A.H., on behalf of minor child, A.A. v. Board of Education of the High Point Regional High School District, Sussex County, 3/2/26 (#72-26)

72-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 08773-24
Agency Dkt. No. 165-5/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
A.H., on behalf of minor child, A.A.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the High Point Regional
High School District, Sussex County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by the petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the High Point Regional
High School District Board of Education’s (Board) reply thereto, have been reviewed and
considered.
Petitioner appeals the Board’s determination that her child, A.A., was not the victim of an
act of harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB). On December 26, 2023, A.A. was at school
for wrestling practice and left her phone and a sweatshirt in the locker room. When A.A. returned
to the locker room after practice, she saw that both the phone and sweatshirt had been
damaged. 	Specifically, a graphic on the back of the sweatshirt of a heart with wings and the
words “A big piece of my heart lives in Heaven . . . and he is my Dad!” had been cut; a portion
that included word “Dad” had been removed. The sweatshirt referred to A.A.’s father, who had
passed away.

2
The Investigation Report completed by the school’s Anti-Bullying Specialist (ABS)
indicated that although information provided during the investigation suggested that student
B.K. might be the perpetrator, he could not positively confirm or deny B.K.’s involvement beyond
a reasonable doubt. The HIB Report indicated that all of the characteristics of an HIB incident
had been met: the incident was based on an actual or perceived distinguishing characteristic of
A.A., which was identified on the report as “loss of father”; there was a substantial disruption or
interference with operation of the school or rights of students; and there was physical or
emotional harm to a student or property. The HIB Report further noted that a “HIB incident did
occur, but at this time, there is no confirmation as to the identity of an Alleged Offender.”
Upon his review, the district’s Superintendent determined that the incident did not
constitute HIB, because 1) there was no confirmed offender and 2) the law “focuses on protected
characteristics related to a person[‘]s identity rather than life events such as the loss of a parent.”
The Board agreed with the Superintendent’s recommendation and found that there was no
incident of HIB, noting in its decision that there was no confirmed aggressor or discernible
distinguishing characteristic.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) agreed with the Board’s finding that there was no
confirmed aggressor. Although petitioner argued that a preponderance of the evidence standard
should apply, rather than the reasonable doubt standard applied by the ABS, the ALJ concluded
that the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (Act) does not reflect any such standard by which school
personnel are bound in an investigation. The ALJ further noted that there was no video recording
of or witness to the sweatshirt and phone being damaged, and numerous individuals other than
B.K. had access to the locker room at the time of the incident. As such, the ALJ found that there

3
was no legal basis for the Board to supplant the determination by both the ABS and the
Superintendent that the identity of the individual who caused the damage could not be
confirmed, and that the Board’s decision on this issue was therefore not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.
Regarding the Board’s determination that there was no distinguishing characteristic, the
ALJ concluded that A.A.’s loss of her father is not akin to the distinguishing characteristics
contemplated by the Act. The ALJ found that the Act’s requirement pertains to a characteristic
of the individual alleged to be the victim of HIB. The ALJ also found that even if “loss of father”
were a distinguishing characteristic, there was insufficient evidence that the property damage to
A.A.’s phone and sweatshirt was reasonably perceived as being motivated by A.A.’s loss of her
father. In fact, the ALJ noted that if the perpetrator was B.K. as posited by petitioner, there was
a likelihood that she was instead motivated by a personal conflict with A.A.’s sister. Accordingly,
the ALJ concluded that the Board’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Finally, the ALJ found that any procedural violations alleged by petitioner did not alter her other
conclusions.
In her exceptions, petitioner argues that the ALJ erred in concluding that the loss of a
parent is not a distinguishing characteristic. According to petitioner, the fact that A.A. has lost a
parent marks her as different, which is consistent with the dictionary definition of “distinguish”;
it also has affected her psychologically in a way that leaves her emotionally vulnerable. Petitioner
points to prior Commissioner decisions in which a student’s vegetarian lifestyle, diagnosis with
head lice, and being “weak” or “bad at sports” have been found to be distinguishing
characteristics, even though none of those characteristics related to a student’s identity in the

4
same manner as race, religion, national origin, or other protected statuses.1 	Petitioner also
contends that the ALJ was incorrect in finding that there was insufficient evidence that the
property damage was motivated by A.A.’s loss of her father, because it erroneously focuses on
evidence of the actual motivation of the person who committed the act rather than the
reasonable perception of the victim. 	Additionally, petitioner argues that even if it were
impossible to determine who destroyed A.A.’s phone and sweatshirt, it is not necessary to know
who committed an act of HIB to determine that an act of HIB in fact occurred. Petitioner notes
that the Act includes a range of services, interventions, and responses that are aimed at
supporting a victim of HIB, which do not require identification of a perpetrator. Finally, petitioner
argues that the Board failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Act.
In response, the Board argues that in the cases cited by petitioner related to distinguishing
characteristics, the comments made by the aggressor to the victim were all based on the victim’s
distinguishing characteristics and stated clearly by the identified aggressor. 	Conversely, here,
there was no identified aggressor or comments made to A.A. about her father. According to the
Board, the ALJ properly determined that there was insufficient evidence to determine the
aggressor’s motivation. The Board also argues that there was no substantial disruption to the
orderly operation of the school or the rights of other students, as required by the Act. Finally,
the Board argues that the ALJ correctly concluded that there were no procedural deficiencies.
The Act defines HIB as:
1 Petitioner also notes that in N.M. o/b/o H.M. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Sch. Dist. of the Chathams, Commissioner
Decision No. 280-18 (Nov. 29, 2018), a board of education found that comments one student made about another
student’s deceased father constituted HIB. However, that portion of the Board’s determination was not appealed,
and the Commissioner therefore did not review it or address whether having a deceased father could constitute a
distinguishing characteristic. Accordingly, that decision has no precedential value here.

5
[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 etither
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
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.]
In sum, a finding of HIB requires three elements under the Act.2 First, the conduct must
be reasonably perceived as being motivated by any actual or perceived characteristic expressly
identified in the statute, or by any other distinguishing characteristic. Second, the conduct must
substantially disrupt or interfere with the rights of other students or the orderly operation of the
school. 	Third, one of the three conditions set forth in subsections (a), (b), and (c) must be
satisfied. Wehbeh v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of Verona, Essex Cnty., Commissioner Decision No.
510-20 (Feb. 4, 2020).
2 As the parties do not dispute that the incident occurred on school property, this element of the Act is deemed
satisfied and it is not necessary to further address it herein.

6
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that the Board correctly found that
there was no identified offender, and that it would be inappropriate to confirm that B.K. was the
aggressor in the incident at issue, as petitioner requested. However, this finding does not require
the conclusion that there was no act of HIB. 	Nothing in the Act requires that an offender be
identified, and a student may be a victim of an act of HIB – and receive appropriate services
related thereto – even if there is no offender to be punished.
The Commissioner also disagrees with the ALJ and finds that the loss of a parent can
constitute a distinguishing characteristic. The Act does not contain a definition of “distinguishing
characteristic.” It enumerates some examples of distinguishing characteristics, but also includes
a catchall for “any other distinguishing characteristic.” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14. Prior Commissioner
decisions have recognized that distinguishing characteristics are not limited to immutable
characteristics like many of those enumerated in the Act. A student’s appearance at a given time
can be a distinguishing characteristic,3 as can a temporary health condition4 or a student’s skill
at sports.5 In keeping with those prior cases, the Commissioner finds that the ALJ’s interpretation
of what may constitute a distinguishing characteristic is too narrow. The fact that A.A.’s father is
deceased distinguishes her from the majority of her classmates, not solely as a “life
circumstance,” but in a profound and meaningful way. The Commissioner finds that the Board
disregarded this reality, and therefore also finds that it was arbitrary, capricious, and
3 R.G.B. o/b/o E.B. v. Bd. of Educ. of Ridgewood, Commissioner Decision No. 242-13 (June 24, 2013).
4 W.C.L. and A.L. o/b/o L.L. v. Bd. of Educ. of Tenafly, Commissioner Decision No. 15-13 (Jan. 10, 2013).
5 C.C. o/b/o S.C. v. Bd. of Educ. of Jefferson, Commissioner Decision No. 153-15 (May 12, 2015).

7
unreasonable for the Board to determine that A.A.’s loss of her father was not a distinguishing
characteristic.
The Commissioner further disagrees with the ALJ regarding her conclusion that there is
insufficient evidence that the damage to A.A.’s property was motivated by A.A.’s loss of her
father.6 Prior Commissioner decisions have been clear that a HIB finding does not depend on the
actual motivation of the actor. “In defining HIB as an action “that is reasonably perceived as being
motivated either by any actual or perceived characteristic . . .”, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14 (emphasis
added), the statute requires an analysis of how the actor’s motivation is perceived and whether
that perception is reasonable. 	It does not require an analysis of the actual motivation of the
actor.” Wehbeh, supra. 	It is clear that A.A. perceived the damage to her sweatshirt as being
motivated by the loss of her father. The question then becomes whether that perception was
reasonable. The sweatshirt that was damaged was not any sweatshirt, but one that specifically
referenced A.A.’s father; the portion of the sweatshirt that was damaged was the graphic about
him.7 The Commissioner therefore concludes that it was reasonable for A.A. to perceive that the
damage was motivated by the loss of her father.
As to the second requirement for an act of HIB, the conduct must substantially disrupt or
interfere with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of other students. 	The Board
6 The Commissioner notes that this conclusion was not part of the Board’s decision. As such, the Commissioner’s
analysis herein does not address whether the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable – because
there was no decision on this issue – but rather whether the ALJ’s conclusion is legally appropriate.
7 For this reason, the Commissioner also rejects the Board’s attempt to distinguish prior case law because the
perpetrators of the HIB acts in those matters made comments directly related to the student’s appearance, health
condition, or skill at sports. While the act at issue in this matter was not a verbal comment specifically about a
distinguishing characteristic, the action was nonetheless directly related to A.A.’s deceased father.

8
argues that this criteria was not met because the incident occurred during the school’s winter
break and although A.A. left practice for the day afterwards, there is no evidence that she was
unable to learn when she returned to school in January.8 However, a student has a right to attend
school and school activities without suffering damage to their property, and the conduct at issue
here substantially interfered with A.A.’s rights in that regard.
As to the third requirement regarding the effect of the conduct,9 the criteria of N.J.S.A.
18A:37-14(a) have clearly been met; there can be no question that a reasonable person would
know that cutting a student’s sweatshirt would cause physical damage. Moreover, a reasonable
person should know that cutting a sweatshirt referencing a student’s deceased father would have
the effect of emotionally harming the student.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted in part and rejected in part. 	The Board’s
determination that A.A. was not the victim of an act of HIB on December 26, 2023 is reversed.
All requests for relief that relate to student B.K. are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.10
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	March 2, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	March 2, 2026
8 The Commissioner notes that the HIB report found that this element was met, and the Board’s decision, as
communicated to petitioner by the Superintendent, does not reject that finding. The Initial Decision also does not
address this issue.
9 As with the second element, the Board’s decision did not reject the ABS’s conclusion that the requirement was
met, and the Initial Decision did not address this issue.
10 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
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 165-5/24
A.H. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD, A.A.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE HIGH
POINT REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT, SUSSEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
___________________________________
David R. Giles, Esq., for petitioner
Christina Michelson, Esq., for respondent (Methfessel & Werbel, PC, attorneys)
Record Closed: May 23, 2025 Decided: December 4, 2025
BEFORE KELLY J. KIRK, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner, A.H., on behalf of minor child, A.A., challenges the harassment,
intimidation, or bullying (HIB) determination of respondent, Board of Education of the High
Point Regional High School District, Sussex County (Board).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
2
By letter dated March 20, 2024, petitioner was notified that the Board affirmed the
District’s determination that the December 26, 2023, incident did not meet the legal
definition of HIB. (Michelson Cert. 1, Exhibit F.) On May 27, 2024, A.H.’s Pro Se Petition
of Appeal (Petition) was filed with the Commissioner of Education (Commissioner),
alleging “that the act committed by alleged perpetrator, B.K., on December 26, 2023,
meets the statutory definition of HIB; and requesting the following relief: that both A.A.
and A.A.1.’s1 student files be expunged of all claims of HIB brought against them by B.K.;
that the Commissioner overturn the determination of HIB that was confirmed on March
20, 2024; that B.K. be confirmed as having committed an act of HIB on December 26,
2023, as the perpetrator and the victim being A.A.; that the commissioner acknowledge
that there was enough proof to determine who was the perpetrator and recognize that a
discernible distinguishing characteristic existed and that the school district's translation of
such characteristic was narrow and did not fall within the legal parameters of the statute;
that staff and teachers receive additional HIB training so they have a greater
understanding of the scope of distinguishing characteristics and the legal standard of
evidence to determine if a student has committed an act of HIB; and that B.K. be
scheduled separately from A.A. and A.A.1. when possible. On June 19, 2024, the Board
filed an Answer To Petition Of Appeal (Answer) with the Commissioner.
The Department of Education transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) under the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, and the act
establishing the office, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23, for a hearing under the Uniform
Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6, and the rules of procedure
established by the Department of Education to hear and decide controversies and
disputes arising under school laws, N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.1 to -1.17. The matter was filed at
the Office of Administrative Law on June 26, 2024.
On February 14, 2025, respondent filed a motion for summary decision, consisting
of a brief, Certification of Exhibits (Michelson Cert. 1) with seven exhibits, and Certification
of James Rice (Rice Cert.) with two exhibits. On April 1, 2025, petitioner filed a cross-
1 In other exhibits, A.A.1. is referred to as A.A.2.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
3
motion for summary decision, consisting of a brief in opposition to respondent’s motion
for summary decision and in support of petitioner’s cross-motion, Certification of A.H.
(A.H. Cert.) with five exhibits, Certification of A.A. (A.A. Cert.) with one exhibit, and
Certification of David Giles, Esq. (Giles Cert.) with four exhibits. On May 2, 2025,
respondent filed a letter brief in reply to petitioner’s opposition and in opposition to
petitioner’s cross-motion for summary decision. On May 16, 2025, petitioner filed a reply
letter-brief (May 16 Reply) in reply to respondent’s opposition to the cross-motion for
summary decision and Certification of Exhibits (Michelson Cert. 2) with two exhibits. On
or about May 23, 2025, respondent filed a sur-reply, consisting of a sur-reply letter-brief
with one exhibit (May 23 Sur-Reply) and Certification of Exhibits (Michelson Cert. 3) with
two exhibits.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
A December 26, 2023, Student Information Report, noted thereon to be “A.A.’s
Statement” (A.A.’s Statement), reflects an incident in the girls’ locker room “around 9am
on 12/26” as follows:
I grabbed my sweatshirt and my hands went through a hole in
the back, and I saw that dad was cut off in the back of it. Then
I told coach bang and she went to [illegible]. When I said
some to bang [redacted] left the locker room. When bang left
I called my mom @ 10:49 am. [Redacted] came up to me and
told me that [redacted] was in and out of the locker room
[illegible] bangs office. bang told me something and I grabbed
my stuff and went to the senior tables. When Ms. Cardinal
came someone said something at someone at hp. when my
mom came we went into the [illegible] office and later in the
[illegible] I saw that the back of my phone was broke [sic] and
it wasn’t like that before practice.
[See Giles Cert., Exhibit A.]
A.A.’s Statement further reflects who was involved as “[redacted] told me info,” and
who else saw it happen as “No one. I’m not sure.” (See Giles Cert., Exhibit A.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
4
A December 27, 2023, Student Information Reports reflects the following: incident
happened in the “locker room” and “I don’t know how it got damaged.” (See Giles Cert.,
Exhibit A.) Another December 27, 2023, Student Information Report reflects “I don’t know
what happend [sic] to the sweatshirt or who damaged it.” (See Giles Cert., Exhibit A.)
Another December 27, 2023, Student Information Report reflects that an incident
happened in the “locker room (girls)” and what happened was as follows:
[Redacted]’s sweatshirt was cut up by St. Elizabeth (likely). it
was a sweatshirt memorializing her dad. the word dad was
cut out directly and discarded somewhere unknown.
[See Giles Cert., Exhibit A.]
Said Student Information Report further reflects that it could have been avoided by “stop
letting other teams in our locker room . . . [t]hey could have gone to a classroom,” and
that the best way that the problem can be solved is “stop letting people into our locker
room.” (See Giles Cert., Exhibit A.) Another Student Information Report reflects an
incident happened in the “girls[’] locker room by east gym,” and what happened was as
follows:
[Redacted]’s sweatshirt was ripped/cut but I was not there and
only heard of it afterwards. I was out running so I also did not
see anyone come in or out of the locker room.
[See Giles Cert., Exhibit A.]
Another December 27, 2023, Student Information Report reflects an incident in
“the girls[’] locker room,” and that “[a]fter practice yesterday [redacted] grabbed her
sweatshirt and it was cut in the back.” (See Giles Cert., Exhibit A.) Another December
27, 2023, Student Information Report reflects an incident in the “locker room” and “My
friend [redacted]’s sweatshirt was ruined,” and “I don’t have any knowledge of what
happened.” (See Giles Cert., Exhibit A.)
A January 2, 2024, Student Information Report, noted thereon to be “B.K.
statement” (B.K. Statement), reflects that an incident happened in the “girls[’] locker room”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
5
at “practice?” involving “the wrestling team, Saint Elizabeth basketball.” It also reflects
that B.K. was “not sure” who else saw it happen, and that what happened was as follows:
I went in the locker room to get the papers from Mrs. Bangs
office. I saw saint elizabeth by the whiteboard so I had to go
further to reach her office. I didn’t find the papers I had to give
to . . . so I went back out and asked bang where she put it. I
got the papers and even this time, I went to the locker room
and the basketball team was still in there. They were right by
where . . . leaves her stuff when the team came out, the
basketball team was gone and we all went to run. Before the
run, I was talking to . . . at the basketball game about my A/C
separation. then I came into the locker room to [redacted]
crying and everyone saying stuff about what just happened. I
was not in the locker room at the time she found out. I was in
the locker room 3 times 2 times for the papers and once with
[redacted] and [redacted] I had left before the team was talked
to but when I came back for the girls basketball game with my
friends, I found out that [redacted] and [redacted] had gone to
the police station. [Redacted] had left her stuff in the open,
this is what lockers are for. I have nothing against [redacted]
its [sic] her mom and her sister. I would NEVER do this to any
of them. I know what they’ve been through and what that
sweatshirt means to all 3 of them. To sum it up, all that
happened was I went into the locker room before practice with
[redacted] and [redacted]. [Redacted] was not here at this
time once [redacted] got to the school, we started to mop the
mats. I don’t know exactly when [redacted] got there but when
she did, I was mopping the mats practice started and maybe
halfway through [redacted] came into the wrestling room and
saw me with my sling. He asked for the papers so I went into
the locker room to see the [redacted] team standing in my way
so I walked around to get into [redacted] office. I could not
find them so I went back out to ask where they were more
specifically and she told me by the printer, so I went back to
the wrestling room with the papers after this, [redacted] talked
to me in the gym where the basketball game was going on.
after my talk with [redacted] I went into the locker room where
I saw the wrestling team going for their run so I joined but I
walked the entire time. After the run, I went into the locker
room and saw [redacted] crying and everyone talking about
what just happened [redacted] thought it got caught on
something but everyone else knew it was cut. [Redacted] and
I talked and I told her I would never do anything like that she
believed me and I left to go home.
[See Giles Cert., Exhibit B.]

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
6
On January 5, 2024, a HIB 338 Form was completed by A.H. regarding the incident
on December 26, 2023. (A.H. Cert., Exhibit C.) The listed student witnesses were “HP
Girls Wrestling Team but more specifically because these girls attended practice on 12-
26-23, ([redacted]), HP Basketball Varsity Girls St. Elizabeth Varsity Girls basketball
players.” (A.H. Cert., Exhibit C.) The listed staff witnesses were “HP Wrestling Coach
Bang, HP Basketball Smetana, and St. Elizabeth Basketball Coach.” (A.H. Cert., Exhibit
C.) Other witnesses listed were “Newton Girls Basketball players and Kittatinny Girls
Basketball players may have been in the locker room at time of incident.” (A.H. Cert.,
Exhibit C.) The HIB 338 Form describes the incident as follows:
[A.A.’s] property of sweatshirt and phone was intentionally
destroyed. [A.A.] was attending wrestling practice and while
practicing alleged offender [B.K.] obtained possession of
[A.A.’s] personal property. Offender intentionally cut out the
“Dad” in the sweatshirt and with physical force broke her
phone. The Dad was the only word cut out as the shirt read,
“A big piece of my heart lives in heaven and he is my dad.”
The incident took place while the girls were wrestling. [B.K.]
was hurt at match on 12-23-23 so didn’t practice the day of
the incident. It was reported by other wrestlers that [B.K.] was
in and out of locker room and was told to go to the Athletic
Director’s office but may have never went. It was told also
that [B.K.] knows where Coach Bang keeps the scissors.
After practice, [A.A.] went into locker room to get dressed and
as she put on her sweatshirt, her arm/hand went right thru
hole. [A.A.] immediately took her sweatshirt and showed
Coach Bang the damage. [A.A.] called me at 10:52 am and I
immediately came to the school. While talking to school
counselor [A.A.] noticed that her iPhone was broken.
Counselor then notified Mr. Dexter who was now aware of
[illegible] in the girls[’] locker room.
[A.H. Cert., Exhibit C.]
James Rice is the Director of Safety and Security for High Point Regional High
School and served as the Anti-Bullying Specialist (ABS) from on or about November 1,
2019, to February 1, 2024. (See Rice Cert.) On or about January 5, 2024, he was
directed by Principal Jonathan Tallamy to assist Assistant Principal Rebecca Sarno with
reinterviewing two specific students about an incident on December 26, 2023. (See Rice

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
7
Cert.) On January 8, 2024, Tallamy directed ABS Rice to initiate a HIB investigation.
(See Rice Cert.)
An Incident Statement from Coach Erin Bang (Bang’s Incident Statement), dated
January 11, 2024, states:
John Gardner and I held practice from 9-11 in the girls
wrestling room. After practice, before the girls went on their
cardio run, it was brought to my attention that a student’s
sweatshirt was cut-up. I immediately took the student and the
sweatshirt to Mr. Dexter. It’s been so long since 12/26/23 I do
not recall if I gave my keys to anyone.
Q. Tell me about finding a pair of scissors.
A. At the end of the day (Jan. 10, 2024) I went to the office
looked in the desk for scissors and they were in the left hand
drawer buried under binders, papers, and books.
[See Giles Cert., Exhibit A.]
A November 12, 2024, Wrestling Statement states:
I never directly saw Bang give her keys to [redacted] but I
certainly saw [redacted] with the keys from the beginning-
middle ish of practice. She was also injured that day and was
not wrestling so she shouldn’t have had anything in the locker
room anyways. I saw her with the keys in the wrestling room.
[See Giles Cert., Exhibit A.]
A January 12, 2024, Incident Statement states:
I saw [redacted] ask coach bang for her keys i don’t know what
time exactly but it was more towards the beginning of practice.
I believe i was in the wrestling room at the time and saw her
go in the locker room to ask for the keys.
Also [redacted] on Wednesday, January 10 during lunch had
told [redacted] and [redacted] (both freshmen) that she had
blamed [redacted] for the sweatshirt, but was gonna go to the
office that day and blame me for it instead. She is like starting
to blame everyone for this, starting with [. . . ] and me.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
8
Bang [and] [redacted] were in the wrestling room walk [sic]
towards her office while i was walking down the hall towards
the wrestling room.
[See Giles Cert., Exhibit A.]
The High Point Regional High School Incident/Investigation Report (Rice Report),
states as follows:
This investigation began on 12/26/2023 and was conducted
by Administrative Personnel involving an incident that took
place at a team practice. The incident reported was that
[redacted] a female wrestling athlete, found her sweatshirt
had been intentionally damaged sometime during the practice
time. The sweatshirt was left in the girls[’] locker room
adjacent to the cheer room in the East Gymnasium. It was
discovered that the sweatshirt, as well as other personal
clothing and items belonging to [redacted] were left unsecured
on the bench & top of the lockers in the area near the PE
Teachers[’] office side of the locker room. The damage was
reported to me as the word “DAD” being cut from the
sweatshirt (See picture).
I was advised that the female athletes and coaches were
interviewed by AD Dexter and AP Sarno as part of their
investigation. I was further advised that as part of this
investigation, a search for the cutting item and review of the
Security Camera System were conducted by AD Dexter. (See
notes and statements from Administrative Personnel).
On 1/5/2024, I was directed by Principal Tallamy to assist AP
Sarno & AD Dexter with re-interviewing 2 students in
reference to the above mentioned investigation conducted by
the Administration (AD Dexter & AP Sarno). AP Sarno
advised me that she wanted us to speak with [redacted] and
[redacted].
AP Sarno and I first spoke to [redacted], who said that she did
enter the locker room during practice through the east gym
entrance in order to get her inhaler. When asked about being
alone in the locker room, [redacted] said that she was not
alone, and that [redacted] was in the locker room near “Bang's
office” (PE Teacher's [sic] office). [Redacted] said that she
thought [redacted] might have been “talking to Ms. Bang”.
When asked about [redacted]’s sweatshirt, [redacted] said
that she never saw the sweatshirt and didn't have any
knowledge of how it got damaged. We asked [redacted] if she

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
9
had heard anyone talking about the incident or had seen
anything on Social Media. [Redacted] said that she had not
heard or seen anything. I asked [redacted] if she knew
anything about how [redacted]’s sweatshirt was damaged,
and she said no. [Redacted] did not provide a new written
statement at this time as the information was consistent with
the first interview.
AP Sarno and I then spoke to [redacted] who said that she
arrived at practice and was helping with mopping the mats.
[Redacted] said that she was injured and not cleared to
practice. [Redacted] added that during practice, she had to
go into “Bang’s office” (PE Teachers[’] office) to get paperwork
for Mr. Meyer, the Athletic Trainer, and then she took the
paperwork to Mr. Meyer. [Redacted] said that when the team
did their run, she walked with Coach Bang’s daughter. We
asked [redated] if she heard anyone talking about damaging
the sweatshirt or saw anything on Social Media. [Redacted]
said no. I asked [redacted] if she knew anything about how
[redacted]’s sweatshirt was damaged, and she said no.
On 1/9/2024, AP Sarno and I spoke to [redacted] who was a
wrestling team member that had not been interviewed yet.
[Redacted] said that she was at the practice but did not notice
anything until hearing about the damage to the sweatshirt at
the end of the practice. I asked [redacted] if she had heard
anyone talking about the incident or seen anything on social
media about it. [Redacted] said that she heard rumors that
[redacted] might be involved, but that she had not heard
anything or seen anything other than that.
On 1/10/2024 in the afternoon, AP Sarno was met by Coach
Erin Bang, Girl's [sic] Wrestling team, who turned over
scissors that were just located in the PE Teachers[’] office.
Ms. Bang also advised AP Sarno that she had forgotten that
she had given her keys to a student, [redacted], in order to get
her paperwork from the PE Teacher's [sic] office. AP Sarno
secured those scissors and turned them over to me the
morning of 1/11/2024 as well as passing on the information
about the keys. The scissors were in a zip lock plastic bag
and I observed the blue fibers on the blade and when looking
at the picture of the sweatshirt, noted that the fibers appear to
be similar in fabric and color. The scissors were secured in
my personal gun locker which only I have access to.
On 1/11/2024, I spoke with Ms. Bang about about [sic] the
information received from AP Sarno and the finding of the
scissors. I first asked Ms. Bang about her keys being given
to a student. Ms. Bang said that she was dealing with a group

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
10
of girls at practice that were talking about this incident, and
advising them to stop. During this conversation, Ms. Bang
said that the girls reminded her that she had given [redacted]
her keys during practice. Ms. Bang continued by saying that
she was pissed at herself for forgetting and not mentioning
this sooner. I asked Ms. Bang to explain about giving the keys
to [redacted] and she said that she wasn't sure when it was,
but that it wasn't at the end of practice. Ms. Bang continued
by saying that she wasn't exactly sure how long [redacted]
had the keys and thought about 5 minutes but definitely not
longer than 10 minutes. Ms. Bang said that she got her keys
back from [redacted]. I asked Ms. Bang if the office was open
or locked at the end of practice when she came into the locker
room. Ms. Bang said that it was locked at the end.
I then asked Ms. Bang about her finding the scissors and
turning them into [sic] AP Sarno. Ms. Bang advised that she
took it upon herself to conduct a second search of the PE
Teachers[’] office in the locker room. While going through the
desk with the printer on it, she checked the left drawer and
hidden behind some “stuff” in the back was a pair of scissors
that had blue fabric on the blade. Ms. Bang said there were
three pairs of office scissors throughout the office, but this was
the only one that had fabric fibers.
I asked Ms. Bang to write a statement about what she had
spoken to me about. Ms. Bang took the form with her because
of her teaching responsibilities this next period starting in a
few minutes. I asked Ms. Bang to return the statement as
soon as possible. Ms. Bang returned to my office later and
told me that she “spilled coffee” on the form that I gave her
and could she have another one. I gave her another
statement form. Ms. Bang returned the completed statement
form a little while later. In the statement, Ms. Bang had written
about how there was practice on 12/26/2023 and described
the practice itself. Next, in a small sentence wrote that
because of the length of time, she couldn’t remember if she
gave anyone the keys, and did not even address the finding
of the scissors as requested. Ms. Bang was asked to stop by
my office and address the question I had asked to be clarified
about the scissors. Ms. Bang stopped by my office while I
was dealing with another situation, and answered my question
in a written manner. I was advised that while in the office, she
made comments to others in the security office about not
wanting to be involved in this incident. (see statement Bang)
I noted that during my interview with Ms. Bang, she was
concise and direct in her recollection of both the incident
involving the keys and finding the scissors. Ms. Bang

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
11
understood fully what we had spoken about, and that I wanted
her written statement to address the two incidents that we had
spoken about. I have no explanation for the sudden and
unsolicited change in the information provided to me by Ms.
Bang as part of this investigation. Ms. Bang did not speak
with me further about this incident.
AP Sarno and I then spoke with [redacted] about the new
information received. We first spoke about the possibility of
her getting keys from Ms. Bang to open the office for the
paperwork she needed. [Redacted] said that she did not get
keys from Ms. Bang and that the office was already open. We
talked some more about the keys and [redacted] added that
she has never used Ms. Bang's keys. We then spoke about
the scissors that had been located and I asked [redacted] if
she had seen these before and she said no. We talked about
the situation and the possible motivations the person who had
done this might have had. I told [redacted] about where we
were in the investigation. I then asked her if she had anything
else that she wanted to tell us about this incident that she had
not told us before. [Redacted] said no, then got up, stopped
before going out, and said she had a question. [Redacted]
asked why the scissors were just found and I again explained
that they were located yesterday. [Redacted] again was going
to leave, then stopped, and asked if she could ask another
question. I told her of course and asked her to sit down again.
[Redacted] sat down and advised us that another student,
[redacted], had asked her about [redacted]’s family issues
some time before 12/26/2023 and [redacted] said that she told
her about the situation. [Redacted] also said that there were
“a lot of people in the office including Coach Bang”. At this
point, I thanked her for that information and [redacted] left the
office.
On 1/12/2024, AP Sarno and AD Dexter interviewed members
of the Girl's [sic] Wrestling team about Ms. Bang's actions
involving the giving of keys to [redacted]. Their interviews
found two students who observed [redacted] with Ms. Bang's
keys. (See Administration notes).
On 1/17/2024, AP Sarno and I spoke with [redacted] in
reference to an email that [redacted] sent me about a friend
of hers receiving a text message from [redacted] in reference
to the sweatshirt. (see email and screen shot). [Redacted]
told us that she received the text message on 1/2/2024 from
[redacted]. [. . .] said that she is friends with both [redacted]
and [redacted] and that she really didn't want to get involved
in this, but felt that [redacted] needed to know. [Redacted]
said that the text message was asking [redacted] if she had

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
12
heard about [redacted]’s sweatshirt and also [redacted] asked
if [redacted] thought it was her ([redacted]). I asked if
[redacted] was saying anything about the incident, and
[redacted] said that [redacted] doesn't talk much about it. I
asked if [redacted] was saying anything to her about the
incident. [Redacted] said that [redacted] texted the same
message to her on 1/4/2024, but [redacted] said she told her
that [redacted] had not said anything to her. The last thing I
asked [redacted] was that if she had heard anyone else talking
about the incident or if she had seen anything on social media,
[. . . ] said that no one has talked to her about it.
As a result of this investigation, though a preponderance of
the evidence received is directed at a specific student,
[redacted] that information alone cannot positively confirm or
deny that student's involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.
Therefore, this incident will be listed as Closed - Pending. The
investigation will be reopened if new information is received in
the future.
[See Giles Cert., Exhibit A.]
The High Point Regional High School Harassment—Intimidation—Bullying Report
(HIB Report) summarizes the investigation as follows:
On 1/8/2024, I was directed by Principal Tallamy to initiate a
HIB investigation based on the receipt of a HIB 338 form
submitted by Mrs. [redacted] mother of [redacted]. The form
indicated that [redacted]’s sweatshirt and cell phone were
damaged at a Girl's [sic] Wrestling team practice on
12/26/2023. The investigation by the Administration was
initiated on the same day. (See notes and statements from
Administration's investigation).
On 1/5/2024, I was asked to assist AP Sarno with re-
interviewing specific students in reference to IR 10-23-24. I
assisted AP Sarno with speaking to [redacted] and [redacted].
We first spoke to [redacted], who said that she did enter the
locker room during practice through the east gym entrance in
order to get her inhaler. When asked about being alone in the
locker room, [redacted] said that she was not alone, and that
[redacted] was in the locker room near “Bang’s office” (PE
Teacher’s [sic] office). [Redacted] said that she thought
[redacted] might have been “talking to Ms. Bang”. When
asked about [redacted]’s sweatshirt, [redacted] said that she
never saw the sweatshirt and didn't have any knowledge of
how it got damaged. We asked [redacted] if she had heard

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
13
anyone talking about the incident or had seen anything on
Social Media. [Redacted] said that she had not heard or seen
anything. I asked [redacted] if she knew anything about how
[redacted]’s sweatshirt was damaged, and she said no.
[Redacted] did not provide a new statement at this time.
We next spoke to [redacted], who said that she arrived at
practice and was helping with mopping the mats. [Redacted]
said that she was injured and not cleared to practice.
[Redacted] added that during practice she had to go into
“Bang's office” (PE Teachers[’] office) to get paperwork for Mr.
Meyer, the Athletic Trainer, and then she took the paperwork
to Mr. Meyer. [Redacted] said that when the team did their
run, she walked with Coach Bang’s daughter. I asked
[redacted] if she knew anything about how [redacted]’s
sweatshirt was damaged, and she said no.
On 1/9/2024, AP Sarno and I spoke to [redacted] who was a
wrestling team member that had not been interviewed yet.
[Redacted] said that she was at the practice but did not notice
anything until hearing about the damage to the sweatshirt at
the end of practice. I asked [redacted] if she had heard
anyone talking about the incident or seen anything on social
media about it. [Redacted] said that she heard rumors that
[redacted] might be involved, but that she had not heard
anything or seen anything other than that.
On 1/11/2024, I spoke with Ms. Bang about about [sic] the
information received from AP Sarno. I first asked Ms. Bang
about her keys being given to a student. Ms. Bang said that
she was dealing with a group of girls that were talking about
this incident, and advising them to stop. During this
conversation, Ms. Bang said that the girls reminded her that
she had given [redacted] her keys during practice. Ms. Bang
continued by saying that she was pissed at herself for
forgetting and not mentioning this sooner. I asked Ms. Bang
to explain about giving the keys to [redacted] and she said that
she wasn’t sure when it was, but that it wasn’t at the end of
practice. Ms. Bang continued by saying that she wasn't
exactly sure how long [redacted] had the keys and thought
about 5 minutes but definitely not longer than 10 minutes. Ms.
Bang said that she got her keys back from [redacted]. I asked
Ms. Bang if the office was open or locked at the end of practice
when she came into the locker room. Ms. Bang said that it
was locked at the end.
I then asked Ms. Bang about her finding the scissors and
turning them into [sic] AP Sarno. Ms. Bang advised that she
took it upon herself to search the PE Teachers[’] office in that

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
14
locker room. While going through the desk with the printer on
it, she checked the left drawer and in the back was a pair of
scissors that had blue fabric similar to the fabric of the
sweatshirt that was cut. Ms. Bang said there were three pairs
of office scissors, but this was the only one that had fabric
fibers.
I asked Ms. Bang to write a statement about what she had
spoken about. Ms. Bang took the form and [I] asked her to
return it after her teaching responsibilities this next period.
Ms. Bang returned shortly after leaving my office and told me
that she “spilled coffee” on the form I gave her and could she
have another one. I gave her another form. A little while later,
Ms. Bang returned the statement form. Ms. Bang had written
about how there was practice on 12/26/2023 and described
the practice, then in a small sentence wrote that because of
time, she couldn't remember if she gave anyone the keys, and
did not even address the finding of the scissors. Ms. Bang
was asked to stop by my office and address the question I had
asked to be clarified about the scissors. Ms. Bang stopped by
my office while I was dealing with another situation, and
answered my question. (see statement Bang)
On 1/12/2024, I was asked by Mrs. [redacted], [redacted]’s
mother, if l could speak to [redacted]’s boyfriend, [redacted]
as a potential witness to this investigation. I advised her I
would. During that conversation, Mrs. [redacted] advised me
that she feels [redacted] was targeted “because she doesn't
have a Dad”. I advised Mrs. [redacted] I would note that.
AP Sarno and I then spoke with [redacted] and explained what
I was investigating. [Redacted] said that he was [redacted]’s
boyfriend, but that they broke up 2-3 days ago. [Redacted]
offered that they broke up because of the stresses she was
going through and she needed her space. [Redacted] said
that she broke up with him. I asked [redacted] if he was aware
of the incidents involving the girl’s [sic] wrestling team and he
said that he had heard from others about the sweatshirt and
phone being damaged, and how [redacted]’s name was
involved. [Redacted] said that [redacted] never spoke to him
about it. I asked [redacted] if he had ever heard [redacted]
talking with anyone about that incident and he said No. I
asked [redacted] again, if [redacted] had ever told him
anything about the damage to the sweatshirt and the cell
phone. [Redacted] said that [redacted] had never spoken to
him about that.
On 1/17/2024, AP Sarno and I spoke with [redacted] in
reference to an email that [redacted] sent me about a friend

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
15
of hers receiving a text message from [redacted] in reference
to the sweatshirt. (see email and screen shot). [Redacted]
told us that she received the text message on 1/2/2024 from
[redacted]. [Redacted] said that she is friends with both
[redacted] and [redacted] and that she really didn’t want to get
involved in this, but felt that [redacted] needed to know.
[Redacted] said that the text message was asking [redacted]
if she had heard about [redacted]’s sweatshirt and also
[redacted] asked if [redacted] thought it was her ([redacted]).
I asked if [redacted] was saying anything about the incident,
[redacted] said that [redacted] texted the same message to
her on 1/4/2024, but [redacted] said she told her that
[redacted] had not said anything to her. The last thing I asked
[redacted] was that if she had heard anyone else talking about
the incident or if she had seen anything on social media [. . .]
said that no one has talked to her about it.
Based on the information received from AP Sarno and AD
Dexter involving their investigation as well as my findings, I
believe the incident itself has all of the distinguishing
characteristics of a Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying
incident. The evidence gathered as well as the interviews that
were conducted by both the Administration and myself do not
confirm or deny the parents' accusation towards a specific
student’s involvement. The report will show a HIB incident did
occur, but that at this time, there is no confirmation as to the
identity of an Alleged Offender.
[See Giles Cert., Exhibit A.]
The HIB Report checks “yes” to “substantial disruption or interference with
operations of school or rights of students,” “actual or perceived distinguishing
characteristic,” and “physical or emotional harm to a student or his or her property or fear
of harm to student or property,” and reflects the distinguishing characteristic as “Other
(Loss of Father).” (See Giles Cert., Exhibit A.)
Superintendent Scott Ripley’s January 29, 2024, Administrative Review of the HIB
Report states:
While it is highly troubling and upsetting that a student who
has recently lost a parent might have to endure a negative
experience such as that which is described, there are two
aspects of this ruling that inform my decision to overturn this
positive HIB determination and to declare it to be a CODE OF

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
16
CONDUCT infraction with no confirmed offender. 1. There is
no established offender. 2. The HIB legislation focuses on
protected characteristics related to a person[’]s identity rather
than life events such as the loss of a parent. For these
reasons I am overruling this HIB determination so as to
formalize this incident as NOT falling under the statutory HIB
requirements.
[See Giles Cert., Exhibit A.]
The February 27, 2024, Board meeting minutes reflect that the Board unanimously
approved the following resolution: “It is recommended by the Superintendent that the
Board of Education approves the Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying Report for the
period January 24, through February 27, 2024. (Attachment A-4.)” (See Michelson Cert.
2, Exhibit H.)
The March 19, 2024, Board Executive Session minutes reflect, inter alia, that “Dr.
Ripley discussed an HIB appeal that was heard last week by the Personnel & Policies
Committee” and that “Mr. Dunn discussed opinions from the school attorney regarding
the appeal.” (See Michelson Cert. 2, Exhibit I.)
By letter dated March 20, 2024, petitioner was notified that the Board affirmed the
District’s determination that the December 26, 2023, incident did not meet the legal
definition of HIB. (See Michelson Cert. 1, Exhibit F.) More specifically, the letter states
that “due to the rationale provided in the original findings report and presented in our
appeal meeting [there was no confirmed aggressor, nor was there a discernible
distinguishing characteristic], this letter shall service as official notice that the Board
affirms the district determination that the incident did not meet the legal definition of a HIB
and that the HIB appeal is denied.” (Michelson Cert. 1, Exhibit F.)
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act
The New Jersey Legislature has found and declared that a safe and civil
environment in school is necessary for students to learn and achieve high academic

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
17
standards, and that harassment, intimidation, or bullying (HIB), like other disruptive or
violent behaviors, is conduct that disrupts both a student’s ability to learn and a school’s
ability to educate its students in a safe environment. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13. In enacting the
“Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act,” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.2 to -37.5 (the Act), it was the intent
of the Legislature to strengthen the standards and procedures for preventing, reporting,
investigating, and responding to incidents of HIB of students that occur in school and off
school premises. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.1; N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.2. Notwithstanding any
provision of N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et seq. or any other law to the contrary, the commissioner
may adopt such rules and regulations as the commissioner deems necessary to
implement the provisions of the Act. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-32.1.
The Act defines HIB as any 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 by N.J.S.A.
18A:37-15.3, that substantially disrupts or 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; N.J.A.C. 6A:16-1.3.]

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
18
Each school district must adopt a policy prohibiting HIB on school property, at a
school-sponsored function, or on a school bus. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(a); N.J.A.C. 6A:16-
7.7(a). A school district has local control over the content of the policy, except that the
policy must contain, at a minimum, the thirteen components enumerated at N.J.S.A.
18A:37-15(b), which include, but are not limited to: (1) a statement prohibiting HIB of a
student; (2) a definition of HIB no less inclusive than that set forth at N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14;
(3) a description of the type of behavior expected from each student; (4) consequences
and appropriate remedial action for a person who commits an act of HIB; (5) a procedure
for reporting an act of HIB, including a provision that permits a person to report an act of
HIB anonymously; however, this shall not be construed to permit formal disciplinary action
solely on the basis of an anonymous report; (6) a procedure for prompt investigation of
reports of violations and complaints, which must, at a minimum, comport with N.J.S.A.
18A:37-15(a)(6)(a) through (f); (7) the range of ways in which a school will respond once
an incident of HIB is identified, which shall be defined by the principal in conjunction with
the school anti-bullying specialist; (8) a statement that prohibits reprisal or retaliation
against any person who reports an act of HIB and the consequence and appropriate
remedial action for a person who engages in reprisal or retaliation; and (9) consequences
and appropriate remedial action for a person found to have falsely accused another as a
means of retaliation or as a means of HIB. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b). See also N.J.A.C.
6A:16-7.7(a)(2). A school district is not prohibited from adopting a policy that includes
components that are more stringent than the aforesaid components. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-
15(f); N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.7(b).
The superintendent of schools shall appoint a district anti-bullying coordinator.
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-20(b). The principal in each school in a school district shall appoint a
school anti-bullying specialist. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-20(a). The school anti-bullying specialist
shall (1) chair the school safety team; (2) lead the investigation of HIB in the school; and
(3) act as the primary school official responsible for preventing, identifying, and
addressing incidents of HIB in the school. Ibid.
All acts of HIB shall be reported verbally to the school principal on the same day
when the school employee or contracted service provider witnessed or received reliable
information regarding any such incident. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(5). See also N.J.A.C.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
19
6A:16-5.3(a). The principal shall inform the parents or guardians of all students involved
in the alleged incident, and may discuss, as appropriate, the availability of counseling and
other intervention services. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(5). The principal shall keep a written
record of the date, time, and manner of notification to the parents or guardians. Ibid. All
acts of HIB shall be reported in writing to the school principal within two school days of
when the school employee or contracted service provider witnessed or received reliable
information that a student had been subject to HIB. Ibid. The written report shall be on
a numbered form developed by the Department of Education, and a copy of the form shall
be submitted promptly by the principal to the superintendent of schools. Ibid. The form
shall be completed even if a preliminary determination is made under the school district’s
policy that the reported incident or complaint is a report outside the scope of the definition
of HIB pursuant to N.J.S.A.18A:37-14, and shall be kept on file at the school but shall not
be included in any student record, unless the incident results in disciplinary action or is
otherwise required to be contained in a student’s record under State or federal law. Ibid.
A redacted copy of the form that removes all student identification information shall be
confidentially shared with the board of education after the conclusion of the investigation,
if a hearing is requested by a parent or guardian pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(d).
Ibid. The school district shall provide a means for a parent or guardian to complete an
online numbered form developed by the Department of Education to confidentially report
an incident of HIB. Ibid. The principal shall report to the superintendent if a preliminary
determination is made under the school district’s policy that the reported incident or
complaint is a report outside the scope of the definition of HIB, and the superintendent
may require the principal to conduct an investigation of the incident, if the superintendent
determines that an investigation is necessary because the incident is within the scope of
the definition of HIB. Ibid. The superintendent shall notify the principal of this
determination in writing. Ibid.
An investigation shall be initiated by the principal or the principal’s designee within
one school day of the report of the incident and shall be conducted by a school anti-
bullying specialist. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(a). The investigation shall be completed as
soon as possible, but not later than ten school days from the date of the written report of
the incident of HIB, or from the date of the written notification from the superintendent to
the principal to initiate an investigation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(5). Ibid. The

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
20
results of the investigation must be reported to the superintendent of schools within two
school days of the completion of the investigation, and in accordance with regulations
promulgated by the State Board of Education pursuant to the “Administrative Procedure
Act,” P.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.), the superintendent may decide to provide
intervention services, establish training programs to reduce HIB and enhance school
climate, impose discipline, order counseling as a result of the findings of the investigation,
or take or recommend other appropriate action. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(b). The results
of each investigation shall 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. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(c).
Parents or guardians of the students who are parties to the investigation shall be
entitled to receive information about the investigation, in accordance with federal and
State law and regulation, including the nature of the investigation, whether the district
found evidence of HIB, or whether discipline was imposed or services provided to address
the incident of HIB. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(d). This information shall be provided in
writing within five school days after the results of the investigation are reported to the
board. Ibid. A parent or guardian may request a hearing before the board after receiving
the information, and the hearing shall be held within ten days of the request. Ibid. The
board shall meet in executive session for the hearing to protect the confidentiality of the
students. Ibid. At the hearing the board may hear from the school anti-bullying specialist
about the incident, recommendations for discipline or services, and any programs
instituted to reduce such incidents. Ibid. At the next board of education meeting following
its receipt of the report, the board shall issue a decision, in writing, to affirm, reject, or
modify the superintendent’s decision. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(e). The board’s decision
may be appealed to the Commissioner of Education, in accordance with the procedures
set forth in law and regulation, no later than ninety days after the issuance of the board’s
decision. Ibid.
The Act does not explain the meaning of a “distinguishing characteristic.”
However, the dictionary (Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary) defines the word
“distinguish” as “. . . to perceive a difference in . . . to mark as separate or different . . . to

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
21
separate into kinds, classes or categories . . . to set above or apart from others . . . to
single out. . .” The same dictionary defines the word “characteristic” as “. . . something
that identifies a person or thing or class. . . .”
Additionally, as noted by the Appellate Division in K.L. v. Evesham Township
Board of Education, 423 N.J. Super. 337 (App. Div. 2011):
The statutory definition of “bullying” does not include all violent
or aggressive conduct against a student. The definition, both
before and after adoption of the 2010 Anti-Bullying Act, refers
to conduct that is “reasonably perceived as being motivated”
by a “distinguishing characteristic” of the victim, such as,
“race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual
orientation, gender identity and expression, or a mental,
physical or sensory [disability].” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14. The
statute has not limited “distinguishing characteristic” to those
specifically enumerated, but it has consistently required such
a perceived motivation.
Thus, harmful or demeaning conduct motivated only by
another reason, for example, a dispute about relationships or
personal belongings, or aggressive conduct without
identifiable motivation, does not come within the statutory
definition of bullying.
[Id. at 350–51 (footnote omitted).]
Thus, an incident may even be physically, psychologically, or socially harmful, but still not
meet the HIB criteria.
Summary Decision
Applications for summary decision after a matter has been transmitted to the OAL
shall be filed with the administrative law judge (ALJ) in accordance with applicable rules
of the OAL. N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.12(b). A contested case before the OAL “can be summarily
disposed of before an ALJ without a plenary hearing in instances where the undisputed
material facts, as developed on motion or otherwise, indicate that a particular disposition
is required as a matter of law.” In re Robros Recycling Corp., 226 N.J. Super. 343, 350
(App. Div.), certif. denied, 113 N.J. 638 (1988).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
22
N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b) provides, in pertinent part:
The motion for summary decision shall be served with briefs
and with or without supporting affidavits. The decision sought
may be rendered if the papers and discovery which have been
filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the
moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. When a
motion for summary decision is made and supported, an
adverse party in order to prevail must by responding affidavit
set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
which can only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding.
Here, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and I CONCLUDE that this
matter is appropriate for summary decision.
The Board affirmed the District’s determination that the December 26, 2023,
incident did not meet the legal definition of HIB because there was no confirmed
aggressor and no discernible distinguishing characteristic. Petitioner argues that “the
Superintendent’s decision to overturn ABS Rice’s conclusion that A.A. was a victim of
HIB should be reversed and it should be determined that B.K. committed an act of HIB
when she destroyed A.A.’s sweatshirt and phone.” Petitioner further argues that A.A.’s
loss of her father to suicide is a distinguishing characteristic under the Act. Conversely,
respondent argues that the Board’s determination was not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable and that the Board correctly applied the statutory definition of HIB in its
determination.
Regarding the first issue of “no confirmed aggressor,” the ABS and/or other school
personnel reviewed the cameras, conducted interviews, and obtained statements, and
the ABS conducted an investigation. The ABS, Superintendent, and Board all concluded
that, based upon the evidence, the perpetrator could not be conclusively identified. I
disagree with petitioner that a preponderance standard applies when the Act reflects no
such standard by which school personnel are bound in an investigation. This is not a
typical situation where the victim was involved in and/or witnessed the incident, or where
the reporter witnessed the incident or received information from an individual who

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
23
witnessed the incident. The fact remains that there was no video recording of, and no
witnesses to, the sweatshirt and phone being damaged. Other High Point Regional High
School students and opposing team players from other schools also had access to the
locker room, so even if it appears overwhelmingly more likely that B.K. was the individual
who damaged the sweatshirt and phone in the locker room because she had access to
the office where the scissors were found ten days later, and because she had a conflict
with A.A.2. and/or A.H., it simply cannot be proven that no other individual had access to
the office, and the scissors were not located until two weeks after the incident. A.A.
asserts that B.K. “would have known where the scissors were because they were used
by the girls wrestling team to cut tape used on the wrestling mats,” but that information
was not limited to B.K. See A.A. Cert. Additionally, A.A. asserts that she “noticed that
B.K. was wearing tight leggings and, on the pocket on her leg, I could see the outline of
something that looked the same shape as the piece of material that was cut out of my
sweatshirt.” See A.A. Cert. However, this information did not appear in A.A.’s Statement
in December 2023 or on the January 2024 HIB 338 Form—and while possible that this
information was inadvertently never disclosed by A.A. during the investigation, it
nevertheless cannot have informed the Board’s decision.
Regarding the second issue of “no discernible distinguishing characteristic,” the
parties’ respective arguments focus upon the sweatshirt—which had a graphic (heart with
wings) and the words “A big piece of my heart lives in Heaven… and he is my Dad!”—
and whether a piece of the sweatshirt was removed and missing. I disagree with
respondent’s assertion that the word “Dad” is damaged but still attached to the sweatshirt.
While somewhat difficult to distinguish the front inside of the sweatshirt from the back
outside of the sweatshirt in the area that was damaged on the photograph attached to the
May 23 Sur-Reply, said photograph reflects that the cut material is folded over and down,
and were it to be unfolded, it would not cover the entire damaged area. The second
photograph, attached to the Rice Cert., just above the photograph relied upon by
respondent, more clearly reflects that “Dad” is in fact missing—though a much larger
portion of the sweatshirt was cut but still attached to the sweatshirt. Nevertheless, I
ascribe no significance thereto in terms of the legal question at hand.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
24
A.A. lost her father to suicide in 2019. (See A.H. Cert.) Without question,
intentionally damaging someone else’s property is unacceptable, and intentionally
damaging property clearly of sentimental value or honoring a lost parent is particularly
reprehensible. The HIB Report reflects that on January 12, 2024, A.H. advised ABS Rice
that she felt A.A. was targeted “because she doesn't have a Dad,” and ABS Rice advised
A.H. that he would note that. ABS Rice ultimately concluded that “loss of father” was a
distinguishing characteristic, but the Superintendent and Board disagreed. The Act
requires a distinguishing characteristic—such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national
original, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, mental disability, physical
disability, sensory disability—or other difference, and A.A.’s loss of her father to suicide
in 2019 is not akin to the distinguishing characteristics contemplated by the Act. To
expand “distinguishing characteristic” to this degree would effectively negate the Act’s
requirement of an actual or perceived characteristic or other such distinguishing
characteristic, because it would allow essentially any life circumstance to be utilized as a
“distinguishing characteristic,” as opposed to a characteristic of the individual alleged to
be the victim of HIB. Nevertheless, even if “loss of father” were a distinguishing
characteristic, the act must be “reasonably” perceived as being motivated thereby. Here,
there is insufficient evidence that the property damage to the phone and sweatshirt was
“motivated by” A.A.’s loss of her father.
There is no confirmed perpetrator, so the motivation of the perpetrator cannot be
ascertained. Petitioner asserts that the perpetrator was B.K., and that B.K. had a conflict
with A.A.2., and that B.K. was the only student who knew that A.A.’s father had died by
suicide. However, this requires one to assume that in four years, no other individual had
obtained that information, and that B.K. had kept that information in confidence—despite
the recent conflict and termination of the friendship. Further, the Rice Report reflects that
it was reported to ABS Rice that some time before December 26, 2023, another student
was told about the situation. Nevertheless, even accepting for purposes of the motion
and cross-motion that B.K. was the perpetrator, B.K. and A.A.2. had been best friends
and there was no prior history of HIB among B.K., A.A.2. or A.A., despite that B.K. knew
that the girls had lost their father to suicide. Petitioner also asserts that A.A. had no
conflict with B.K., and according to A.H., “B.K. was actually upset at A.A.2. and me
because although A.A.2. and she had been best friends, their friendship recently ended

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
25
and she blamed me,” and according to B.K., B.K. has “nothing against [redacted] its [sic]
her mom and her sister.” (See A.H. Cert., See B.K. Statement.) Thus, it would instead
appear that damaging the phone and sweatshirt was motivated by B.K.’s recent conflict
and terminated friendship with A.A.2.
A HIB investigation is conducted to determine whether the incident complained
about is HIB under the Act and, if so, the appropriate remedial action. The appeal from
the March 20, 2024, letter notifying petitioner of the Board’s determination is an appeal of
the Board’s determination that the incident was not HIB under the Act, and the standard
of review for the Board’s action is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. The appeal is
not a de novo investigation whereby the Commissioner or an administrative law judge
may determine the perpetrator in an incident where school officials did not, and no student
was the subject of discipline for an acknowledged Code of Conduct violation, and no
student or individual was charged with any crime.
An administrative agency, including a school board, is subject to having its
decisions or actions reviewed under an arbitrary and capricious standard. Zimmerman v.
Sussex Cnty. Educ. Servs. Comm’n, 237 N.J. 465, 480 (2019). The decision of a board
acting within the scope of its authority 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. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div.
1965). Similarly, the action of a board which lies within the area of its discretionary powers
may not be upset unless patently arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by improper
motives. Kopera v. Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App. Div. 1960). An action is
not arbitrary and capricious if “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 Env’t Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199 (Ch. Div. 1973), aff’d, 131
N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1974). However, a determination predicated on unsupported
findings is the essence of arbitrary and capricious action. In re Application of Boardwalk
Regency Corp. for Casino License, 180 N.J. Super. 324, 334 (App. Div. 1981), modified
on other grounds, 90 N.J. 361 (1982).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
26
Consistent with ABS Rice’s investigation, the HIB 338 Form and other statements
all reflect numerous individuals who may have been in the locker room at the time of the
incident, including guest players from other schools, and Bang’s Incident Statement and
the information she later reported to ABS Rice is of questionable reliability. While there
may have been a conflict between B.K. and A.H. or A.A.2., and while it may seem
improbable that a guest sports team player would randomly damage another student’s
phone and sweatshirt, it was not established by the investigation that B.K. caused the
damage. That the Petition refers to an “alleged perpetrator” is problematic because it
acknowledges the unfortunate but insurmountable truth that there were no witnesses, no
video, and no proof that B.K. caused the damage—irrespective of access or motive or
any other circumstances pointing to B.K. Even ABS Rice, who, unlike the Superintendent
and the Board, concluded that the incident was HIB, did not confirm the identity of the
perpetrator. The Act clearly contemplates the identification of a perpetrator because it
requires consequences and appropriate remedial action for a person who commits an act
of HIB. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(4). Additionally, by law, the ABS leads the investigation
of HIB and acts as the primary school official responsible for preventing, identifying, and
addressing incidents of HIB. As such, what would have been arbitrary, capricious, and
unreasonable is if the Board had acted in the manner in which petitioner now requests:
“that B.K. be confirmed as having committed an act of HIB on December 26, 2023, as the
perpetrator and the victim being A.A.” To do so would unlawfully usurp the authority of
the individuals designated under the Act to investigate. The Board’s sole function under
the Act is to affirm, reject, or modify the superintendent’s decision on whether the incident
was HIB. Simply put, there is no legal basis for the Board to supplant a determination by
the ABS and Superintendent that the identity of the individual who caused the damage
could not be confirmed. Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that the Board’s determination of “no
confirmed aggressor” was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
While the property damage was egregious, and a code of conduct violation as per
the Superintendent—and possibly a Code of Criminal Justice violation—it does not meet
the requirements for HIB. The damaged sweatshirt does not prove that A.A. was singled
out because she lost her father five years prior. No perpetrator was identified, and “loss
of father” is not a distinguishing characteristic, and even if it were, there is insufficient
evidence to establish that the conduct was “motivated by” A.A.’s loss of her father. This

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
27
is especially true if the perpetrator was B.K., given that B.K. had previously been best
friends with A.A.2., and their friendship recently ended. Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that
the Board’s determination that there was no “discernible distinguishing characteristic” was
not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
In sum, the Act requires that the Board “issue a decision, in writing, to affirm, reject,
or modify the superintendent’s decision.” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(e). Here, the meeting
minutes reflect that the Board voted to affirm the Superintendent’s decision, and based
upon the record, I CONCLUDE that the Board’s determination was not arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable. I further CONCLUDE that the Petition should be dismissed.
That said, the foregoing should not be construed to condone or excuse the conduct, which
was unequivocally reprehensible, or to be dismissive of the emotional impact upon A.A.
and her family.
To the extent that petitioner alleged procedural violations, any such violation does
not alter the foregoing conclusions. Further, based upon the Petition, it appears that there
were subsequent HIB complaints filed by B.K. against A.A. and A.A.2. However, even if
the other relief sought by petitioner was to be granted, there is no legal authority to order
that “both A.A. and A.A.1’s student files be expunged of all claims of HIB brought against
them by B.K.” If there were any subsequent HIB complaints not the subject of the
December 26, 2023, investigation, such complaints would have been separately
investigated and adjudicated. The documents and certifications are specific to the
December 26, 2023, incident, and the Board action under review was likewise related
only to the December 26, 2023, incident.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that respondent’s motion for summary decision is
GRANTED, petitioner’s cross-motion for summary decision is DENIED, and the Petition
is DISMISSED.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08773-24
28
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. Exceptions may be filed by email to
ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of Controversies
and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
December 4, 2025
DATE KELLY J. KIRK, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties: