C.S., on behalf of minor child, C.S. v. Board of Education of the Bridgewater-Raritan Regional School District, Somerset County, (#173-24)

173-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
C.S., on behalf of minor child, C.S.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Bridgewater-Raritan
Regional School District, Somerset County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner challenged the decision of the respondent Board to conduct a code of conduct investigation
rather than a harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) investigation into allegations that students
teased her minor son, C.S., by referring to him as a “school shooter” – a taunt that had been repeatedly
directed at C.S. after he was suspended for violating the school’s code of conduct when he brought a
nerf gun to school. The Board contended that its decision to conduct code of conduct investigations
into C.S.’s complaints was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Petitioner argued that the Board
ignored 	its 	statutory 	obligation 	under 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 	et 	seq. 	by 	not 	acknowledging 	C.S.’s
distinguishing characteristic and investigating his HIB claims. 	The parties filed cross motions for
summary decision.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts at issue here, and
the case is ripe for summary decision; an action by a board of education is entitled to a presumption of
correctness and will not be undermined unless it can be shown that the decision was arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable; in the present matter, the name-calling at issue was not based upon any
distinguishing characteristic of C.S. as defined in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq. or in case law; the facts in
the record do not substantiate that C.S.’s decision to bring a nerf gun to school was related to any
mental disability or that the students taunting him as a result of his poor choice were making such a
connection; 	as the Board did not find that the taunting C.S. experienced was based upon any
distinguishing characteristic, its decision to investigate the incidents under the school’s Code of Student
Conduct was appropriate. 	The ALJ concluded that petitioner has failed to prove that the Board’s
determination was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ that the comments made to petitioner’s child
were not based on a distinguishing characteristic; further, the school district’s decision to address the
matter under its Code of Conduct rather than as acts of harassment, intimidation, and bullying was not
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Accordingly, the Initial Decision was adopted as the final decision
in this matter. The Board’s motion for summary decision was granted, and the petition was dismissed.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It has been
neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 04735-23
Agency Dkt. No. 104-4/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
C.S., on behalf of minor child, C.S.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Bridgewater-Raritan
Regional School District, Somerset 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 concurs with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that the
comments made to petitioner’s child were not based on a distinguishing characteristic. The Commissioner
further concurs with the ALJ that the school district’s decision to address the matter under its Code of
Conduct rather than as acts of harassment, intimidation, and bullying was not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter. Respondent’s
motion for summary decision is granted, and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: April 29, 2024
Date of Mailing: May 1, 2024
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
173-24

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04735-23
AGENCY NO. 104-4/23
C.S., ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD, C.S.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BRIDGEWATER-RARITAN
REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
Michelle M. Schott, Esq., appearing for petitioner (Flanagan Barone O’Brien,
attorneys)
Douglas M. Silvestro., Esq, and Marc Mucciolo, Esq., appearing for
respondent (The Busch Law Group, LLC, attorneys)
Record Closed: February 5, 2024 Decided: March 25, 2024
BEFORE KIM C. BELIN, ALJ:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04735-23
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, C.S., parent of minor child, C.S., challenges respondent, Board of
Education of Bridgewater-Raritan Regional School District’s decision to conduct a code
of conduct investigation rather than a harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB)
investigation into allegations that students teased C.S. by referring to him as a “school
shooter.”
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 19, 2023, petitioner filed a Petition of Appeal challenging respondent’s
decision not to conduct a formal HIB investigation during the 2022-2023 school year.
Respondent filed an Answer on May 30, 2023. The Department of Education (DOE)
transmitted this matter as a contested case to the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”)
where it was filed on May 31, 2023. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
A pre-hearing conference call was held on August 14, 2023, where an evidentiary
hearing was scheduled for November 6, 2023. On October 4, 2023, respondent filed a
motion for summary decision. On October 24, 2023, petitioners filed a cross-motion for
summary decision. The November 6, 2023, hearing was converted to a conference call
at the parties’ request. Marc Mucciolo, Esq., replaced Mr. Silvestro as the respondent’s
counsel. The parties discussed the possibility of settlement and requested additional time
to generate and circulate an agreement. Accordingly, a status conference call was held
on November 15, 2023, where the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement. A
conference call scheduled for November 30, 2023, was adjourned at the parties’ request,
and on February 5, 2024, the parties indicated that they both wished to proceed with their
respective motions.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04735-23
3
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The following FACTS are undisputed and I, therefore FIND:
1. For the 2022-2023 school year, C.S. attended middle school in the
respondent’s district and was a seventh-grade student. He was not a
classified student under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.
2. During the 2021-2022 school year, C.S. brought a nerf gun to school and
received a forty-five day suspension from school in accordance with the
respondent’s Code of Student Conduct. (Respondent’s Motion for
Summary Decision (RMSD), ¶¶4 and 5.)
3. During the 2022-2023 school year, at least one other student referred to
C.S. as a “school shooter” based upon the incident from the previous year
where he brought in the nerf gun to school. (RMSD, ¶6.)
4. On January 31, 2023, the petitioner filed seven separate HIB complaint
forms with the principal of the Middle School. Six of those complaints
referred to instances in which C.S. was called a “school shooter,” while the
seventh referenced an incident in which C.S. was allegedly targeted due to
being Jewish. (RMSD, ¶7.)
5. Three incidents were reported on September 6, 2022. (Petition ¶9.)
6. In the first incident, the petitioner reported that a student stated to C.S. in
LAL1 class: “I’m going to beat you up, you better watch out school shooter.
You’re such a loser. Everyone hates you.” (Petition, ¶9a.)
1 Language arts literacy.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04735-23
4
7. In the second incident, the petitioner reported that a student stated to C.S.:
“You’re a b*tch, I’m going to beat the sh** out of [you]. Loser, go kill
yourself.” This student frequently called C.S. a school shooter when they
left science class. (Petition ¶9b.)
8. In the third incident, the petitioner reported that three other students
randomly throughout the day called C.S. a school shooter and said: “you’re
a b*tch, I’m going to f*** you up. Eww looked [sic] its C.S., the school
shooter, he has a gun, he’s going to shoot everyone, you don’t belong here
loser, everyone hates you go kill yourself.” (Petition, ¶9c.)
9. In the fourth complaint, dated September 20, 2022, the petitioner reported
that C.S. was referenced by students as the “kid who brought a gun to
school, asked why he was in school, told to kill himself, and that that [sic]
they’ve heard he has the list of people he’s going to shoot, that others
should watch out he’s got a gun and that he is going to get his a** kicked.”
(Petition ¶9d.)
10. In the fifth incident that was reported in a complaint also dated September
20, 2022, three additional students “harass him about being a school
shooter, called [sic] him a piece of garbage. They told everyone I smoke
weed and vape. Had [his] locker searched.” (Petition, ¶9e.) On the bus,
C.S. was poked in the back with a “broomstick or other device.” Ibid.
11. In the final incident, reported on January 5, 2020, after lunch, three
additional students yelled: “watch out! That kid’s got a gun” referring to C.S.
(Petition, ¶9f.)
12. Respondent investigated the incidents and determined that six of them in
which C.S. was referred to as “school shooter” or words of similar effect
were not instances of HIB but were violations of the respondent’s Code of
Student Conduct. (RMSD, ¶15.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04735-23
5
13. The respondent disciplined the students involved. (RMSD, ¶16.)
14. The respondent determined that none of the six incidents reported by the
petitioner identified a real or perceived distinguishing characteristic that was
the basis for targeting C.S. (RMSD, ¶17.)
15. The respondent notified the petitioner via email on or about February 3,
2023, of the respondent’s determination that the school would not conduct
HIB investigations regarding the allegations because the complaints did not
“meet the criteria for HIB as there is no distinguishing characteristic.”
(RMSD, ¶¶18 and 20.)
16. The petitioner filed a petition on or about April 19, 2023, appealing the
respondent’s decision not to investigate the six incidents as HIB. (RMSD,
¶19.)
Respondent’s Motion
Respondent filed a motion for summary decision contending that C.S. made a poor
and immature decision to bring a nerf gun to school, however, this decision was not a
distinguishing characteristic of C.S. as a person that would trigger an HIB investigation.
The decision not to conduct HIB investigations was not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable and therefore, need not be reversed.
Petitioner’s Cross Motion
Petitioner argues that the respondent acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and
unreasonably by ignoring its statutory obligation under HIB to acknowledge C.S.’s
distinguishing characteristic and investigate his HIB claims.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04735-23
6
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
A motion for summary decision may be granted if the papers and discovery
presented, as well as any affidavits which may have been filed with the application, show
that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
prevail as a matter of law. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). If the motion is sufficiently supported,
the non-moving party must demonstrate by affidavit that there is a genuine issue of fact
which can only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding in order to prevail in such an
application. Ibid. These provisions mirror the summary judgment language of
R. 4:46-2(c) of the New Jersey Court Rules.
The motion judge must “consider whether the competent evidential materials
presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party . . . are
sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of
the non-moving party.” Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995).
Even if the non-moving party comes forward with some evidence, this forum must grant
summary decision if the evidence is “so one-sided that [the moving party] must prevail as
a matter of law.” Id. at 536.
The Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq., is designed
“to strengthen the standards and procedures for preventing, reporting, investigating, and
responding to incidents of harassment, intimidation, and bullying of students that occur in
school and off school premises.” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.1(f). Under the Act, “harassment,
intimidation or bullying” (HIB) is defined as:
[A]ny gesture, any written, verbal or physical act, or any
electronic communication, whether it be a single incident or a
series of incidents, that is reasonably perceived as being
motivated either by any actual or perceived characteristic,
such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or a
mental, physical or sensory disability, or by any other
distinguishing characteristic, that takes place on school
property, at any school-sponsored function, on a school bus,
or off school grounds as provided for in section 16 of
P.L.2010, c.122 (C.18A:37-15.3), that substantially disrupts or

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04735-23
7
interferes with the orderly operation of the school or the rights
of other students and that:
a. a reasonable person should know, under the
circumstances, will have the effect of physically or emotionally
harming a student or damaging the student’s property, or
placing a student in reasonable fear of physical or emotional
harm to his person or damage to his property;
b. has the effect of insulting or demeaning any
student or group of students; or
c. creates a hostile educational environment for
the student by interfering with a student’s education or by
severely or pervasively causing physical or emotional harm to
the student.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.]
Each school district must adopt a policy that prohibits HIB and provides for a
prompt response to any alleged HIB incident. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15. Once an alleged HIB
incident is reported to the school principal, the principal must initiate an investigation
within one school day of the report. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6). The investigation shall be
conducted by a school anti-bullying specialist and shall take no longer than ten school
days to be completed. The results of the investigation shall then be quickly reported to
the superintendent of schools, who may take certain remedial action. The results shall
also be reported to the board of education “no later than the date of the board of education
meeting next following the completion of the investigation, along with information on any
services provided, training established, discipline imposed, or other action taken or
recommended by the superintendent.” Ibid.
Pursuant to the Act, the parents of the students involved in any alleged HIB incident
are entitled to receive information about the nature of the investigation and the result of
the investigation. The parents may request a hearing before the board, and the hearing
must be held within ten days of the request. Any hearing shall be held in executive
session to protect the identity of any students involved. The board may hear from the
anti-bullying specialist about the incident, recommendations for discipline or services, and
any programs instituted to reduce such incidents. The board must issue a decision at the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04735-23
8
first meeting after its receipt of the investigation report. The board may affirm, reject, or
modify the superintendent’s decision. The board’s decision may be appealed to the
Commissioner of Education. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(6)(e).
An action by a board of education “is entitled to a presumption of correctness and
will not be upset unless there is an affirmative showing that such decision was arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable.” Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327,
332 (App. Div. 1965). The Commissioner will not substitute their judgment for that of a
board of education, whose exercise of discretion may not be disturbed unless shown to
be “patently arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by improper motives.” Kopera v.
W. Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App. Div. 1960). Our courts have held
that “[w]here there is room for two opinions, action is not arbitrary or capricious when
exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even though it may be believed that an
erroneous conclusion has been reached.” Bayshore Sewerage Co. v. Dep’t of Envtl.
Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199–200 (Ch. Div. 1973), aff’d, 131 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div.
1974). Thus, in order to prevail, the petitioner must demonstrate that the Board acted in
bad faith, or in utter disregard of the circumstances before it. T.B.M. v. Moorestown Bd.
of Educ., 2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 67 (February 6, 2008) (citing Thomas v. Morris Twp.
Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965), aff’d, 46 N.J. 581 (1966)).
In the present case, the issue for resolution is whether the respondent’s decision
not to conduct HIB investigations was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in light of the
information the respondent possessed when it made its determination. The petitioner
argues that the respondent’s decision turned a “blind eye” to the students’ perception that
C.S. was a school shooter which meets the requirement of a perceived distinguishing
characteristic under the Act. (Petitioner’s Brief in Support of Motion for Summary
Decision, at p.8.) There are reported cases in which HIB determinations by boards of
education have been both affirmed and overturned. In R.G.B. v. Vill. of Ridgewood Bd.
of Educ., 2013 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 130 (May 15, 2013), adopted, Comm’r, 2013 N.J. AGEN
LEXIS 592 (June 24, 2013), the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the Board did
not act in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner in determining that a student
engaged in HIB when he repeatedly called a female student “fat,” “fat ass,” and “horse.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04735-23
9
According to the ALJ, such verbal statements satisfied all of the necessary elements
under N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14. In G.H. and E.H. ex rel. K.H. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Borough
of Franklin Lakes, EDU 13204-13, Initial Decision (February 24, 2014)
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/ collections/oal/, the ALJ also upheld a Board’s finding that a white
student who repeatedly called a black student “Kool-Aid” engaged in HIB. The ALJ found
that the “use of the word ‘kool-aid’ was directed at [the other student] because of his race;
insulted and demeaned [the other student]; and . . . interfered with [the other student’s]
education” because “[u]pset and embarrassed children are not fully available for learning.”
These cases involved perceived distinguishing characteristics such as weight, race,
gender, and/or physical features.
However, in J.A.H. o/b/o C.H. v. The Twp. of Pittsgrove BOE, 2013 N.J. AGEN
LEXIS 58 (March 11, 2013), adopted, Comm’r (April 13, 2013)
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/. the Board’s finding that an incident in which one
student stuffed a crumpled piece of paper down the shirt of another student constituted
an act of bullying was overturned as arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because the
incident was merely a prank that was part of an ongoing, mutual conflict between the two
boys and did not “contain the more serious and aggravating elements either ‘expressed
or implied’ under [N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.]” The ALJ in J.A.H. found that the incident was
not improperly motivated by a distinguishing characteristic and that the facts “only
support[ed] a finding of ordinary student conflicts rather than the more serious behavior
of bullying.” Ibid.
In addition, In L.B.T. o/b/o. K.T. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Freehold Reg’l Sch. Dist.,
EDU 07894-12, Initial Decision, (January 24, 2013), adopted, Comm’r (March 7, 2013),
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/, the ALJ determined that an act was not
considered to be bullying motivated by a “distinguishing characteristic” where there was
a mutual dispute between two students about their respective roles on the swim team.
The judge held that if a victim was targeted because of a dispute between the two people
involved—such as a relationship falling apart between former friends, a fight over a piece
of property, or some form of personal vendetta of one against another—that conduct
would not be based on a “distinguishing characteristic” of the victim and would not be a
violation of the statute.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04735-23
10
Here, it is undisputed that during the 2021-2022 school year, C.S. brought an
imitation gun to school and served a forty-five day suspension. The following year,
students began calling him a “school shooter” and encouraging him to harm himself. The
respondent acknowledged that this behavior was inappropriate and violated the Code of
Student Conduct, and following an investigation resulted in discipline imposed on the
offending students. The statute defines HIB as “any gesture, any written, verbal or
physical act, . . . that is reasonably perceived as being motivated either by any actual or
perceived characteristic, such as race, color, religion, ancestry, . . . or by any other
distinguishing characteristic.” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14 (emphasis added). As respondent
points out, the students called C.S. “school shooter” because of his poor choice of
bringing in the nerf gun to school. It is indisputable that the students’ conduct was wholly
inappropriate and hurtful, and discipline was warranted because “cruel words will not be
tolerated in a school environment.” C.C. o/b/o S.C. v. Bd. of Ed. of Jefferson, 2015 N.J.
AGEN LEXIS 251 (April 6, 2015), aff’d Comm’r (May 12, 2015).
However, the name-calling in the present matter was not based upon C.S.’s
distinguishing characteristics as defined in the statute or case law. The facts and
inferences in the record do not substantiate a negative inference from C.S.’s decision to
bring in a nerf gun with his mental facilities or that his fellow students were making such
a connection.
The respondent did not find that the comments were based upon C.S.’s race, color,
religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and
expression, or mental, physical, or sensory disability, or another distinguishing
characteristic. While the petitioner may disagree with the respondent’s determination, the
petitioner presents no evidence that this determination was made in bad faith or in utter
disregard of the extant information. I therefore FIND that the respondent properly
investigated the incidents under the Code of Student Conduct.
Accordingly, based on the facts presented on the pending motions, and even
giving petitioner the benefit of any reasonable inferences that could be drawn from her

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04735-23
11
papers or initial petition, I CONCLUDE that petitioner has not proven that the
respondent’s determination was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
ORDER
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.
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, 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.
March 25, 2024
DATE KIM C. BELIN, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
KCB/vj

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04735-23
12
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For petitioners:
None
For respondent:
None
EXHIBITS
For petitioner:
• Petition dated April 14, 2023
• Brief in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Decision dated October 24, 2023
For respondent:
• Answer dated May 30, 2023
• Notice of Motion for Summary Decision dated October 4, 2023