burner phones to
communicate. Mr. Piparo frequently used the school phone to call her as well.
L.S. also has a daughter. However, the daughter was not a student at Lodi High School when
Mr. Piparo was an employee.
5

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
L.S. testified that the text messages from "JCP" found in Exhibit P-50 were all from
Mr. Piparo. L.S. was not able to recall all of the text messages, because so many
text messages were sent between them. Many of those text messages and phone
calls were made during school hours and oftentimes during his class time.
L.S.'s son D.S. learned of the affair on December 24, 2012. That day, L.S.
and D.S.'s father had an argument about the affair, and D.S. overheard the
argument. D.S. was crying and screaming when he found out. D.S. returned to
wrestling practice the day after Christmas. D.S.'s father and D.S. told L.S. about
an altercation with Mr. Piparo that happened during practice on December 26,
2012.2 She learned through Piparo that D.S. "had a fit" and Mark Maggio ("Mr.
Maggio"), Mr. Garcia, and Mr. Piparo were there. L.S. became aware that D.S.
cursed and asked Mr. Piparo to get out of the room during the incident.
Mr. Piparo was D.S.'s social studies teacher from his freshman year until
the winter break confrontation. As a result, the school switched D.S.'s class
schedule in order to remove D.S. from Mr. Piparo's class. D.S.'s math class and
at least one or two of his other classes changed. L.S. did not initially believe that
Mr. Piparo went back to the wrestling room with D.S. as L.S. did not believe Mr.
Piparo would hurt D.S. She thought D.S. had friends and other coaches to support
him, and she was only made aware of Piparo's effect on her son when D.S. was
physically upset in school. L.S. knew then that when D.S. was upset at school, it
was due to Mr. Piparo's presence. However, L.S. did not know firsthand how D.S.
and Mr. Piparo interacted in the school building. L.S. continued to live with D.S.
but resided in the basement with minimal communication, until he left with his
father.
After the winter break confrontation with her son, L.S. always fought and
argued with Mr. Piparo. The arguments were largely about Mr. Piparo's wrestling
2 This decision will refer to the December 26, 2012, incident at the locker room between D.S. and
Mr. Piparo as "the winter break confrontation".
C~

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
job. Mr. Piparo told her to convince her son D.S. to allow him to coach. Mr. Piparo
was "very upset" about his inability to return to the wrestling room and always used
threating words regarding D.S. to his mother L.S. including the term "gloves off'
included in one of the many text messages between them. In response, Mr. Piparo
told her that D.S. "needed to grow up" and that D.S. was "playing the victim." L.S.
testified credibly that she did not know how to respond to Mr. Piparo's angry text
messages, and so repeatedly responded to him that "[D.S.] was 15." Mr. Piparo
was upset because he believed "everybody in the school" was more worried about
D.S. (the student) than they were worried about him. L.S. told Mr. Piparo that D.S.
was the victim of the affair, and she was surprised that Mr. Piparo blamed D.S. for
their own decision as consenting adults.
L.S. testified numerous times that Mr. Piparo was unable to take blame for
himself. Specifically, she emphasized that his text messages left the impression
that Mr. Piparo was "mad at everyone" and "it was like the world against him," in
which, "everyone" referred to political people of Lodi. L.S. testified that Mr. Piparo
and Melissa Grant ("Ms. Grant") (another teacher in the school with whom he had
an intimate relationship) hated each other. L.S. testified that she was aware but
disengaged from the rants Mr. Piparo made regarding the other adults/co-workers
involved because she did not know his political relationships but responded to Mr.
Piparo's text messages by telling him to relax.
L.S. continued that after the fallout from his confrontation with her son D.S.,
that Mr. Piparo told her to deny that they were in a relationship. Mr. Piparo told
L.S. to lie and take back what she told D.S. about the affair. She actively
responded to Mr. Piparo's text messages. L.S. testified that during that time she
was receiving text messages about prolonging the affair. (Exhibit P-50). She
testified that they were still intimate. L.S. testified that she text messaged him about
leaving his wife to be with her; however, she stopped asking in January or February
2013.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
By May of 2013, L.S. did not frequently respond to Mr. Piparo's text
messages. L.S. testified told Mr. Piparo numerous times to leave her alone from
May 21, 2013, to May 30, 2013, until she sought and received the final restraining
order against Mr. Piparo. (Exhibit P-44; P-45). L.S. testified tearfully and credibly
as she showed immeasurable remorse for her part in the relationship with Mr.
Piparo and its effect on D.S.'s school, wrestling and home life. Her testimony is
entirely consistent with the voluminous corroborating exhibits, and the trial in
Superior Court resulting in the Final Restraining Order, and thus I FIND her highly
credible testimony as FACT and give it enormous weight.
Melissa Grant-Terhune is an employee of the Lodi High School. She has
been a special education teacher since 2002. Ms. Grant knew Mr. Piparo because
they were both from Lodi and Mr. Piparo was a councilman. She first met him in
2002 as teachers. Her relationship with Mr. Piparo became intimate in 2004. Mr.
Piparo was married then; Ms. Grant was not. Ms. Grant testified that the "on and
off' relationship lasted for about two or three years.
Ms. Grant testified credibly that when she attempted to end her relationship
with Mr. Piparo, he became controlling. For example, he followed her and showed
up at places uninvited. She explained calmly but convincingly that he harassed
her through numerous text messages and phone calls. Next, he sent her
threatening voice messages for an entire week, every day and then began calling
her boyfriend. Ms. Grant did not file a restraining order against Mr. Piparo early
on, because Lodi was a "small town" and they "know pretty much the same
people," referring to the police. However, she filed a police report with the support
of her boyfriend on July 7, 2007. (Exhibit P-8). Mr. Piparo immediately filed a cross
complaint. On cross-examination, Ms. Grant did not recall whether she left
voicemails for Mr. Piparo in the weeks prior to going to the police. Ms. Grant
credibly denied asking Mr. Piparo to continue their relationship and credibly denied
Piparo's unfounded accusations of her being pregnant or contacting him about
being pregnant with his child in the weeks prior to going to the police.

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
Ms. Grant verbally reported to Ms. Yzquierdo, a supervisor, regarding Mr.
Piparo's actions in 2005. Ms. Grant was still intimate with him in 2005; however,
she testified that she was only appeasing him because she feared him. Ms. Grant
also reported Mr. Piparo to principal Joan Fragala ("Ms. Fragala"), the
superintendent, and the school resource officer in 2007. Ms. Grant testified that
Ms. Yzquierdo advised her to keep a journal that documented Mr. Piparo's actions.
Ms. Grant began writing in a journal in 2007. (Exhibit P-3). She kept the journal
on her person until June of 2008. In addition, she kept all of the letters from Mr.
Piparo until he left Lodi High School, in which she then handed the letters to the
school. (Exhibit P-4; P-5; P-6; P-7). Ms. Fragala issued letters to both Ms. Grant
and Mr. Piparo to stay away from each other in the school building in response to
Ms. Grant's verbal report.3
Ms. Grant explained that Mr. Piparo and she had several arguments in
school during school hours and that Mr. Piparo pushed or grabbed her arms during
those arguments. Further, when she tried to avoid Mr. Piparo, he followed her to
her classroom. Mr. Piparo would ask Ms. Grant to give him her phone or answer
his questions during these arguments.4 Ms. Grant testified credibly that Mr. Piparo
shoved a printer in her classroom in front of her special education students, in an
attempt to toss the printer. Ms. Grant was clear that these disruptions happened
during class when students were present. Additionally, Mr. Piparo had students
relay messages from him to her throughout the school day.5 Ms. Grant testified
that Mr. Piparo gave notes, both open and sealed, to students for it to be passed
3 Ms. Grant testified that as a result she was not allowed to go to the History wing, which was on
the opposite side of the building from her classroom and on a different floor. Mr. Piparo was not
allowed to go to the English Wing, which was the opposite side of the building from his classroom
and on a different floor.
4 Ms. Grant testified to her October 9, 2007, journal entry: "I came in my room, he grabbed my
phone, I took it back. He kept saying, `Come here, come here,' in front of the students." Ms. Grant
did not go because it was during class time, and she was teaching.
5 Ms. Grant testified to her September 14, 2007, journal entry: "He was wandering the halls and
asked a student to ask me how I am." Ms. Grant also testified to her November 7, 2007, journal
e.~~~y: "A kid tried to talk to me. Because I was trying to discourage the kids to not have this
conversation in the first place. So when they said, `Well, [Mr. Piparo] told me to tell you.' I would
say, `I don't want to hear it."'
D

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
to her. She confirmed that Mr. Piparo left both threatening letters and love letters
on her car windshield.6 Students had access to the parking lot where her car was
parked. In fact, a student notified her that a note was left on her car. Making
matters worse, Mr. Piparo spoke to their students about their relationship. As a
result, her rapport with students worsened. Ms. Grant added that Mr. Piparo
cursed in front of her special education students. Mr. Piparo would do unwelcome
things during school like handing a birthday card for her son to Ms. Grant in school.
He would also spread false rumors to students about a romantic relationship
between her and a wrestling student. On December 4, 2007, Mr. Piparo followed
her to her car and denied spreading the rumors; instead, he insisted it was the
students spreading them. On the same day, Mr. Piparo sent a message to Ms.
Grant "explaining himself, and going on and on and on about how he was trying to
protect me." Ms. Grant was clear that these were unwanted advances and
communications.
Ms. Grant testified that after the directive to keep his distance, Mr. Piparo
frequently passed her classroom and would appear in the lunchroom whenever
Ms. Grant had lunch duty. On September 26, 2007, Mr. Piparo called Ms. Grant
five (5) times through the school phone because she was not in school that day,
after she blocked his private number. Ms. Grant explained that his advances
further escalated when on October 18, 2007, Ms. Grant was parked in a
McDonald's parking lot with her window down, while drinking coffee when Mr.
Piparo drove up next to her, uninvited. Ms. Grant told Mr. Piparo to leave her
alone. Mr. Piparo then threatened her, grabbed her steering wheel and took her
car keys from the ignition. Ms. Grant had to contact the school that she was going
to be late, because she did not have the keys to her cars.
On cross examination, Ms. Grant admitted that she did not always have an
exact recollection of dates or years during and after her relationship with Mr.
6 Ms. Grant testified to a letter that was left on her windshield: "Melissa Grant. Leave that student
alone. They are watching you, be careful. And stop being a f***ing whore or you will be on the
news."
10

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
Piparo. Ms. Grant never had a disciplinary action against her and never had a
performance improvement plan imposed against her for violating board policy. Ms.
Grant's testimony was entirely credible as she was notably embarrassed,
remorseful, and clearly reached out multiple times for help in stopping Mr. Piparo's
harassment and behavior at the school. Ms. Grant was extremely credible. She
was forthright even though it was obvious that her testimony was difficult to give
as she derived no pleasure in speaking about her interactions with Mr. Piparo.
could see true remorse and embarrassment for her part, but there was no question
in my mind that she was telling the truth as that candor and regret flowed from her
on the stand and her version of events was corroborated by the other witnesses
and the documentary evidence notably her contemporaneous journal entries and
FIND her testimony above as FACT and give it enormous weight.
D.S. is L.S.'s son who testified remotely so that we would not run afoul of
the Final Restraining Order protecting him and his mother from Mr. Piparo. He
was fifteen (15) years old during the 2012-2013 school year. D.S. wrestled at Lodi
High School where there were about twenty (20) to twenty-five (25) students on
the wrestling team which was separated into varsity and junior varsity ("JV"). D.S.
was on the varsity team during his freshman year 2011-2012 as he was very good.
D.S. was friends with the students on the wrestling team. Mr. Piparo was the
assistant coach and Mr. Maggio was the head coach. Mr. Piparo was also D.S.'s
history teacher for his sophomore year. D.S. first met Mr. Piparo in September
2011. D.S. testified that he had a good coach-student relationship with Mr. Piparo
until December 2012. D.S. explained that Mr. Piparo took him to gyms and trained
him off season. To do so, Mr. Piparo picked up D.S. from his home in his car and
drove to the gym, without any other students or staff.
D.S. knew Ms. Grant as the special education teacher at Lodi High School
and Mr. Piparo told him that Ms. Grant "was crazy." Mr. Piparo went as far as to
play recordings of Ms. Grant's voice to D.S. during their car rides to gyms. D.S.
testified that Mr. Piparo denied his past relationship with Ms. Grant, but it was
11

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
"pretty clear" they had an intimate relationship. D.S. continued that he did not know
why Mr. Piparo played the recordings, but he believed Mr. Piparo did so to protect
his reputation and discredit Ms. Grant.
D.S. found out about L.S. and Mr. Piparo's affair when he overheard a
conversation between his father and L.S. on December 24, 2012, during his
sophomore year. On December 26, 2012, D.S. went to wrestling practice. D.S.
testified that he saw Mr. Piparo in the coach's office. D.S. admittedly "freaked out"
when he saw Mr. Piparo. D.S. testified forthrightly that he yelled, screamed, and
cursed at Mr. Piparo. D.S. did not recall if Mr. Piparo also yelled or screamed. D.S.
noted that there were other students in the locker room. After the heated
exchange, Head Coach Mr. Maggio took D.S. out of the situation by pushing D.S.
away from the locker room and walked him to the athletic director's office, which
was separate from the locker room and coach's office. D.S. testified that Mr.
Piparo stayed in the locker room at that time.
After the winter break confrontation, D.S. was removed from Mr. Piparo's
class. D.S. testified that in order to do so, he had to change his math class and a
few other classes. Mr. Piparo was no longer the assistant coach of the wrestling
team. D.S. testified that "everybody [in the school] knew by . . . the time Christmas
break was over" about the affair and that it "was pretty embarrassing" to be in
school. Mr. Piparo always came into the lunchroom when D.S. had lunch and D.S.
stated that he stared at Mr. Piparo. He did not recall whether Mr. Piparo stared
back. D.S. believed Mr. Piparo had his own lunch break during D.S.'s lunch,
instead of lunch duty. D.S. recalled telling his father, and possibly Mr. Maggio,
about Mr. Piparo's presence during lunch. After he did so, Mr. Piparo stopped
coming to the lunchroom. D.S. was given the opportunity to have lunch
somewhere else, but he refused to do so, because he wanted to have lunch with
his friends. D.S. reported Mr. Piparo's presence during lunch because: "I didn't
want to see the guy that was banging my mom all the time while I was at school
12

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
with my friends." D.S. knew that the principal was trying his best to not have Mr.
Piparo in the lunchroom.
D.S. stated that he knew Mr. Piparo was mad at him but was not told directly
by Mr. Piparo. D.S. testified that Mr. Piparo never him after the winter break
confrontation. The closest the two came to one another after that was when Mr.
Piparo passed D.S. in stairwells and hallways. D.S. did not recall whether Mr.
Piparo made inappropriate comments to other staff members at the school. D.S.
testified that he saw Mr. Piparo text during class "all the time."
D.S.'s testimony, which was given telephonically due to the final restraining
order and that he was not living in NJ at the time, was understandably angry and
direct, but entirely credible as he forthrightly discussed his heartbreaking personal
situation. His testimony was completely corroborated by the credible testimony of
his mom L.S., Mr. Maggio, the corresponding contemporaneous voluminous text
communications between his mom and Mr. Piparo, as well as all the testimony of
the other school personnel and corresponding exhibits. Notably the documents
showing changes in his schedule, notes/reports regarding the winter break
confrontation, Mr. Piparo being relieved as assistant wrestling coach, etc.... In
addition, D.S. was candid in that he was angry and would not confirm all the details
if he did not have a clear memory of it; thus, he did not exaggerate and was not
coached. As such I gave his brave and truthful testimony enormous weight and
FIND it as FACT.
Joan Fragala was an employee at Lodi High School. She was the Vice
Principal from 1996 to 2006. She became the Principal in 2006 and retired in 2012.
Whenever a concern was brought to her attention by a staff member, student, or
parent, it was her duty to investigate the concern.
After hearing rumors about note-passing between Ms. Grant and Mr. Piparo
through students in October 2007 Ms. Fragala received a letter from Mr. Piparo,
13

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
which alleged that Ms. Grant was being inappropriate and bothering him. After
interviewing both Ms. Grant and Mr. Piparo, Ms. Fragala investigated the matter
with the Lodi Education Association Representative ("LEA Rep") in the normal
course. On October 22, 2007, Ms. Fragala wrote a letter to Mr. Piparo with the
LEA Rep and department supervisor, Mr. Dowson. (Exhibit P-9). The letter was
to 66make some changes so that . . . we could minimize the amount of contact . . .
between the two of [Mr. Piparo and Mr. Grant]." Thereafter, Ms. Fragala testified
credibly that Ms. Grant continued to report Mr. Piparo's actions that violated those
directives. Ms. Fragala testified that she herself also saw Mr. Piparo in hallways
that he was prohibited from.
As part of her investigation, Ms. Fragala also interviewed eight (8) of Mr.
Piparo's students to arrive at her determinations with the LEA. Ms. Fragala sent a
letter to the superintendent on October 24, 2007, regarding the interviews. The
majority of the students recalled Mr. Piparo trying to dispel "rumors of some
negative form" and Mr. Piparo's defense was that communication with the students
"was somehow tied to his history lesson." Ms. Fragala testified convincingly that
the rumors did not have any connection to his teaching curriculum. Ms. Fragala
was candid that she did not recall whether students knew where the rumors
started. Ms. Fragala also admitted that she was not able to corroborate the note-
passing between Mr. Piparo and Ms. Grant. On January 25, 2008, Ms. Fragala
issued a performance improvement plan for Mr. Piparo in cooperation with the LEA
Rep, Vice Principal, and Superintendent. (Exhibit P-10). Ms. Fragala explained
that a performance improvement plan, regardless of whether the nature was
disciplinary or not, is not supposed to be a "lifetime thing" and can be removed
from one's personnel files.'
Ms. Fragala candidly and credibly noted she did not recall if she ever
recommended awrite-up against Ms. Grant to the superintendent, but did, in fact,
Ms. Fragala testified that staff members were evaluated during an annual summary conference
whether he or she met the criteria of the performance improvement plan.
14

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
recommend awrite-up against Mr. Piparo. Ms. Fragala admitted she could not say
whether Mr. Piparo's actions had a negative impact on the students and did not
recall if there were any other disciplinary actions against Mr. Piparo. Ms. Fragala
conceded that before the investigation Mr. Piparo was professional and cordial;
however, he became unprofessional towards her afterthe directives.$ Ms. Fragala
testified that in 2003, she was reprimanded by a loss in payment increment when
she was accused of a false investigation against Mr. Piparo. Ms. Fragala claimed
that it was "politically motivated" and admitted that the 2003 incident made her
believe Mr. Piparo was "more of a problem;" however, she convincingly denied that
it influenced her decision to discipline him in 2008. Overall, Mr. Fragala was a
professional and credible witness as she admitted her falling out with Mr. Piparo
after the Performance Improvement Plan and prior reprimand. Those concessions
made her overall testimony that much more believable as well as her admission
that prior to her directives that he was professional and cordial, as such I FIND her
testimony as FACT.
Mark Maggio is an employee of the Lodi Board of Education serving the
roles of physical education, health, and driver's education teacher at Lodi High
School. He is also the head football coach and JV basketball coach. He was the
head wrestling coach from 2012 to 2016. Mr. Piparo was Mr. Maggio's assistant
coach for the wrestling program. Mr. Maggio characterized his relationship with
Mr. Piparo as "poor", and that Mr. Piparo was "hostile" towards him. He believed
that Mr. Piparo felt disrespected by him when he applied for the head wrestling
coach position.
Mr. Maggio knew D.S. from his freshman year. Mr. Maggio described his
own relationship with D.S. as a normal coach-student relationship. Mr. Maggio
also characterized Mr. Piparo's relationship with D.S. as normal in the be_ inning
of the wrestling season; however, noting clearly that it changed during November
8 Ms. Fragala testified: "When all this came about He completely would, you know, not
acknowledge my presence, wouldn't say hello, passed me in the hall and just be . . .completely
void of any . . .communication or contact." 2T:240:18-241:1.
15

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
of D.S.'s freshman year. Mr. Maggio testified that Mr. Piparo befriended D.S. and
took D.S. to private practices, training sessions, saunas, and lunch. He saw Mr.
Piparo take D.S. in his private vehicle to the one-on-one sessions. He also became
aware of these sessions because D.S. informed him. Mr. Maggio noted that such
one-on-one sessions were "very rare" between a coach and student.
Mr. Maggio confirmed that the relationship between Mr. Piparo and D.S.
changed on December 24, 2012. On December 25, 2012, Christmas morning, Mr.
Piparo called Mr. Maggio at his father's home and asked Mr. Maggio if he was able
to talk. Mr. Piparo was waiting outside his father's house in his private vehicle
when he made the call, so Mr. Maggio agreed to talk with him and entered his
vehicle. The two then went on a short drive, in which Mr. Piparo relayed that D.S.'s
father was accusing Mr. Piparo of having an affair with his wife, L.S. Mr. Maggio
testified that he was disengaged and only asked a few questions during this
conversation, letting Mr. Piparo talk for most of the ride. Mr. Maggio later testified
that he believed Mr. Piparo was trying to be "ahead of the eight-ball" before the
affair came to light with D.S.'s mom.
On December 26, 2012, when Mr. Maggio went to the school building for
wrestling practice, Mr. Piparo was already sitting in the coach's office with his feet
on the desk, inside the locker room. Mr. Maggio noted that it was unusual for Mr.
Piparo to be in the coach's office and when D.S. entered the locker room, D.S. was
"immediately outraged," and began to yell and curse at Mr. Piparo. Mr. Maggio
testified that Mr. Piparo violently rose from his chair towards D.S. who was near
the exit. Mr. Maggio described the size difference between Mr. Piparo and D.S.
as "man versus child." Mr. Maggio confirmed that the two were separated when
D.S.'s friends pulled D.S. out of the locker room. Mr. Maggio spoke to Mr. Piparo
and told him that he should leave. Mr. Piparo complied and left; however, returned
and stayed near the wrestling room until practice ended.
16

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
As a result of the locker-room incident, he told Mr. Piparo to go to the JV
tournament instead of varsity practice for December 27, 2012. Mr. Piparo again
complied. When Mr. Maggio went to the JV tournament after varsity practice, Mr.
Piparo left to take medication from his vehicle. Mr. Maggio allowed Mr. Piparo to
leave thinking it was going to be a short absence. However, Mr. Maggio saw Mr.
Piparo enter L.S.'s vehicle and leave the tournament's campus. Mr. Piparo
returned to the tournament an hour or so later. As a result of the incident, Mr.
Maggio suggested that Mr. Piparo should not come to the varsity tournament the
following day on December 28, 2012. Mr. Piparo complied and did not come to
the varsity tournament.
After the winter break confrontation, D.S. came to Mr. Maggio often during
the school week when he was upset. D.S. spoke about his hatred towards L.S.
and Mr. Piparo and how he was embarrassed. Mr. Maggio also added that D.S.
became upset when D.S. saw Mr. Piparo "lurking" around the lunchroom during
his lunch. Mr. Piparo circled D.S.'s lunch table when Mr. Piparo did not have lunch
duty. Mr. Maggio testified credibly that he also saw Mr. Piparo in the lunchroom
with D.S. However, he was not aware of Mr. Piparo's motives for being in the
lunchroom, nor was he aware of whether Mr. Piparo was allowed to be in the
lunchroom. D.S. continued to come to Mr. Maggio regarding these issues all the
way through to his senior graduation. Mr. Maggio believed the whole ordeal with
Mr. Piparo affected D.S. both academically and athletically.
Mr. Maggio confirmed that the athletic director, Mr. Turrico, and the
principal, Frank D'Amico ("Mr. D'Amico") gave Mr. Piparo alternative assignments
in response to the winter break confrontation. Most notably, Mr. Piparo was
assigned scouting duties for the wrestling program rather than coaching.9 Mr.
Piparo was supposed to submit scouting reports to Mr. D'Amico, who would, in
turn, submit the reports to Mr. Maggio. However, Mr. Piparo never took video
9 Scouting duties consisted of going to other schools and providing a report of future opponents'
line-ups, weigh-ins, video recordings of opponent athletes, etc. Mr. Maggio testified that the
wrestling program had two to three matches per week.
17

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
cameras to the scouting locations or submitted a video with his reports thereby
only completing half of his scouting duties. Mr. Piparo was assigned scouting
duties until the end of the wrestling season in March 2013.
Mr. Maggio could tell that his relationship with Mr. Piparo was "absent" after
the winter break confrontation, because Mr. Piparo submitted his scouting reports
to Mr. D'Amico and not directly to him. Instead, Mr. Maggio testified that Mr. Piparo
tried "to lure [him] into doing something unprofessional" by whispering derogatory
terms under his breath when passing Mr. D'Amico in the hallways during school,
when there were students present.10 Mr. Maggio reported Mr. Piparo's actions to
Mr. D'Amico. Mr. Maggio was advised to "pretend it's not happening." On cross-
examination, Mr. Maggio did not recall Mr. Piparo being nominated for best
assistant coach of the year 2012-2013. In fact, he stated that as far as he was
aware, Mr. Piparo was not a desired wrestling coach.
On cross examination, Mr. Maggio testified to doctoring a photo of the 2012-
2013 wrestling team, because the photo included both D.S. and Mr. Piparo.
Because the photo was going to be on a plaque for the athletes, Mr. Maggio made
the decision to replace Mr. Piparo's face with another staff member for D.S.'s sake.
Mr. Maggio testified that he acted "on [his] own," was "not proud," and did not
believe that it was the "right decision." However, Mr. Maggio repeatedly testified
that he was doing it for D.S. Overall, he was a highly credible witness whose
testimony was direct, truthful even when unflattering to himself, and consistent with
the other credible testimonial and documentary evidence, as such I FIND it as
FACT.
Frank D'Amico is an employee of the Lodi High School. He was a
curriculum supervisor from 2005 to 2012. He became the principal in July 2012.
As principal, complaints from parents, teachers, or students typically came to him.
'o Mr. Maggio testified that Mr. Piparo called him a "p***y" and said phrases similar to "you're done,"
"you'll get it," and "watch out." Mr. Maggio testified that Mr. Piparo's voice was low so that only Mr.
Maggio can hear it. 3T:10:55:00 AM.
18

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
If a complainant was not content with Mr. D'Amico's decision, then it would go to
the superintendent. Mr. D'Amico knew Mr. Piparo as his colleague and a history
teacher at Lodi High School.
Sometime during Christmas break after December 26, 2012, Mr. D'Amico
was informed by Mr. Turrico about the winter break confrontation between D.S.
and Mr. Piparo. Mr. D'Amico testified that Mr. Turrico directed Mr. Piparo to stay
away from D.S. until Mr. D'Amico came back from vacation. Mr. D'Amico met with
D.S.'s father and D.S. after he returned. D.S.'s father informed him about Mr.
Piparo and L.S.'s affair, and thus, wanted D.S. to be separated from Mr. Piparo in
school. Mr. D'Amico testified that D.S. was physically upset and believed Mr.
Piparo and L.S. were having an affair due to the argument he overheard on
December 24, 2012. Both D.S.'s father and D.S. believed Mr. Piparo used his
relationship with D.S. to be intimate with L.S. Mr. D'Amico then had a meeting with
Mr. Turrico and Mr. Piparo. Mr. Piparo denied having an affair with L.S. He
claimed that D.S.'s father was lying and thus he should not be reprimanded. Mr.
D'Amico suggested a temporary separation until D.S. calms down. Mr. D'Amico
testified that there were no disciplinary actions against Mr. Piparo at that time,
because he did not want to presume that Mr. Piparo indeed had an affair with L.S.
Around January or February 2013, Mr. D'Amico received a call from L.S.
that D.S. was crying in the coach's office. Mr. D'Amico spoke to D.S. who told him
that Mr. Piparo always passed his classroom and entered the lunchroom when
D.S. had lunch, although Mr. Piparo did not have lunch duty. D.S. saw Mr. Piparo
look over at his table during lunch and chuckle. D.S. felt like "[Mr. Piparo] always
gotta make himself present." By way of follow-up, Mr. D'Amico then asked Mr.
Piparo what he was doing in the lunchroom. Mr. Piparo told him he was only there
to speak to a colleague who happened to be near D.S.'s table. As a result, Mr.
D'Amico directed Mr. Piparo not to enter the lunchroom when D.S. was there. He
also told Mr. Piparo he can preorder his lunch and receive it earlier, so he does not
have to enter the lunchroom when D.S. was there. Mr. D'Amico also told Mr.
19

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
Piparo not to pass D.S.'s class as a verbal directive with a follow up email. D.S.'s
classes had to be changed to remove him from Mr. Piparo's history class.
Mr. D'Amico suggested separating the JV and Varsity practice sessions so
that Mr. Piparo could still coach without D.S. being present, but Mr. Piparo did not
comply. Furthermore, Mr. Piparo told Mr. D'Amico he did not trust Mr. Maggio as
a coach and asked for his removal so that Mr. Piparo could be in charge of the
wrestling team instead. Mr. D'Amico and Mr. Turrico decided to give Mr. Piparo
scouting duties instead. Mr. D'Amico testified that, in order to minimize the
communication between Mr. Piparo and Mr. Maggio, he became the person who
Mr. Piparo would submit his scouting reports to. Mr. D'Amico testified that Mr.
Piparo was being paid the same amount as an assistant coach and did not recall
how often Mr. Piparo completed his scouting duties.
During the meeting in which Mr. Piparo was given scouting duties, Mr.
Piparo became "irate" about the decision and began to make numerous
accusations against Mr. Turrico and Mr. Maggio.~~ The accusations against Mr.
Turrico and Mr. Maggio did not end there or within the confines of his office and
rather became a constant, daily activity by Mr. Piparo. Mr. D'Amico confirmed that
Piparo's accusations included but were not limited to: Mr. Turrico being affiliated
with gangs; Mr. Maggio bringing in criminals and drug addicts to wrestling practice;
Mr. Maggio going into the kitchen and handling the deli meat; Mr. Maggio
spreading explicit photos of another female teacher with students. Mr. D'Amico
investigated all of Mr. Piparo's accusations, but none were substantiated.12 Mr.
11 Mr. D'Amico testified that Mr. Piparo's accusations included allegations of Mr. Turrico and Mr.
Maggio working together to remove Mr. Piparo from the wrestling program. In reaction to Mr.
Piparo's accusations, Mr. Turrico yelled, "Liar. You're f***ing lying." Mr. D'Amico testified that due
to this incident, Mr. Piparo believed Mr. D'Amico was permitting vulgar language use by Mr. Turrico.
As a result, Mr. Piparo asked Mr. D'Amico to provide a written directive that allowed Mr. Piparo to
"curse out teachers, supervisors, and administrators." 3T:12:23:51 PM.
12 Another accusation Mr. Piparo reported to Mr. D'Amico was Mr. Turrico allegedly cussing at Mr.
Piparo in a hallway with students. Mr. D'Amico testified that Mr. Turrico reported the incident first,
prior to Mr. Piparo. Mr. Turrico stated that he yelled at Mr. Piparo because Mr. Piparo called him a
"c*nt." Mr. Piparo reported that he said, "Hello, [Mr. Turrico], how's your day going." 3T:12:38:06
PM.
20

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
D'Amico asked Mr. Piparo to put all accusations in writing and Mr. D'Amico did not
recall if Mr. Piparo did so. Rather, he did recall: "It was just so consuming and
overwhelming, I felt like [Mr. Piparo] was just trying to deflect attention to the true
matter, which was, you know, us providing [D.S.] with an environment where he
can come to learn and to not be harassed."
When tenure charges were brought against Mr. Piparo; he stormed into Mr.
D'Amico's room and cursed him out.13 Mr. D'Amico confirmed that Mr. Piparo was
not disciplined nor had any letters in his personnel file prior to the tenure charges.
Mr. D'Amico's testimony was professional, dispassionate even in the face of such
unsavory language and outlandish behavior and accusations by Mr. Piparo. His
testimony was entirely consistent with the other witnesses. In addition, much of
his testimony was corroborated by the contemporaneous, voluminous texts Mr.
Piparo sent to L.S. memorializing all of these accounts, P-50, which notably takes
up an entire large binder. P-50 shows a daily barrage of texts from Mr. Piparo to
L.S. during school and all hours of the day confirming the events as noted by Mr.
D'Amico and the other witnesses, and thus I FIND his testimony as FACT and give
it great weight.
Joseph Piparo was employed by the Lodi Board of Education from
September 2001 to 2013. He was hired as the Lodi High School history social
studies teacher. He taught freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors
throughout the years and was the advisor for several clubs and served as the
assistant wrestling coach since September 2001. Mr. Piparo recalled that his
teaching evaluations were very positive and that he got along with every staff
member and that he "was always the number one requested teacher to have their
students from guidance." Mr. Piparo, however, later changed his testimony during
13 Mr. D'Amico testified: "[Mr. Piparo] came into my office, said that he was done with it -- this f***ing
place. `Tell [the superintendent] that the way he runs the district is a f***ing joke.' [Mr. Piparo said]
[t]hat he's going to resign —that he's leaving, he's resigning, he's gonna run for the board of ed.
And have all of our jobs. `Tell him to go f-himself."' 3T:12:42:14 PM
21

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
cross examination that he got along with every staff member with the exception of
"the administrator . . .and then later on the wrestling coach."
Mr. Piparo was unclear about his relationship with Ms. Grant. He ultimately
admitted that it was romantic but not completely sexual. On cross-examination,
he denied having any problems with Ms. Grant. Mr. Piparo claimed that in 2007,
he received a call from one of his students and that Ms. Grant gave his phone
number to that student and that as a result he wrote a complaint to Ms. Fragala.
He did not agree with Ms. Fragala's performance improvement plan in response
to his complaint, because it directed change not only for Ms. Grant, but also him.
He testified that he did not sign the performance improvement plan and later
claimed that he never looked at it because it was from Ms. Fragala. Mr. Piparo
and Ms. Fragala had a political dispute in 2003, which cost Ms. Fragala a pay
increment loss. He further alleged that the performance improvement plan was
"thrown out."
When confronted on cross-examination, Mr. Piparo denied throwing a
printer in Ms. Grant's classroom in front of students and that he was never
questioned about throwing a printer and that Ms. Grant's testimony was the first
time he was made aware of such an incident.14 Mr. Piparo stated that the five of
the six letters to Ms. Grant looked like his handwriting, but he did not recall writing
them. Mr. Piparo denied that Exhibit P-7 was from him, but he conceded that it
mentioned his daughter's name. (Exhibit P-4; P-5; P-6; P-7). Mr. Piparo testified
that he was surprised when the tenure charges mentioned his interactions with Ms.
Grant. He repeatedly claimed that if he had actually engaged in the alleged actions
that he would have been disciplined, or that it indicated administration's failure to
act.15 Mr. Piparo testified that he was never officially reprimanded or disciplined in
any way for his conduct towards Ms. Grant.
14 Mr. Grant merely testified that Mr. Piparo shoved a printer in her classroom in an attempt to toss
It.
15 Mr. Piparo testified: "I was shocked, because I knew not only did I not do any of this stuff, that
some of this stuff was so serious that if it was done not only would I have a problem, but any
22

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
Similarly, Mr. Piparo first claimed that he was only close friends with L.S.
during 2012.16 However, Mr. Piparo later admitted that he had a romantic, non-
sexual relationship with L.S. during cross-examination only when confronted with
text messages with the phrase "I love you" from his number to L.S. ' (Exhibit P-
50).
Mr. Piparo confirmed that prior to December 2012, he had a close
relationship with D.S. He testified that he took D.S. to practice sessions because
L.S. asked him to. Around December 2012, Mr. Piparo claimed that L.S. told D.S.
that she was in love with Mr. Piparo. Mr. Piparo claimed that he was shocked and
did not know why L.S. said that. Mr. Piparo admitted that he told L.S., "I don't think
should be in the wrestling room for the next few weeks until this gets cleared up,"
because he believed D.S. would react. Mr. Piparo claims that it was he that
suggested removing D.S. from his class to the guidance counselor and Mr. Turrico.
He went to Mr. Maggio to notify him that he was going to be in the weight room,
not the wrestling room, until the matter settled. Mr. Piparo denied ever having
direct contact with D.S. in the weight room. Instead, Mr. Piparo testified that he
was in the coach's room on December 26, 2012, but left the room when D.S.
entered the locker room, where the coach's room is located, and that D.S. was not
supposed to be by the coach's room.
After the winter break confrontation, Mr. Piparo claimed that he avoided
D.S.; that he "purposely put [his] head down and walked] the other way in the
hallway even if it took [him] out of the way." He testified that he did not have lunch
supervisor who allowed it to continue to —did not do anything about it, principal, vice principal,
superintendent, and like I said there are certain things in there that me if I was an administrator,
think the police would need to be involved. So obviously that never happened."
16 Mr. Piparo testified that he became close with L.S. because L.S. allegedly organized a group of
parents to demand to the superintendent that he keep Mr. Piparo as Lodi High School's wrestling
staff.
" Mr. Piparo was purposefully unclear during his testimony regarding his relationship with L.S. He
first testified that they were merely close friends, then conceded that it was a personal relationship
with limits, then conceded that it was romantic, and finally admitted that were some touching, but
that it was not sexual.
23

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
duty when D.S. had lunch and denied ever seeing D.S. during lunch. In fact, he
stated that he left the building during D.S.'s lunch because he had lunch break; yet
did not recall his schedule during the 2012-2013 school year.
When confronted with the text messages, which were sent during class
time, Mr. Piparo denied that he ever texted during class; however, because the
messages were not being sent during his breaks or non-work hours, "he pushed
the send button during class time". (Exhibit P-50). He later admitted in the face of
that evidence, that he did send quick messages during class, but he was never
disciplined for it, nor were other teachers. He later changed his testimony yet
again, claiming that due to the lack of Internet connection during breaks, his text
messages sent automatically once he was within the radius of the school Internet
connection during class time. Mr. Piparo did not recall seeing the school's cell
phone use policy. (Exhibit P-47).
Mr. Piparo stated that he produced text messages between him and L.S. to
defend himself against the restraining order and that it cost him about five
thousand dollars to produce the text messages and that he "usually would try to
delete [his text messages] no matter who [the messages] were from . . . ." Mr.
Piparo claimed that he no longer deletes his text messages and admitted that the
text messages in Exhibit P-50 were from his phone number.18 During cross-
examination, Mr. Piparo said that many of the derogatory and sexually-offensive
statements about D.S. in the text messages were what L.S. told him. (Exhibit P-
24; P-25; P-26; P-27). Mr. Piparo admitted that such statements were
inappropriate for a teacher to make about a student.
Next, Mr. Piparo was questioned about the text messages that used a
homophobic slur and racially derogatory slurs against Hispanic individuals and
'$ As a side note, Mr. Piparo repeatedly and extensively testified under oath that he was not sure
whether the text messages in P-50 were the actual text messages he produced. He testified that
the Lodi attorneys produced it for the tenure hearing. He later testified that he believed that the
text messages were doctored.
24

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
African Americans. (Exhibit P-29; P-30; P-31; P-39; P-40). Mr. Piparo conceded
that the Hispanic racial slur referred to a coach, and that he used the slur because
that was how L.S. referred to the coach. Mr. Piparo followed up by stating that he
is part Spanish, and his wife and children are Spanish. Mr. Piparo later testified
that most of his text messages to L.S. were lies; however, he also testified that he
did "not at all" lie very often. Mr. Piparo repeatedly claimed that many of the
unprofessional actions described in his text messages to L.S. were lies to appease
her. Mr. Piparo claimed that the text messages which threatened violence or
alluded to violence were merely him venting to L.S., and not something he was
going to follow through with. (Exhibit P-28; P-32). Mr. Piparo knew how to block
phone numbers but did not block L.S.'s number and that he did not believe that his
text messages would become public information, and that they were merely private
communications. Mr. Piparo later admitted that he showed the text messages
between him and L.S. to unnamed individuals after work.
Mr. Piparo denied ever cursing at Mr. D'Amico "because I would have had
a write up . . . I would be fired right on the spot, no tenure charges . . .Obviously
that didn't happen." Mr. Piparo claimed he did not believe his text messages about
his coworkers were an inappropriate way to treat a coworker because he did not
do anything: "I don't see anything wrong about talking [about] them in text, . . .
didn't do anything about it." (Exhibit P-34). Mr. Piparo also denied starting verbal
altercations with Mr. Turrico or Mr. Maggio. He unconvincingly claimed that he did
not respond when Mr. Turrico and Mr. Maggio allegedly started a verbal altercation
with him. He did not recall whether he told his psychiatrist that he used ethnic slurs
and alluded to violence in his text messages.
Mr. Piparo confirmed that L.S. filed for a temporary restraining order on May
29, 2013, for harassment, which ultimately became a final restraining order against
Mr. Piparo on September 20, 2013, for L.S., D.S., and L.S.'s daughter. Mr. Piparo
did not return to teach after the restraining order or the tenure charges. He denied
ever threatening violence against staff members or having presented himself in an
25

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
unprofessional manner contrary to all of the witness accounts delineated above
and at hearing. Mr. Piparo first claimed that he was never disciplined or written up
prior to the tenure charges in 2013, yet later conceded that his administrative leave
in 2013 would be considered disciplinary in nature. Mr. Piparo was emphatic and
testified at length that he believed the tenure charges were motivated by politics.
Finally, he explained that he was shocked at the complete fabrication of throwing
a printer in someone's face; that the accusation itself was "just shocking". He also
made some unfounded claims that the Final Restraining Order was only issued
because of a romantic relationship that L.S. had with his son's girlfriend's father.
Mr. Piparo's testimony was not at all credible. He defended most of the
allegations by feigned ignorance, the absence of additional discipline by the District
or outright denials. It goes without saying that he has the most self-interest in this
matter as his teaching and supervisory certificates are the only ones at stake in
this matter. His complete lack of accountability or any expression of remorse for
the myriad of missteps as outlined in the Order to Show Cause and the credible
witness testimony above, makes his account that much more unreliable. As a
result, I gave his testimony very little weight in terms of truth, however he does
corroborate the sequence of events and much of the written word in the exhibits
which he could not dispute. What is notably absent is any reasonable explanation
for his conduct at school, with other school personnel and with his students and
athletes. As a result, I cannot give his testimony almost any weight as to
truthfulness, and thus I so FIND.
WITNESS CREDIBILITY
In evaluating the evidence, the trier of fact must assess and weigh the
credibility of the witnesses for purposes of making factual findings as to the
disputed facts. Credibility is the value that a finder of fact gives to a witness's
testimony. It requires an overall assessment of the witness's story in light of its
rationality, its internal consistency, and the manner in which it "hangs together"
26

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
with the other evidence. Carbo v. U.S., 314 F.2d 718, 749 (9th Cir. 1963).
"Testimony to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness but must be credible in itself' in that "[i]t must be such as the common
experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable in the
circumstances." In re Perrone, 5 N.J. 514, 522 (1950). A fact finder "is free to
weigh the evidence and to reject the testimony of a witness . . .when it is contrary
to circumstances given in evidence or contains inherent improbabilities or
contradictions which alone or in connection with other circumstances in evidence
excite suspicion as to its truth." Id. at 521-22. See D'Amato by McPherson v.
D'Amato, 305 N.J. Super. 109, 115 (App. Div. 1997).
Many witnesses testified. I have omitted much of that testimony as it is
personal and potentially embarrassing to many. Instead, I have highlighted the
most relevant testimony that helped me make my findings of fact and conclusions
of law in this matter. The transcripts are detailed and explicit as are the exhibits
that corroborate the credible and oftentimes tortured testimony in this matter. In
this case the sheer volume and the racist and threatening language of the texts
paint a picture of a teacher who refused to take accountability for anything at his
job or in his relationships, and who was unrelenting in his pursuits of the women,
inappropriate with the student in question and racist and insubordinate with his co-
workers. Most of this behavior occurred during the school day or during school-
sponsored activities, and thus I so FIND.
Because the Order to Show Cause referred to events from 2007, and some
witnesses testified to events from as early as 2005, understandably, some
witnesses were not able to recall exact dates or years when they testified in 2017,
2018, 2019, or 2021. Some testimonies had minor inconsistencies with each other;
such as D.S.'s recollection of the winter break confrontation being slightly different
from Mr. Maggio's.
2~

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
Compared to other witnesses, Ms. Grant, who was testifying to the events
in 2005 and 2007, appeared to have the weakest grasp of the timeline. However,
Ms. Grant convinced me that she was attempting to suppress her memories of
those years as a result of her relationship with Mr. Piparo as they were harrowing
and embarrassing. L.S. was even more remorseful about her relationship with Mr.
Piparo as she credibly admitted to victimizing D.S. and in her opinion, ruining his
life as his mother. Mr. Maggio was also remorseful about doctoring a photo,
omitting Mr. Piparo from the wrestling team photo. He was honest about the
decision he made and testified that he was not proud. Ms. Grant did appear to be
irritated, but none of the witnesses presented themselves as overtly hostile
towards Mr. Piparo, despite their complex relationships in the past.
Conversely, Mr. Piparo was inconsistent with his own testimony throughout.
He changed his testimony and would not concede almost anything, such as his
relationship with L.S., letters to Ms. Grant, and whether he texted during class. Mr.
Piparo mischaracterized other witnesses' testimonies and/or accused the other
witnesses of perjury.19 In contrast to other witnesses whose teaching certificates
were not at risk and whose behavior was not being directly questioned, Mr. Piparo
was not remorseful. Mr. Piparo put blame on other people, including other
witnesses and those who were not called as witnesses, during his testimony. He,
essentially, believed he was a victim of Lodi residents' politically-motivated attack
to tarnish his reputation and that if the District had not reprimanded him for any of
the allegations, that was proof that they did not occur.
Mr. Piparo's behavior toward his student D.S. was reprehensible and totally
inappropriate, particularly for someone who was his teacher and coach and who
stood in a position of trust and respect. His behavior was so egregious with regard
to the student and his mother that a Final Restraining Order was issued, and we had
to conduct the hearing with the student and mother separated from Mr. Piparo. He
19 Ms. Grant testified that Mr. Piparo shoved a printer in her classroom; Mr. Piparo testified that he
was accused of throwing a printer at her face in the classroom. Mr. Piparo accused Mr. D'Amico of
lying under oath when Mr. Piparo was informed that he testified Mr. Piparo cussed at him.
28

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
would lurk in the lunchroom, disparage him in hundreds of texts to his mother, spread
rumors about D.S., cause his schedule to be changed, and cause him overall grief
and despair without ever showing a scintilla of remorse.
His behavior with Ms. Grant, a fellow teacher was also reprehensible as he
was aggressive with her during class, shoved a printer across the room in front of her
special education students. In fact, he sought to involve them in his quest to date
her which was uninvited at the time even though they had carried on a previous
consensual relationship. He left notes on her car, made uninvited phone calls and
in-person visits. The school had to intervene to create an atmosphere and a
Performance Improvement Plan for Mr. Piparo so that he would not have contact with
Ms. Grant while they were in the school building. As he did not comply, Ms. Grant
was instructed to keep a contemporaneous journal of Mr. Piparo's continued violation
of the distance outlined in the initial directive and later in the Performance
Improvement Plan.
In short, Mr. Piparo's interactions with D.S., L.S., Ms. Grant, Ms. Grant's
students, his students, his co-workers, and Principals were totally inappropriate and
crossed the permissible line of his duties as a teacher and coach. As a result, not
only did the courts get involved for the protection of D.S.'s family, but the school had
to as a result of his unwelcome advances toward Ms. Grant after she ended the
relationship, which resulted in a performance improvement plan. In addition, he lost
his tenure rights.
Piparo exhibited extremely poor judgment by becoming an active participant
in a personal relationship with co-workers, especially the married parent of his
student and star wrestler. When D.S. found out about Piparo's involvement with his
mother and showed anguish, the outrageous behavior exhibited by an experienced
teacher such as Piparo cannot be countenanced. As a teacher, Mr. Piparo occupied
a position demanding public trust and was held to a higher standard of conduct. He
was required to exhibit exemplary behavior and mature self-control. He was to
29

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
uphold an image of utmost trust. Instead, his actions were inappropriate,
irresponsible, and unprofessional. Piparo's reprehensible conduct represented a
significant departure from what the public is to expect from those who teach their
children.
Additionally, I FIND that after this all came to light and his co-workers and
superiors found out about his inappropriate behavior with L.S., D.S. Mr. Grant,
students who witnessed it, texting throughout his classes, etc.... that he retaliated
against those who told him to stop his continued campaign to discredit others. In
response he made inappropriate and aggressive verbal comments to those
individuals in the hallways during school hours and in front of other students.
As noted above, Mr. Piparo's behavior was not confined to a single incident
but evolved into a pattern which continued with several different co-workers and
unfortunately affected many students, notably D.S. The young man who testified
was crushed by Mr. Piparo's behavior in that not only did he personally "ruin his life"
he felt he ruined his experience in high school and wrestling. He also placed himself
in the middle of the winter-break altercation when he knew the student was
understandably upset in the locker room/coach's office. Mr. Piparo knew that D.S.
would be there as evidenced by his texts from his mother L.S. the night before and
was advised by the Head Coach not to be at practice to prevent any conflict. This
wholly conflicts with Piparo's testimony that he was trying to avoid L.S. because he
knew that he was upset and could start an altercation. In fact, he accused L.S. of
lying about the affair on Christmas when Mr. Piparo found it necessary to "get in front
it" before news of the affair came to light. Considering the high standard of conduct
expected from those entrusted with the care and custody of children, I FIND that Mr.
Piparo's conduct was so unbecoming and flagrant to warrant the revocation of his
certificates for teacher, as well as any other teaching or supervisory certificates he
holds.
30

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
Based upon these principles, I FIND that the witnesses who testified for the
Board were deemed extremely credible and forthright. Each was compelling and
straightforward, and many were downright emotional due to the extreme stress
and effect that their interactions with Piparo caused. Even so, I am not persuaded
that they harbored a motive or bias to fabricate their testimony. Similarly, I am not
persuaded by respondent's efforts to deny that all of this did not happen or was
manufactured against him for political reasons within the town.
On balance, Piparo has by far the greater stake in the outcome of this
proceeding since the revocation or suspension of his certificates is involved. For
all of these reasons, I FIND that Piparo's testimony was entirely lacking in
credibility.
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon a review of the totality of the evidence, and having had the
opportunity to listen to the testimony, observe the demeanor of the witnesses who
testified and assess their credibility, I FIND the following additional FACTS:
1. Piparo Refused to testify truthfully even when presented with documents at
hearing.
2. Piparo's relationships with L.S. and Ms. Grant were conducted via text and
oftentimes in-person during school hours.
3. Piparo's affair with L.S. affected D.S. as well as his entire family resulting in a
Final Restraining Order and necessitating aschool-schedule change for D.S.
This Final Restraining Order was upheld by the Appellate Division.
4. Piparo's unwanted advances toward Ms. Grant after she discontinued the
relationship led to the Performance Improvement Plan.
5. Mr. Piparo violated the Performance Improvement Plan issued by the school
after an investigation with an LEA representative, numerous times by going
31

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
into Ms. Grant's classroom, involving Ms. Grant's students in an attempt to
rekindle that relationship.
6. Mr. Piparo interrupted school business by going into Ms. Grant's classroom
and shoving the printer in front of her special education students whom he
asked and used to get messages to Ms. Grant due to his frustration at being
rebuffed by her.
7. Mr. Piparo left multiple notes on Ms. Grant's windshield in the parking lot
where students could and did see.
8. Mr. Piparo's relationship with L.S. (D.S.'s mom) escalated to the point where
a Final Restraining Order needed to issue.
9. Mr. Piparo interrupted the school day repeated by pestering his co-workers
and supervisors because he was unsatisfied with the Performance
Improvement Plan, his being made a scout rather than an assistant coach on
the wresting team, using racial slurs and threatening comments regarding his
co-workers and others during the school day and school events.
10. Mr. Piparo pushed and shoved Ms. Grant during arguments they had in school
during school hours.
11. Mr. Piparo's repeated advances that led to the Performance Improvement
Plan forced Ms. Grant to get several members of the staff and administration
involved to get the behaviors to stop. This interrupted the school day for all
involved. Ms. Grant had to keep a journal memorializing all of his infractions.
12. Mr. Piparo failed to appear at his scheduled psychological examination.
13. Ms. Fragala's LEA investigation properly led to the conclusion that Mr. Piparo
was bothering Ms. Grant during school hours and led to an appropriate
Performance Improvement Plan with directives to prohibit both parties from
certain areas of the school.
14. This investigation caused at least 8 students to be interviewed who rightly
confirmed that Mr. Piparo attempted to dispel rumors of his relationship with
Mr. Grant during his history class where Mr. Piparo not only denied their
accounts but said it was part of his history lesson.
32

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
15. Mr. Piparo appeared in the Head Coach's Office on December 26, 2012,
knowing from L.S. that her son D.S. was extremely upset. It was "unusual"
for Mr. Piparo to be there, and he had his feet on Mr. Maggio's desk in an
effort to confront a knowingly distraught and understandably angry D.S., his
student and athlete.
16. Mr. Piparo "lurked" over D.S. during his lunch period after his superiors told
him not to. This is confirmed by D.S. and witnessed by Mr. Maggio.
17. Mr. Piparo did not admit to any of his behaviors or give any reasonable
explanation for his actions with any of the affected parties.
18. P-50 shows that Piparo's 30,000 texts to L.S. and others and were conducted
during school hours and Mr. Piparo was texting as witnessed by his students.
19. Mr. Piparo received and signed for the cell phone policy prohibiting excessive
texting during school hours notably during classroom hours.
20. Mr. Piparo used harassing language against D.S.
21. Mr. Piparo made inappropriate statements against Lodi staff, including racial
slurs, and threatening language.
22. Mr. Piparo threatened violence against student D.S.'s father.
23. Mr. Piparo used offensive language to school administrators exhibiting
contempt for them.
24. Mr. Piparo failed to appear for a mandated psychological exam ordered by the
Lodi Board of Education.
25. Mr. Piparo violated his Performance Improvement Plan by continuing to
harass the parent of a student and his co-workers who were no longer
romantically interested, causing one to involve the school and the police and
the other to secure an FRO.
26. Mr. Piparo received and signed receipt of the school ethics policy regarding
cell phone usage.
33

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
LEGAL DISCUSSION
Certificate Suspension and Revocation
The Board is entrusted with the issuance and revocation of certificates to
teach in public schools under the rules and regulations prescribed by the State
Board. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38. The Commissioner can transmit a case to the Board
involving "a teaching staff member's loss of tenure, dismissal, resignation, or
retirement." N.J.A.C. 6A:9-17.6(a)(1). The regulations direct the Board to issue
an order to show cause to a certificate holder if the Board believes that the holder's
conduct warrants revocation or suspension of their certificates. N.J.A.C. 6A:9-
17.7(a). Following receipt of information from a district pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9-
17.4, "[t]he Board of Examiners may issue an order to show cause to a certificate
holder if the Board of Examiners believes that the conduct of the holder may
warrant the revocation or suspension of the certificates) held . . . ." N.J.A.C. 6A:9-
17.6(a)2. The Board of Examiners must determine by public vote whether to
initiate a revocation or suspension proceeding and, should the Board of Examiners
move for revocation or suspension, an order to show cause shall be issued.
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.4 allows the Board to revoke or suspend teaching
certificates for "demonstrated inefficiency, incapacity, conduct unbecoming a
teacher, or other just cause." Ibid. Other just cause can include situations
involving forfeiture, disqualification, or when the certificate holder does not meet
the qualifications for the certificate. Id.; N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-5.1(b).
The Board of Examiners bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance
of the credible evidence, that the certificate holder is guilty as charged. In re
Certificate of Papadaniil, EDE 8821-00, Initial Decision (March 13, 2002), adopted,
State Bd. of Exam'rs (May 9, 2002) http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/; see In
re Polk, 90 N.J. 550 (1982); Atkinson v. Parsekian, 37 N.J. 143 (1962). The
34

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
hearing permits a respondent "to demonstrate facts or circumstances that might
counter the charges" in the OSC. State Bd. of Exam'rs v. Brown, 91 N.J.A.R.2d
(EDE) 5, 7. Further, the respondent can present mitigating circumstances toward
the appropriateness of the licensing sanction, if any. In re Certificates of
Mantone, 96 N.J.A.R.2d (EDE) 5, 6. However, a contested hearing is not for
Piparo to show rehabilitation or that he "currently enjoys the ability to teach." In re
Certificate of Jackson, 96 N.J.A.R.2d (EDE) 1, 4.; Cf. N.J.A.C. 6A:9-17.10(b)(3)
(an application for certification after revocation must include evidence
demonstrating rehabilitation for the unbecoming conduct, incompetence, or other
cause for the revocation) (emphasis added).
The Board maintains that Piparo exhibited "conduct unbecoming a teacher"
as outlined above in the Statement of the Case which notes in pertinent part
paragraphs 4-7. (P-1) Unbecoming conduct is not specifically defined in New
Jersey's statutes or regulations, and represents an elastic standard used for a
variety of conduct. See, te .c ., In re Fulcomer, 93 N.J. Super 404 (App. Div. 1967).
Generally, however, unbecoming conduct encompasses conduct that adversely
affects the morale or efficiency of a governmental unit or tends to destroy respect
in the delivery of government services. Karins v. City of Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532,
554 (1988); In re Emmons, 63 NJ. Super. 136, 140 (App. Div. 1960). Such
misconduct need not necessarily "be predicated upon the violation of any particular
rule or regulation but 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." Hartmann v. Police
Dept of Ridgewood, 258 N.J. Super. 32, 40 (App. Div. 1992) (quoting Asbury Park
v. Dept of Civil Serv., 17 N.J. 419, 429 (1955)). Further, unfitness to teach may be
shown by one incident, if sufficiently flagrant. Redcay v. State Bd. of Educ., 130
N.J.L. 369, 371 (Sup. Ct. 1943), aff'd 131 N.J.L. 326 (E&A 1944).
To be sure, "teachers are held to a high standard of conduct because of the
influence they exercise over [their] students." State Bd. of Exam'rs v. Charlton, 96
35

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
N.J.A.R.2d (EDE) 18, 21. Due to that influence, teachers "must exhibit a high
degree of exemplary behavior." In re Tyler, 13 N.J.A.R. 297, 308. Teachers "must
comport themselves as models for young minds to emulate" and maintain a
"dedication to civility and respect for people as human beings." In re Tenure Beam,
1 973 S.L.D. 157, 163. Even though teachers face the "same emotional stresses
as all other persons, their particular relationship to children imposes upon them a
special responsibility for exemplary restraint and mature self-control." In re Tenure
of Ostergren, 1 966 S.L.D. 185, 186 (citation omitted). In other words:
[Teachers] are professional employees to whom the
people have entrusted the care and custody of tens of
thousands of school children with the hope that this
trust will result in the maximum educational growth and
development of each individual child. This heavy duty
requires a degree of self-restraint and controlled
behavior rarely requisite to other types of employment.
As one of the most dominant and influential forces in
the lives of the children, who are compelled to attend
the public schools, the teacher is an enormous force
for improving the public weal. Those who teach do so
by choice, and in this respect the teaching profession
is more than a simple job; it is a calling.
[In re Tenure of Sammons, 1 972 S.L.D. 302, 321.]
Conduct unbecoming a teacher includes a broad range of behavior that
impacts a teacher's ability to perform his duties or otherwise renders him unfit to
have the responsibility for the care of children. See Charlton, su ra; In the Matter
of the Certificate of John Fargo, 91 N.J.A.R. 2d (EDE) 1. Although "conduct
unbecoming" a teacher or other public employee is not defined in the statutes or
regulations, 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
36

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
the operation of [public] services."' In re Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136, 140 (App.
Div. 1960) (citation omitted). The touchstone of the charge is a teacher's fitness
to discharge the duties and functions of his position. See Laba v. Newark Board
of Education, 23 N.J. 364, 385-388 (1957). Unfitness to hold a position in a school
system may be demonstrated by a series of incidents or a single incident if
sufficiently flagrant. Redcay v. State Board of Education, 130 N.J.L. 369, 371
(Sup. Ct. 1943), affil 131 N.J.L. 326 (E & A 1944).
While Piparo testified that he felt targeted by the District and was confronted
by D.S. after his life was turned upside down by his teacher and mother, and that
Ms. Grant his co-worker was exaggerating/lying, he should have restrained his
reactions to the situations that he created appropriately rather than engage in his
egregious, continuing conduct with the co-worker who rebuffed his romantic
gestures after ending their romantic relationship. Further, he should not have been
in the locker room during holiday break for wrestling practice knowing that D.S.
learned of Piparo's relationship with his mother and knowing that he was
devastated and angry and told by other school personnel and D.S.'s mother not
to be present for fear of escalation. In addition, he should not have shown outward
contempt to his co-workers after all of the above came to light, boldly violating his
performance improvement plan, harassing the student, D.S., who eventually had
a Final Restraining Order granted for him and his mother as well as the above-
outlined unsavory conduct outlined above and en the corresponding exhibits. Thus,
CONCLUDE that Piparo's actions as outlined in the Order To Show Cause
constitute conduct unbecoming a teacher, as well as other just cause and the
Board's charges are sustained.
Penalty
The Board urges revocation, and I agree. The Board cites Final Agency
Decisions where inappropriate statements toward their fellow staff members
warranted revocation. Mazzerella, Ciripompa, Halloway. All of which warranted
37

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
revocation due to such behavior and none of those cases rose required police
involvement as Mr. Piparo's continued behavior did here. Piparo's continued
harassment and anger toward co-workers, administrators, parents and students
through offensive, racist, homophobic and distasteful comments showed that Mr.
Piparo failed to meet the standard of certificate holders as role models.
Further, the State's argument that lack of restraint warrants revocation of
certifications to teach resonates with me and applies here. The continued
harassment of D.S. by Mr. Piparo, both in school and through the unrelenting texts
to his mother, also show his unfitness to teach. "While teachers are sensitive to
the same emotional stresses as all other persons, their particular relationship to
children imposes upon them a special responsibility for exemplary restraint and
mature self-control." In the Matter of the Tenure Hearing of Frederick L. Osergren,
1966 S.L.D. 185, 186.
Inappropriate conduct between a teacher and students entrusted to the
teacher's care has been found to be a sufficient basis to warrant suspension or
revocation of a teacher's certificate. See In the Matter of the Certificates of Ernest
Chavez, EDE 11443-03, State Bd. of Education (April 9, 2007)
«http://lawlibrary.rutges.edu/oal/search.html» (suspending certificate for two
years for unbecoming conduct where teacher engaged in inappropriate horseplay
by putting ice down the blouse of a female student and making inappropriate
comments to another student); In the Matter of the Certificates of Michael Nieves,
EDE 3867-04, Initial Decision, (November 10, 2005), adopted, State Bd. of
Examiners (March 8, 2006), aff'd, State Bd. of Education (December 6, 2006),
aff'd, A-2627-06T3 (App. Div. April 7, 2008)
«http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/search.html» (revoking certificates where
teacher had sent suggestive notes to an eighth grade student, including a note
asking to "hang out" with the student during a school holiday when he said they
could get together without anyone knowing); In the Matter of the Certificates of
Areana Resto, EDE 3869-04, Initial Decision, (August 10, 2005), adopted, State
~t

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
Bd. of Examiners (October 31, 2005)
«http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/search.html» (suspending certificate for two
years where teacher had, among other actions, given her cell phone number to a
student and exchanged personal text messages with the student over the course
of a month and a half); In the Matter of the Certificates of Corev Younger, EDE
3111-03, Initial Decision, (December 6, 2004), modified, State Bd. of Examiners
(March 7, 2005), aff'd, State Bd. of Education (January 6, 2006), aff'd, A-2800-
05T3 (App. Div. November 15, 2006)
«http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/search.html» (Board of Examiners concluded
that teacher "exercised poor judgment in allowing female students to remain in his
hotel room for a substantial period of time, regardless of what behavior occurred"
during a track meet while he was an assistant track coach, and the teacher
engaged in conduct unbecoming a teacher which warranted a two year suspension
of his certificates); In the Matter of the Certificate of Daniel Papdaniil, supra
(teaching certificate revoked predicated on a teacher's sexual relationship with a
student); In the Matter of the Certificates of Robert Mantone, 96 N.J.A.R. 2d (EDE)
5 (certificates revoked stemming from "inappropriate overtures" toward two female
students which included, among other things, the teacher writing unsolicited notes
and commenting about the student's physical attractiveness); In the Matter of the
Certificate of John Fargo, (teaching certificate revoked based upon the teacher's
sexual and emotional abusive behavior toward his classified students).
The behavior by Piparo toward D.S., his student and athlete were
reprehensible and totally inappropriate, particularly for someone who was his teacher
and coach and who stood in a position of trust and respect. His behavior was so
egregious with regard to the student and his mother that a Final Restraining Order
was issued, and I had to conduct the hearing with the student and mother separated
from Mr. Piparo in order not to run afoul of that order.
His behavior with teacher Ms. Grant was also reprehensible as he was
unrelenting in his pursuits after she ended the relationship, became aggressive with
39

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
at school and during her class, shoving a printer across the room in front of her
special education students. In fact, he sought to involve them in his quest to date
her which was uninvited at the time even though they had carried on a previous
consensual extramarital relationship. This included notes on her car, uninvited phone
and in-person visits. The school had to intervene to create an atmosphere and a
Performance Improvement Plan for Piparo so that he would not have contact with
Ms. Grant while they were in the school building, and he violated that plan.
In short, Piparo's interactions with D.S., L.S., Ms. Grant, and the witnesses
that testified above were totally inappropriate and crossed the permissible line of his
duties as a teacher. As a result, not only did the courts get involved for the protection
of L.S., D.S. and her family, but the school in the relationship with Ms. Grant. In
addition, he lost his tenure rights and violated the Performance Improvement Plan by
engaging with Ms. Grant during class and lurking near D.S. during his lunch period.
He also became extremely agitated with co-workers and verbally attacked them
when they did not believe his version of events which were a complete denial of all
of the credible corroborated testimony above.
Piparo exhibited extremely poor judgment by becoming an active participant
in a personal relationship with a parent of a student/athlete. When the student found
out about Piparo's involvement with his mother and showed anguish to Mr. Piparo,
his continued poor judgment with that student by an experienced teacher such as
Piparo as outlined above cannot be countenanced. As a teacher, Piparo occupied a
position demanding public trust and was held to a higher standard of conduct. He
was required to exhibit exemplary behavior and mature self-control. He was to
uphold an image of utmost trust. Instead, his actions were inappropriate,
irresponsible and unprofessional. Piparo's reprehensible conduct represented a
significant departure from what the public is to expect from those who teach their
children.
40

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
Piparo's behavior was not confined to a single incident but evolved into a
pattern of continuing harassment of two different co-workers, altercations with other
co-workers and supervisors who attempted to correct or stop the behavior and
unfortunately affected several students notably D.S. The young man who testified
was crushed by Piparo's behavior in that not only did he personally "ruin his life" he
felt. he ruined his experience in high school and wrestling. He also had what
consider to be an avoidable physical altercation when the student was
understandably upset in the locker room/coach's office. This conflicts with Piparo's
unbelievable testimony that he was trying to avoid D.S. because he knew that he
was upset and could start an altercation. Mr. Piparo denied all of the credible
evidence presented in this case and took zero accountability for any of it and accused
others of lying and even perjury. Considering the high standard of conduct expected
from those entrusted with the care and custody of children, I CONCLUDE that Piparo
engaged in conduct unbecoming a teacher. I FURTHER CONCLUDE that his
unbecoming conduct was so unrelenting, wide-ranging and flagrant as to warrant
the revocation of his teaching certificates.
Based upon the foregoing, I ORDER that respondent's teaching
certificates) be and is hereby REVOKED.
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. 52:146-10.
41

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
42

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
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.
February 20, 2024
DATE
Date Received at Agency:
Date E-Mailed to Parties:
Ir
43
~ ~-~
DANIELLE PASQUALE, ALJ
February 20, 2024
February 20, 2024

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
A ~~CAII'l1Y
Witnesses
For Petitioner:
L.S., mother of student D.S.
Melissa Grant-Terhune, teacher at Lodi High School
D.S., student/athlete of Mr. Piparo's
Joan Fragala, Vice Principal of Lodi High School from 2006-2012
Mark Maggio, teacher and Head Wrestling Coach from 2012-2016
Frank D'Amico, Principal of Lodi High School starting in July 2012
For Respondent:
Mr. Joseph Piparo, Respondent and former teacher and assistant wrestling
coach Lodi High School
EXHIBITS
For Petitioner:
P-1 July 15, 2015 Orderto Show Cause
P-2 August 26, 2014 Statement of Tenure Charges
P-3 Melissa Grant Terhune's Handwritten Log, dated 2007
P-4 Two handwritten notes to Melissa Grant Terhune from Respondent
P-5 Handwritten letter to Melissa Grant Terhune from Respondent
P-6 Handwritten letter to Melissa Grant Terhune from Respondent
P-7 Handwritten letter to Melissa Grant Terhune from Respondent
P-8 Lodi Police Records-Harassment Complaint filed by Melissa Grant against
Respondent
P-9 Oct. 22, 2007, letter from Principal Fragala to Respondent
44

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
P-10 Jan 25, 2008 letter from Principal Fragala to Respondent
P-11 Oct. 25, 2007 letter from Lodi Police Department to Superintendent
Quatrone regarding Respondent (not admitted into evidence)
P-12 12/25/12 text message regarding D.S.
P-13 12/27/12 text messages regarding D.S.
P-14 1/3/13 text messages regarding D.S.
P-15 1/4/13 text messages regarding D.S.
P-16 1/5/13 text messages regarding D.S.
P-17 1/6/13 text messages regarding D.S.
P-18 1/10/13 text messages regarding D.S.
P-19 1/11/13 text messages regarding D.S.
P-20 1/22/13 text messages regarding D.S.
P-21 2/23/13 text messages regarding D.S.
P-22 2/26/13 text messages regarding D.S.
P-23 2/26/13 text messages regarding D.S.
P-24 3/23/13 text messages regarding D.S.
P-25 3/24/13 text messages regarding D.S.
P-26 5/5/13 text messages regarding D.S.
P-27 5/7/13 text messages regarding D.S.
P-28 12/19/12 text messages regarding Lodi staff
P-29 12/26/12 text messages regarding D.S./Lodi staff
P-30 12/27/12 text messages regarding D.S./Lodi staff
P-31 12/28/12 txt messages regarding Lodi staff
P-32 2/20/13 text messages regarding Lodi staff
P-33 3/4/13 text message regarding Lodi administrators
P-34 4/1/13 text messages regarding Lodi staff
P-35 4/4/13 text message regarding Lodi staff
P-36 4/11/13 text messages regarding D.S./Lodi staff
P-37 4/22/13 text messages regarding Lodi administrators
P-38 4/24/13 text messages regarding Lodi staff and administrators
P-39 4/25/13 text messages regarding Lodi staff/students
45

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
P-40 4/27/13 text messages regarding D.S./Lodi staff
P-41 5/1/13 text messages regarding Lodi administrators
P-42 5/10/13 text messages regarding Lodi staff
P-43 5/21/13 text messages regarding Lodi staff and administrators
P-44 9/20/13 FRO issued against Respondent with regard to L.S., D.S. and L.S.'s
daughter, N.S.
P-45 May 19, 2017 Appellate Division Opinion affirming the FRO issued against
Respondent on the grounds of harassment
P-46 District "Code of Ethics"
P-47 District Policy on Use of Cellular Phones
P-48 Respondent's schedule 2012-13
P-49 Lodi High School Bell Schedule
P-50 Text messages allegedly sent during assigned class times to L.S. and
coworkers amounting to approximately 31,000 texts.
P-51 Lodi High School Calendar 2012-13
P-52 (not admitted into evidence-for identification purposes only)
P-53 11/4/13 letter from Superintendent Quatrone notifying Respondent that he
is to undergo psychiatric examination
P-54 Board resolutions ordering Respondent to undergo psychiatric examination
and appointing Dr. Harvey Hammer as Board appointed physician
P-55 (not admitted into evidence)
P-56 Excerpt from trial transcript (pp. 109-110)
P-57 Undated letter to Superintendent Quatrone
P-58 10/26/07 Memorandum from G. Longo, Department Supervisor to Joan
Fragala
P-59 D.S.'s schedule
P-60 Envelope/Melissa Grant's Name
P-61 Back of Envelope with Melissa Grant's Name
46

OAL DKT. NO. EDE 01620-16
For Respondent:
R-1 Mr. Piparo's letter to Ms. Fragala 9/14/07
R-2 L.S.'s TRO dated May 29, 2013 (to be provided by Mr. Brucki for ID
purposes only-no objection)
47

Reyes, Elisa [OAL]
From: Microsoft Outlook
To: State Board of Examiners (Education)
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 1:11 PM
Subject: Relayed: RE: Judge Pasquale's Initial Decision for EDE 01620-16 IMO Certificates) of
Joseph C. Piparo
Delivery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification was sent by the
destination server:
State Board of Examiners (Education) (stateboardofexaminersCa~doe.nj,gov~.
Subject: RE: Judge Pasquale's Initial Decision for EDE 01620-16 IMO Certificates) of Joseph C. Piparo
1

Reyes, Elisa [OAL]
From: Microsoft Outlook
To: Laurie Fichera; Rani Singh
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 1:11 PM
Subject: Relayed: RE: Judge Pasquale's Initial Decision for EDE 01620-16 IMO Certificates) of
Joseph C. Piparo
Delivery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification was sent by the
destination server:
Laurie Fichera (Laurie.Fichera@doe.n~gov~
Rani Singh (Rani.Singh@doe.nj.gov~
Subject: RE: Judge Pasquale's Initial Decision for EDE 01620-16 IMO Certificates) of Joseph C. Piparo
1

Reyes, Elisa [OAL]
From: Microsoft Outlook
To: Candice Hendricks
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 1:12 PM
Subject: Delivered: RE: Judge Pasquale's Initial Decision for EDE 01620-16 IMO Certificates) of
Joseph C. Piparo
Your message has been delivered to the following recipients:
Candice Hendricks (Candice.HendricksCa~oal.nj.gov~
Subject: RE: Judge Pasquale's Initial Decision for EDE 01620-16 IMO Certificates) of Joseph C. Piparo

Reyes, Elisa [OAL]
From: Microsoft Outlook
To: Rick Keiser
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 1:12 PM
Subject: Delivered: RE: Judge Pasquale's Initial Decision for EDE 01620-16 IMO Certificates) of
Joseph C. Piparo
Your message has been delivered to the following recipients:
Rick Keiser (rick.keiser@oal.n~gov~
Subject: RE: Judge Pasquale's Initial Decision for EDE 01620-16 IMO Certificates) of Joseph C. Piparo

Reyes, Elisa [OAL]
From: Microsoft Outlook
To: oal decisions [OAL]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 1:12 PM
Subject: Delivered: RE: Judge Pasquale's Initial Decision for EDE 01620-16 IMO Certificates) of
Joseph C. Piparo
Your message has been delivered to the following recipients:
oal decisions jOAL] (oaldecisions@oal.nj^gov)
Subject: RE: Judge Pasquale's Initial Decision for EDE 01620-16 IMO Certificates) of Joseph C. Piparo

Reyes, Elisa [OAL]
From: Microsoft Outlook
To: Michael G. Brucki
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 1:15 PM
Subject: Relayed: RE: Judge Pasquale's Initial Decision for EDE 01620-16 IMO Certificates) of
Joseph C. Piparo
Delivery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification was sent by the
destination server:
Michael G. Brucki (office@bruckilaw.com~
Subject: RE: Judge Pasquale's Initial Decision for EDE 01620-16 IMO Certificates) of Joseph C. Piparo

Reyes, Elisa [OAL]
From: Microsoft Outlook
To: Klika, Colin (LPS)
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 1:15 PM
Subject: Relayed: RE: Judge Pasquale's Initial Decision for EDE 01620-16 IMO Certificates) of
Joseph C. Piparo
Delivery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification was sent by the
destination server:
Klika, Colin (LPS) (Colin.Klika@law.njoag.gov)
Subject: RE: Judge Pasquale's Initial Decision for EDE 01620-16 IMO Certificates) of Joseph C. Piparo

~' STATE OF NEW JERSEY
~ OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
33 Washington Street 9 Quakerbridge Plaza / PO Box 049
Newark. NJ 07102 Trenton, NJ 08625-OU49
(973)648-7136 609-689-4028
FROM:
NJ State Department of Education
Licensure &Credentials
NAME OF AGENCY
P.O. Box 500
Trenton, NJ 08625-0500
ADDRESS
RoY~ert R. Higgins, Director
TRANSMITTING OFFICER
609-~4~_~7R7
T'E
`°...' 01620-16 .......	AGES
Bergen ~
COUNTY
North
JURISDICTION -~~~
THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS REQUIRED:
1. Nature of the case. Please include references
to statutes or rules and briefly summarize the facts
and law involved. .Attach pleadings to this form.
2. Estimated time required for hearing.
3. Legal requirements (State or Federal)
mandating a date for Agency Decision:
4. Is a court stenographer requested?
5. Special features to be anticipated in this
matter, i.e., emergent relief, discovery motions,
prehearing conference, conference hearing, remand,
expedited hearings, location (county).
6. Is a barrier-free location needed?
7. Have the attached documents been exchanged
between the parties`? OSC and Answer
8. Names of other agencies claiming jurisdiction over
transmitted dispute:
In the matter of the Certificates) of
Joseph Piparo
Name of Contested Case or Short Title
Docket No. 1~~~-215
Agency Docket /Reference Number/Discrimination
Case N.J.S.A. 34:6A-45b and N.J.A.C. 12:110-7
Whether the conduct alleged in the OSC provides a basis ___
for the Revocation or Suspension ofcertificates.
2 Days(s) or Hours
Yes X No If yes, please specify
requirements and citation : i
Yes X No
Yes No X Uncertain
X Yes No If no, the documents shall be
served on or offered to the parties on:
NONE
Revised 0 ] /13 smr

N.J.A.C. 1:1-8.2 (a) 13. This person need not be served by the parties with motions, correspondence, etc.
Robert R. Higgins, Director
NJ State Department of Education
Licensure &Credentials
P.O. Box_ 500
Trenton, NJ 08625-0500
PHONE #: (609) 292-3787 FAX: (609) 984-5876
E-MAIL ADDRESS: Robert.Higgins doe.state.nj.us
SERVICE LIST
Parties Named in this Proceeding and their Representatives
For additional parties, attach names, addresses and telephone numbers of each party linked with that representative if anv.
N.J. State Board of Examiners
N.J. Dept. of Education
Office of Licensure and Credentials
P.o. soX soo Michal Czarnecki, DAG
Trenton, NJ 08625-osoo Education and Higher Education Section
TELEPHONE #: 609 292-3~s~ State of New Jersey —Division of Law
Fax : 609 984-ss~6 25 Market Street, PO Box 112
E-MAIL ADDRESS: Trenton, NJ 08625
~z. u~,s~~t~~v»1~.~~r (609) 376-3100
Joseph Piparo {~(~ ~~— ' - "
P.O. Box 42
Rid ewood, NJ 07451-0042
TELEPHONE # ~ ~ ~ ,= TELEPHONE # C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1p
FAX : FAX
E-MAIL ADDRESS: E-MATT AnnnT~~;
#3. (.)'1'IIEI2 --~ _ti=1~2 RI~;I'12(~,Sk:ti'[~',~~'I,I~~'I?	. ~-
L~~ ~ ~ . - --- — — - - - --
c
~- ,..
TELEPHONE # TELEPHONE , , ~. -
FAX : FAX
E-MAIL ADDRESS: E-MAIL ADDRESS:
#~, t)~C~I1~:12 (~)~TIIF:12 RE:P121;;51;:V'I~'~~'I,IVE
TELEPHONE # TELEPHONE #
TAX : FAX
E-MAIL ADDRESS: E-MAIL ADDRESS:
(Please attach additional sheets for contacts as necessary and indicate representation)