Nasseed Gifted v. Board of Education of the City of Newark, Essex County, 6/2/26 (#190-26)

190-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 01286-22
Agency Dkt. No. 210-11/21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Naseed Gifted,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Newark, Essex
County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) have
been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner agrees with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that petitioner
knowingly and voluntarily requested a transfer from the position of Principal to Vice Principal, thereby
relinquishing his tenure rights associated with the Principal position. Consequently, respondent did not
violate petitioner’s tenure or seniority rights in effectuating the voluntary transfer. The Commissioner
also agrees with the ALJ that petitioner was not constructively discharged from employment as a Principal.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition of
appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	June 2, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	June 3, 2026
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1. Under
N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date of mailing
of this decision.

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01286-22
AGENCY DKT. NO. 210-11/21
NASEED GIFTED,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY
OF NEWARK, ESSEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
__________________________________
Dennis McKeever, Esq., for petitioner (Chasan, Lamparello, Mallon & Cappuzzo,
PC)
John Burke, Esq., for respondent (Antonelli, Kantor & Rivera, PC)
Record Closed: February 5, 2026 	Decided: March 24, 2026
BEFORE DANIELLE PASQUALE, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Respondent, the Board of Education of the City of Newark, transferred Naseed
Gifted (“Gifted”), a tenured Principal after he knowingly and voluntarily requested and
accepted reassignment to the position of Vice Principal of Science Park High School after
he received two partially effective Principal evaluations. Did the Board violate his tenure

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01286-22
2
and seniority rights when it placed Gifted, at his written request and signed acceptance,
even considering he had tenure in the position of Principal? 	No. 	Caselaw holds that a
school board can transfer or demote someone from principal to vice principal if good
cause is found and where, as in this case, the individual knowingly and voluntarily
requests and accepts the position of vice principal with its corresponding salary and
school placement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Gifted is currently employed by the Newark Board of Education (“the Board”) and
is tenured and serving as Vice Principal at Science Park High School (“Science Park”).
He has been an employee of the District for twenty-four (24) years as of the time of the
hearing. 	He was formerly employed by the Board as a tenured building Principal, at
Malcom X. Shabazz High School (“Shabazz”). 	He alleges that the Board violated his
tenure and seniority rights when they demoted him to vice principal when he accepted
the position in August of 2021. 	As a result, he seeks to have the Board reverse all
employment actions taken against him resulting in his demotion to Vice Principal, to have
his tenure rights as a Principal recognized, and to restore all benefits that he would have
been entitled to as if the move to Vice Principal had not occurred in August 2021.
This dispute comes to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as a contested case
on February 15, 2022. I held many pre-hearing conferences as both parties maintained
resolution would be possible, and thus I granted many adjournments to allow the parties
to explore settlement. After those efforts stalled, in an effort to revive the matter, I then
set down a peremptory hearing date. After I unilaterally set down the peremptory hearing
date, all parties asked to convert the hearing to an in-person settlement conference for
even further exploration of settlement. When those efforts were unsuccessful, I held the
hearing on July 25, 2025. 	Post-hearing submissions were filed on September 29 and
October 7, 2025. 	The parties then requested an extension. 	Once all outstanding
documents were received, I closed the record accordingly.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01286-22
3
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
The following facts are largely undisputed and thus, I FIND them as FACT. Gifted
has worked for the Newark Board of Education (“Board”) since 2001, or for over 24 years
as of the time of this hearing. He started as a substitute teacher and later became a full-
time math teacher in 2003. He possesses a standard Teacher of Mathematics certificate
issued August 2004, a standard Supervisor certificate issued September 2010, and a
standard Principal certificate issued January 2018. 	He worked in the District as a math
teacher from school year 2003-2010, as a Math Department Chair from 2010-2014, and
as a Vice Principal from 2014-2018 when he was promoted to Principal effective August
2018. 	Gifted was notified of the promotion to Principal via a letter from Dr. Yolanda
Mendez dated July 17, 2018. Gifted then worked as a Principal of Shabazz High School
from school year 2018-2019 through 2020-2021.
After he earned tenure as a Principal at the start of the 2020-2021 school year, he
was observed and evaluated in the normal course. His annual summative evaluation was
“effective” for the 2018-19 school year. He was then renewed for the 2019-20 school year
as Principal of Shabazz where he received another “effective” summative evaluation. 	He
served as Principal for the 2020-21 school year but was out on medical leave for less
than 3 months from March 18, 2021 to June 1, 2021.
For his first two years as Principal, Gifted was evaluated by Dr. Mario Santos, then-
Assistant Superintendent. Thereafter, for the 2020-21 school year, Gifted was evaluated
by Dr. Maria Ortiz, the new Assistant Superintendent overseeing the Newark High
Schools. 	That school year, Dr. Ortiz observed him at least twice, once in November of
2020 and once in February of 2021. 	In November of 2020, Gifted noted that after
discussing various competencies for the Leadership Framework. Ortiz rated him only
partially effective. This was because Gifted failed to observe and provide evaluations for
the teachers and administrators for which he was responsible. At hearing, Gifted offered
no rebuttal about the partially effective rating. 	In addition, there is no evidence that he
made any complaint about that rating prior to filing his appeal. In February of 2021, Dr.
Ortiz conducted another observation that also resulted in a partially effective rating. This

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01286-22
4
observation 	focused 	on 	the 	Professional 	Learning 	Community 	(“PLC”) 	but 	also
considered his management of all goings-on in the building, as he was responsible for all
of that, even when he was not physically there. 	This observation also led to a partially
effective rating. 	Dr. Ortiz found minimal evidence that Gifted was monitoring student
progress, such as which students needed individualized supports, remediation, or
acceleration. Gifted understood that a partially effective rating would lead to a CAP.
These ratings stand in stark contrast to Gifted’s time as vice principal. When Gifted
initially served as Vice Principal, he consistently received ratings of “effective.” Since
becoming Vice Principal of Science Park, he has continued to receive “effective” and
“highly effective” ratings.
Dr. Ortiz
Dr. Ortiz testified for the Board and her testimony was extremely helpful in making
my determination. 	She has been the Assistant Superintendent of High Schools for
Newark Board of Education for over six (6) years, overseeing eighteen high schools, their
principals and the Career Technical Education Department. 	She started working as
Assistant Superintendent effective July 2020; Gifted worked as Principal at Shabazz from
2018-19 through 2020-21. On direct examination, Dr. Ortiz revealed that she has known
Gifted since they attended high school together. 	At trial, she was professional,
dispassionate and her testimony was corroborated by the stipulated exhibits making her
testimony highly credible.
Dr. Ortiz explained that her job responsibilities as Assistant Superintendent
included doing Principal observations. She outlined the evaluation procedure for tenured
and non-tenured administrators, which included an Individual Professional Development
Plan (“IPDP”) and, if the individual is rated as ‘Partially Effective” or “Ineffective” then a
Corrective Action Plan (“CAP”) would be instituted. She explained that a CAP is similar
to an IPDP but entails an additional observation. 	Dr. Ortiz testified that her mid-year
assessment was an observation, as opposed to an evaluation, and is optional. Dr. Ortiz
reviewed the observation and evaluation reports, focusing on the perceived deficiencies

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01286-22
5
in Gifted’s performance, and the IPDPs in place for him. Dr. Ortiz testified credibly that
she believed Gifted was not a good fit as a Principal.
During her meetings with Gifted, they discussed what would “best match” his
talents. Gifted expressed concerns about his placement for the following year and
inquired about positions such as Director of Instructional Technology or Principal of the
School of Data Science. However, she testified she never told him he was not returning
as Principal or not returning to Shabazz for the 2021-2022 school year. 	When Gifted
asked about his placement for the following year, she told him she did not know since she
lacks the authority to make those types of unilateral decisions.
There was no credible evidence provided that Gifted would definitely face tenure
charges or that his rights would be affected in any other way if he did not accept the
transfer to Vice Principal. Dr. Ortiz testified that tenure charges were not even an option
since Gifted had only one year of “partially effective” ratings, not the necessary two years.
After two years, Dr. Ortiz could choose to make a recommendation, but those are not
necessarily followed by the Board. In the past, she has rated principals “partially effective”
for several years without those principals being moved.
Dr. Ortiz testified that principals receive annual training from the Human Resources
Department and Legal Department, which includes a discussion on tenure rights and
CAP. She also explained that, as a principal, Gifted would be familiar with tenure rights
and the CAP process because he was responsible for administering that process with
respect to teachers in his building.
Gifted
Gifted agreed that he was observed and evaluated by Dr. Ortiz while he was a
Principal, and that she rated him as “Partially Effective” after an observation on November
28, 2020; as “Partially Effective” after an observation on February 10, 2021; and as
“Ineffective” after an observation on March 13, 2021. Dr. Ortiz rated Gifted as “Partially
Effective” for his mid-year evaluation on March 14, 2021, and rated him as “Partially
Effective” for his annual evaluation dated May 6, 2021.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01286-22
6
In addition, Gifted noted that he was out on medical leave from March 18, 2021
through June 1, 2021 and was not working when the annual evaluation was done on May
6, 2021.
Gifted met with Dr. Ortiz on April 28, 2021 to discuss his March evaluation. He
claims Dr. Ortiz informed him he would not be returning to Shabazz. The two discussed
a principal position at the School of Data Science and Gifted inquired about the position
of Director of Instructional Technology.
Gifted continued that Dr. Ortiz notified him that he would not be re-appointed as
Principal during a meeting he had with her on June 7, 2021. Gifted claimed that he was
directed by Dr. Ortiz to provide options for appointment as either a Vice Principal or a
Department Chair. Gifted testified that the new Principal of Science Park reached out to
him via Facebook and asked if he was interested in being Vice Principal since he was
looking to build his administrative team. It was Gifted’s understanding that the principal
had been instructed by Dr. Ortiz to reach out. 	Gifted advised Dr. Ortiz via email dated
July 14, 2021 that his preference was to be placed as a Vice Principal at Science Park
High School. Gifted testified that he had conversations and text messages with Dr. Ortiz
in July and August 2021 about the transfer to Science Park.
CREDIBILITY
When facts are contested, the trier of fact must assess and weigh the credibility of
the witnesses for purposes of making factual findings. 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 is “hangs
together” with the other evidence. 	Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718, 749 (9th Cir.
1963).
At hearing, Gifted was pleasant and deferential. 	It is undisputed that he was an
historically effective Vice Principal who was well liked in the District. 	Dr. Ortiz testified
credibly that she knew Gifted well. In fact, they were classmates from long ago.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01286-22
7
I was convinced that Dr. Ortiz had absolutely no animosity for Gifted and, in fact,
was likely operating in his best interest when she asked him where he would like to go if
his effectiveness ratings led to a CAP. In fact, after his 2020/21 review from Dr. Ortiz, it
appeared that a CAP in his role as Principal could be likely. 	If his negative evaluations
continued, tenure charges could be a possibility. However, Dr. Ortiz never had to facilitate
that decision, nor did the Board have to make the decision. (See J-1.) Again, Gifted not
only accepted the position, but he affirmatively requested the transfer to Vice Principal at
Science Park, thereby extinguishing his tenure rights as Principal.
Gifted has a self-interest in making the argument that he was constructively
terminated as Principal, but Dr. Ortiz convinced me that she did not have the authority to
transfer him, nor to unilaterally bring tenure charges. 	In short, she did not do either of
those things. 	Rather, he unilaterally decided to get in front of the situation. Gifted
knowingly and voluntarily requested the assignment to Vice Principal at Science Park.
He then reviewed and signed a contract for that position with a corresponding salary of
$120,000. (See J3.) Thus, Gifted’s transfer to Vice Principal was voluntary.
LEGAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. 	Gifted’s transfer was voluntary
The purpose of New Jersey’s tenure laws is “to aid in the establishment of a
competent and efficient school system by affording teaching staff members ‘a measure
of security in the ranks they hold after years of service.’” 	Carpenito v. Bd. of Educ. of
Rumson, 322 N.J. Super. 522, 528-29 (App. Div. 1999) (quoting Viemeister v. Prospect
Park Bd. of Educ., 5 N.J. Super. 215, 218 (App. Div. 1949)). Courts have long recognized
school boards retain “the managerial prerogative to transfer teaching staff members by a
majority vote of the board.” 	Carpenito, 322 N.J. at 529 (citing N.J.S.A. 18A:25-1); see
also Ridgefield Park Educ. Ass’n v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Educ., 78 N.J. 144, 156 (1978)
(holding teacher transfers and reassignments were not mandatorily negotiable terms
because these terms would significantly interfere with “the Board’s managerial duty to

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01286-22
8
deploy personnel in the manner which it considers most likely to promote the overall goal
of providing all students with a thorough and efficient education”). 	At the same time,
tenured staff generally cannot be dismissed or reduced in compensation except for
inefficiency, incapacity, or conduct unbecoming—the determination of which must satisfy
the procedural safeguards laid out in the Tenure Employees Hearing Law. 	N.J.S.A.
18A:28-5; N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10.
School boards can transfer employees without their consent but only if certain
conditions are met. An involuntary transfer is only permissible where there is no reduction
in salary and the transfer occurs within the employee’s position. 	Carpenito v. Rumson
Bd. of Educ., 322 N.J. Super. 522, 529 (App. Div. 1999) (“A tenured teacher may be
involuntarily transferred to another position within his or her certification where no loss of
salary or other reduction in employment is suffered and the teacher is not singled out for
the transfer on a prohibited basis.”); see also Armental v. Englewood Bd. of Educ., EDU
07775-24, 	Final 	Decision 	(March 	7, 	2025),
https://www.nj.gov/education/legal/commissioner/2025/75-25.pdf 	(finding 	violation 	of
tenure rights where principal involuntarily transferred to athletic director even though his
salary remained the same because “a tenured employee may be transferred to another
assignment within his position, but may not be transferred involuntarily from one position
to another.” (quoting Howley v. Ewing Bd. of Educ., 6 N.J.A.R. 509, 521 (1982)); Williams
v. Plainfield Bd. of Educ., 176 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div. 1980) (finding no violation of
tenure rights where high school principal was involuntarily transferred to elementary
school principal with no reduction in salary).
However, the same restrictions do not apply if a transfer was voluntary. 	This is
because the tenure laws are designed to “protect teachers from arbitrary or malicious
dismissal,” not “to protect teachers from the consequences of their own acts.” DeFrehn
v. Wildwood Crest Bd. of Educ., 1993 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1680 (Nov. 9, 1993), adopted
(Dec. 30, 1993). The burden is on the Board to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that a transfer was voluntary. 	See Forte v. Belleville Bd. of Educ., 12 N.J.A.R. 10, 19
(1988).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01286-22
9
For instance, in North Bergen Federation of Teachers v. North Bergen Board of
Education, an English high school teacher alleged her tenure rights were violated when
she was transferred to the position of elementary media specialist. 	1993 N.J. AGEN
LEXIS 1674 (Oct. 20, 1993), adopted (Dec. 1, 1993). She complained to her union about
the transfer; at the same time, she asked the Board to postpone the date of her transfer
and provide her an annual stipend based on her contract. Id. at *9-10. The Board argued
that the transfer was voluntary because she accepted the position, “subject only to a
change in the starting date and the compensation.” 	Id. at *10. The ALJ rejected this
argument, noting the teacher and the union consistently referred to the transfer as
involuntary in communications with the Board. 	Id. at *10-11. 	Moreover, the ALJ found
the teacher “was not required to accept a severe disruption and inadequate pay in order
to avoid the appearance of consent.” Id. at *11.
The Supreme Court recently held that “[a]ny waiver of a teacher’s tenure rights
must be clear, knowing, and unequivocal.” Parsells v. Somerville Bd. of Educ., 254 N.J.
152, 167 (2023). Parsells concerned a full-time teacher who temporarily transferred to a
part-time position to spend time with her newborn son. 	Id. at 155. However, when she
later applied for several full-time teaching positions, the Board hired non-tenured teachers
instead and maintained she had waived her tenure rights. 	Ibid. 	The Court disagreed,
finding she did not knowingly waive her tenured right to a full-time teaching position. Id.
at 167. The Court emphasized that when the teacher originally expressed her interest in
the part-time position, she made clear her intent to return to a full-time position in the
future. Id. at 165. The Court declined to impose a duty on school boards to notify tenured
teachers in advance that if they switch to working part-time, they might not have a right
to return to a full-time position. Id. at 166.
Here, the Board argues that Gifted waived his tenure rights as a principal and
voluntarily transferred to vice principal. Since Gifted received a salary decrease and the
roles of principal and vice principal are considered separate positions under N.J.S.A.
18A:28-5, his transfer would constitute a violation of his tenure rights unless the Board
could show that it was voluntary. The Board has met its burden.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01286-22
10
The evidence shows that Gifted personally initiated the transfer to vice principal
when he sent an email to Dr. Ortiz on July 14, 2021 expressing his interest in the position.
Dr. Ortiz testified that when Gifted sent the email, a decision had not yet been made
regarding his placement for the following school year. She denied ever telling Gifted he
would not be reappointed as principal or that he would not be returning to Shabazz. Nor
would she have had any authority to do so; at most, she could make a recommendation
as to his placement. 	Dr. Ortiz never told Gifted that she was recommending him for
another position.
Dr. Ortiz had genuine concerns about Gifted’s performance as principal. 	For
instance, she rated him “partially effective” in his November 2020 evaluation because he
failed to submit evaluations of the teachers for which he was responsible. In a February
2021 evaluation, Dr. Ortiz again rated Gifted “partially effective” because there was
minimal evidence he was appropriately monitoring student progress. 	He never formally
objected to these ratings. 	Dr. Ortiz testified that in light of Gifted’s “partially effective”
rating on his final evaluation, Gifted would have been placed on a CAP. The process for
developing a CAP is typically started after the summer break and is done in collaboration
with the employee. 	Gifted knew a CAP was at least possible because he raised the
subject during the April meeting with Dr. Ortiz. 	As for tenure charges or reassignment,
neither was imminent. 	Dr. Ortiz testified that tenure charges were not an option at that
point because Gifted had only one year of “partially effective” ratings, rather than the
requisite two years. 	Even after two years, Dr. Ortiz could recommend tenure charges,
but she is not required to do so. 	As for reassignment, Dr. Ortiz testified that she has
previously rated principals “partially effective” for several years without those principals
being moved. 	The Board decides what placement is in the students’ best interests and
can provide principals with additional support as needed.
Put simply, Gifted was rated “partially effective” as a principal on his final
evaluation. 	This meant a CAP for the following school year. 	There was no imminent
threat of tenure charges or reassignment. Yet, before any action could be taken by the
Board, Gifted initiated a transfer request. There is little evidence to support Gifted’s claim
that Dr. Ortiz instructed Gifted directly, or through an intermediary, to draft an email
making this request. Instead, on April 28, 2021, Gifted met with Dr. Ortiz to discuss his

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01286-22
11
most recent evaluation, and Gifted expressed his interest in positions such as Director of
Instructional Technology or principal of the School of Data Science. 	At a June 7, 2021
conference, they discussed Gifted’s strengths and areas for growth. Gifted pressed Dr.
Ortiz about his placement for the following year, but Dr. Ortiz honestly responded that she
did not know. She lacked the authority to make that determination.
Gifted knew his tenure rights. He has been in the district for over 20 years. 	Dr.
Ortiz testified that principals regularly receive training from the Human Resources
Department and Legal Department, including on tenure rights and the evaluation process.
He also would have been familiar through his experience performing teacher evaluations,
which is the same process for principals. Under the standard set forth in Parsells, Gifted
clearly, knowingly, and unequivocally waived his tenure rights to a principal position when
he requested a transfer to vice principal of Science Park High School. 	He gave no
indication that his transfer was merely temporary or that he was otherwise reserving
certain tenure rights. 	He chose to transfer to vice principal, a position in which he
previously received “effective” and “highly effective” ratings. 	He voluntarily initiated the
request before the Board could take action, including making a final decision as to his
placement the following year. Gifted’s second thoughts about his decision do not render
the transfer involuntary. Given this discussion, I CONCLUDE that Gifted’s transfer was
voluntary and that there was no violation of his tenure rights.
2. 	Gifted was not constructively discharged
The doctrine of constructive discharge generally arises in the context of state or
federal anti-discrimination statutes. Cleffi-Miller v. Randolph Twp. Bd. of Educ., 1996 N.J.
AGEN LEXIS 1060, *18-19 (Oct. 17, 1996), adopted (Dec. 5, 1996). 	A claim of
constructive discharge requires “conduct that is so intolerable that a reasonable person
would be forced to resign rather than continue to endure it.” Shepherd v. Hunterdon Dev.
Ctr., 174 N.J. 1, 28 (2002) (applying N.J. Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to
-49); see also Schafer v. Bd. of Educ., 903 F.2d 243, 249 (3d Cir. 1990) (applying
objective standard for constructive discharge in Title VII case, which “requires no more
than a finding that the conduct complained of would have the foreseeable result of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01286-22
12
creating working conditions that would be so unpleasant or difficult that a reasonable
person in the employee’s position would resign”). 	Additionally, “an employee has the
obligation to do what is necessary and reasonable in order to remain employed rather
than simply quit.” 	Shepherd, 174 N.J. at 28 (quoting Shepherd v. Hunterdon Dev. Ctr.,
336 N.J. Super. 395, 420 (App. Div. 2001)).
The Third Circuit previously found a sales representative was constructively
discharged where she was offered a choice of either accepting a reassignment or
resigning. Goss v. Exxon Office Sys. Co., 747 F.2d 885, 888 (3d Cir. 1984). The sales
representative was a married woman who was attempting to have a child. Ibid. The court
found her supervisor was verbally abusive and once questioned her until she cried about
her ability to handle a career and motherhood. 	Ibid. 	Her supervisor also gave her
lucrative sales territory to another employee. Ibid. After several meetings with superiors,
she was told to either agree to a new inferior territory or resign. 	Ibid. 	In finding the
conditions were objectively intolerable, the court emphasized the effective pay cut, the
hostility and intimidation tactics exhibited by superiors, and the impact this would have on
the “positive mental attitude” necessary “to sell the employer’s products . . . to the public
with confidence.” 	Id. at 888-89. 	Cf. Zubrycky v. ASA Apple, Inc., 381 N.J. Super. 162,
166 (App. Div. 2005) (rejecting an employee’s constructive discharge claim under the
Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 et seq., where an employer
was unlawfully withholding overtime wages and suggested the employee quit after he
complained).
In Lovett v. Flemington-Raritan Reg’l Bd. of Educ., a tenured employee raised a
constructive discharge claim, alleging her resignation was “coerced by threats of
disciplinary action, public humiliation and loss of tenure and benefits.” 2013 N.J. Super.
Unpub. LEXIS 2683 (Nov. 6, 2013). The teacher let her adult daughter into the school to
see her stepdaughter, a student. 	Id. at *19. 	The school had a policy prohibiting the
daughter 	from 	entering 	the 	school 	because 	of 	suspicions 	she 	was 	abusing 	her
stepdaughter 	and 	because 	of 	a 	history 	of 	aggressive 	confrontations 	with 	school
personnel. Ibid. The next day the principal had a “tense and emotional” meeting with the
teacher and union representative where the possibility of tenure charges was raised. Id.
at *6. 	The union representative informed plaintiff that if tenure charges were filed, the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01286-22
13
matter would go public. Ibid. By the end of the meeting, the teacher provided the principal
with a resignation letter. 	Id. at *7. 	In an unpublished decision, the Appellate Division
found “[n]othing in the facts and circumstances surrounding [the] meeting . . . can
reasonably be said to constitute conduct so outrageous as to amount to a constructive
discharge.” 	Id. at *20. 	The court emphasized that when the teacher submitted her
resignation letter she “was faced with neither demotion nor discharge nor other discipline,
but simply an investigation into her conduct the day before.” Id. at *21. The present case
is most analogous to Cleffi-Miller v. Randolph Twp. Bd. of Educ., 1996 N.J. AGEN LEXIS
1060 (Oct. 17, 1996), adopted (Dec. 5, 1996). 	In that case, the petitioner, the tenured
coordinator of a child-care program, submitted a resignation letter after failing to negotiate
a salary increase that would better reflect her expanding job responsibilities. Id. at *9-13.
The court rejected her constructive discharge claim, finding that the petitioner was simply
“endeavoring to avoid the consequences of her voluntary resignation.” 	Id. at *18. 	Her
decision was not impulsive, but rather a “deliberate and calculated choice.” 	Id. at *21.
Furthermore, the court found that while petitioner “may have felt overworked and
underpaid,” there were no credible allegations of the type of discriminatory treatment and
intolerable conditions required for a constructive discharge claim. Id. at *19.
In contrast, Gifted made a calculated decision to transfer to vice principal rather
than face the potential consequences of poor evaluation ratings. As previously explained,
the “partially effective” ratings meant Gifted could have faced a CAP the following year.
He had only one year of poor ratings, which meant he was under no immediate threat of
tenure charges. In the future, if Gifted received similar ratings, Dr. Ortiz could recommend
tenure charges; but there is no guarantee her recommendation would be followed.
Similarly, Dr. Ortiz testified that principals have been rated “partially effective” for several
years but were never moved. 	In Lovett, albeit an unpublished decision, the threat of
tenure charges was more direct and the circumstances surrounding resignation were
more intense, yet still the evidence was insufficient to constitute constructive discharge.
Nowhere in his brief or at hearing does Gifted allege the type of objectively intolerable
conditions seen in cases like Goss. 	At most he alleges that Dr. Ortiz instructed him to
provide a list of positions because he would not be reappointed to principal. Even if this
were true, it would be insufficient to constitute constructive discharge. “An employee has
the obligation to do what is necessary and reasonable in order to remain employed rather

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01286-22
14
than simply quit.” Shepherd, 336 N.J. Super. at 420. Gifted instead requested a transfer
to vice principal before the Board could take any formal action. Given this discussion, I
CONCLUDE that Gifted’s transfer was voluntary and he cannot avoid the consequences
of his decision by now claiming it was a constructive discharge.
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that Gifted’s petition of
appeal is DISMISSED.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	Initial 	Decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This 	recommended 	decision 	may 	be 	adopted, 	modified 	or 	rejected 	by 	the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01286-22
15
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATTN: 	BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES AND
DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, P.O. 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.
March 24, 2026
DATE 	DANIELLE PASQUALE, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	March 24, 2026
Date Mailed to Parties: 	March 24, 2026
lr

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01286-22
16
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For Petitioner:
Naseed Gifted, Petitioner
For Respondent:
Dr. Maria Ortiz, Assistant Superintendent of High Schools
Exhibits
Joint Exhibits:
J-1 	NPS 001 Letter of Interest in Vice Principal position at Science Park High School
J-2 	NPS 0038-0049 Evaluation 20-21-Annual Observation of Principal Naseed Gifted
by Dr. Maria Ortiz, May 6, 2021
J-3 	NPS 102 Letter Recommending Naseed Gifted for Vice Principal of Science Park
High School, 2021-22 School Year
J-4 	Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s Initial Interrogatories
J-5 	Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s First Notice to Produce Respondent
For Petitioner:
P-1 	NG0001-03 CASA Member Information Sheets and tenure status as Principal
P-2 	NG0004-18 2020-21 Annual Evaluation as Principal by Dr. Maria Ortiz, dated May
6, 2021
P-3 	NG00019 List of Certificates held by Naseed Gifted

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01286-22
17
P-4 	NG00020-21 July 14, 2021 email from Gifted to Dr. Maria Ortiz (letter of interest
and response)
P-5 	NG00022 August 1, 2021 emails between Naseed Gifted and Dr. Maria Ortiz
P-6 	Admitted as J3
P-7 	Respondent’s Answers to Petitioner’s First Set of Interrogatories including NPS-
0001 through NPS-0055
P-8 	NPS-056 through NPS-332 provided by Respondent
P-9 	NG00024-29 2022-23 Annual Evaluation performed by Darleen Gearhart
P-10 	NG00030-39 Salary date from May 22, 2021 through October 8, 2021
P-11 	Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s Initial Interrogatories
P-12 	Petitioner’s Response to Respondent’s First Notice to Produce to Respondent
For Respondent:
R-1 	NPS 0002 Employment Contract for 2018-19 as Principal of Malcolm X Shabazz
R-2 	NPS 0003 Renewal of Employment Contract for 2019-20 School Year as Principal
R-3 	NPS 0004 Recommendation for Principal at Malcolm X Shabazz 2018-19 School
Year
R-4 	NPS 0005-0019 FMLA Information (3/18- 6/1/21)
R-5 	NPS 0050-0055 Evaluation-Annual Observation of Naseed Gifted by Keyied Zahir
(June 13, 2022)
R-6 	Not admitted
R-7 	NPS 127-138 Individual Professional Development Plan 2020-21 with Dr. Maria
Ortiz, and notes August 17, 2020
R-8 	NPS 139-143 Leadership Framework Observation by Dr. Maria Ortiz, November
28, 2020
R-9 	NPS 159-167 Leadership Framework Observation by Dr. Maria Ortiz, February 10,
2021, with notes
R-10 	NPS 169-174 Leadership Framework Observation by Dr. Maria Ortiz, March 13,
2021, with notes
R-11 	NPS 175-188 Leadership Framework Observation by Dr. Maria Ortiz, Post
Observation, April 1, 2021

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01286-22
18
R-12 	NPS 189-196 Leadership Framework Observation by Dr. Maria Ortiz, March 14,
2021
R-13 	NPS 212-226 Post Observation Annual, June 7, 2012, by Dr. Maria Ortiz in
response to May 6, 2021, evaluation with notes
R-14 	NPS 227 Letter Regarding Incomplete Data Reporting
R-15 	NPS 228-236 Individual Professional Development Plan-Goal Setting by Dr. Maria
Ortiz, October 19, 2020
R-16 	Not Admitted