Richard Gianchiglia v. Board of Education of the Borough of Middlesex, Middlesex County, 10/24/25 (#504-25R)

504-25R
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 18123-24
Agency Dkt. No. 361-11/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Richard Gianchiglia,
Petitioner,
v.
Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Borough 	of
Middlesex, Middlesex County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by respondent Board of Education of the Borough of Middlesex (Board)
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and petitioner’s reply thereto, have been reviewed and considered.
Petitioner contends that the Board involuntarily transferred him from a tenured building
principal position to a position titled “principal on special assignment” with different job
responsibilities, thereby violating his tenure rights pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5. 	The Board
contends that it has not violated petitioner’s tenure rights because the principal on special
assignment position is within the scope of petitioner’s certification and endorsement as principal.
The matter was transferred to the OAL as a contested case. 	Petitioner moved for
summary decision, contending that none of the material facts were disputed and that he does
not perform any principal duties in his current position—a principal position in name only. The
Board opposed summary decision, claiming that material issues of fact were disputed.

2
Specifically, the Board contended that petitioner still does perform traditional principal duties
along with additional, district-level responsibilities pertaining to security.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted petitioner’s motion for summary decision
upon finding that “petitioner does not perform any regular principal duties consistent with the
role of his tenured position as principal” in his current position as principal on special assignment.
Initial Decision at 11. Consequently, the ALJ concluded that the Board’s involuntary transfer of
petitioner to the principal on special assignment position violated his tenure rights. Id. at 15. The
ALJ further concluded that the principal on special assignment position was not within the scope
of petitioner’s certification and endorsement as principal. Ibid. The ALJ ordered the Board to
restore petitioner to the position of building principal.
In its exceptions, the Board argues that the Commissioner should reject the Initial
Decision and remand the matter for further development of the factual record. It contends that
the nature and scope of petitioner’s current job duties are disputed material facts. 	While
petitioner asserts that he is no longer performing any building principal duties, the Board
maintains 	that 	he 	is 	still 	performing 	traditional 	principal 	duties 	along 	with 	additional
responsibilities related to security. 	For that reason, the Board claims that petitioner’s tenure
rights have not been violated and that this matter is distinguishable from City Association of
Supervisors and Administrators v. State-Operated School District of the City of Newark, Essex
County, EDU 00849-13 (Initial Decision, July 14, 2014) and EDU 00788-15 (Initial Decision, June
16, 2015), adopted, Commissioner Decision No. 269-15R (August 13, 2015).
In response, petitioner argues that the Commissioner should adopt the ALJ’s Initial
Decision. He denies that any material facts are disputed and maintains that he was involuntarily

3
transferred from a tenured principal position to a principal position in name only with no real
principal responsibilities. He concedes that the parties did not stipulate to the duties he performs
on a daily basis; however, he maintains that the Board admitted that his responsibilities are
“district-level.” 	He argues that this matter closely resembles City Association, wherein the
Commissioner agreed with the ALJ that former principals were involuntarily transferred to new
and distinct positions in violation of their tenure rights when they were no longer doing the work
of a building principal.
Upon review, the Commissioner rejects the Initial Decision. 	The parties’ submissions
reflect that the material facts pertaining to the nature and scope of petitioner’s current day-to-
day job duties and responsibilities are disputed and present a genuine issue which can only be
determined in an evidentiary proceeding. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b); Contini v. Bd. of Educ. of Newark,
286 N.J. Super. 106, 121 (App. Div. 1995). Petitioner’s certification in support of his motion for
summary decision makes no mention of his current day-to-day job duties and responsibilities.
Thus, the granting of petitioner’s motion for summary decision was premature.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is rejected and the matter is remanded to the OAL for
further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	October 24, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	October 27, 2025

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18123-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 361-11/24
RICHARD GIANCHIGLIA,
Petitioner,
v.
BOROUGH OF MIDDLESEX BOARD
OF EDUCATION, MIDDLESEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
___________________________________
Andrew L. Schwartz, Esq., and Jordan Shead, Esq., for petitioner (Schwartz Law
Group, LLC, attorneys)
Aron G. Mandel, Esq., for respondent (The Busch Law Group, attorneys)
Record Closed: July 17, 2025 Decided: August 15, 2025
BEFORE MARY ANN BOGAN, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Richard Gianchiglia, is employed by the Borough of Middlesex Board of
Education (the District or Board). The Board transferred petitioner without his consent
from his tenured principal position to a position titled principal on special assignment. The

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18123-24
2
petitioner claims that the transfer violates his tenure rights under N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5, and
seeks reinstatement to building principal, effective October 7, 2024, together with any
back pay or emoluments owed. The Board contends that the transferred position is within
the scope of petitioner’s certification and endorsement as principal and therefore his
tenure rights have not been violated.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The petitioner filed his appeal with the New Jersey Department of Education, Office
of Controversies and Disputes, on November 15, 2024. An answer was filed on behalf of
the Board on December 30, 2024, and the matter was transmitted to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL), where on December 31, 2024, it was filed as a contested case.
N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15. On March 12, 2025, the petitioner filed a motion for summary
decision stating the only issue left to decide is a legal issue since the district seeks to
circumvent his tenure rights by transferring him to a “principal position” in name only, a
role that contains no real principal duties. The Board opposed the petitioner’s motion and
on May 30, 2025, filed a letter brief in lieu of a more formal submission disputing
petitioner’s factual allegations that he does not perform principal duties and argues that
there are material facts in dispute necessitating a plenary hearing. After the petitioner
filed a response and submissions were received, the record closed on July 17, 2025.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
Undisputed Facts
Based on the credible documentation submitted, the following foundational facts
are not in dispute; accordingly, I FIND as FACTS:
Petitioner has been employed by the Board since September 1, 2002. He began
working as a health and physical education teacher under his instructional certificate. In
December 2008 petitioner was promoted to the position of director of athletics in the
district under his administrative certificate with a supervisor endorsement. Petitioner
remained in this position for five years. (P-1.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18123-24
3
Effective July 1, 2014, petitioner was promoted to the position of principal of
Hazelwood Elementary School. Petitioner attained tenure as a principal.
On July 9, 2024, during a scheduled vacation, petitioner received a phone call from
Dr. Roberta Freeman, superintendent, about a new position entitled “director of school
safety and security.” Before the call ended, petitioner informed the superintendent that
he would consider the new role.
On July 11, 2024, the superintendent sent a text message to petitioner asking
whether he had an opportunity to consider accepting the new role as director of school
safety and security.
On July 12, 2024, petitioner responded to the superintendent’s text and requested
a meeting once he returned from his vacation to further discuss the position and to discuss
his questions. Also, on July 12, 2024, petitioner was notified in writing that the Board
intended to discuss petitioner’s employment at its Board meeting on July 17, 2024. (P-3;
Certification of Dr. Roberta Freeman (Freeman Cert.).)
The petitioner and the superintendent met on July 15, 2024, to discuss the new
position. (P-2; Certification of Richard Gianchiglia (Gianchiglia Cert.).) After the meeting
ended the petitioner informed the superintendent that he was still considering whether to
accept the new role. The next day, petitioner emailed the superintendent and informed
her that he declined the new position and that he “would like to remain the Principal of
Hazelwood School.” (P-4.) At that same time, petitioner’s counsel sent a letter to Board
counsel stating that petitioner’s position was not voluntary and petitioner intended to
challenge the Board’s action if the Board continued to proceed with the transfer. (P-5.)
At the July 17, 2024, Board meeting, the new job title and job description for the
role of “Director of School Safety and Security, non-affiliated position,” was approved by
the Board. (P-6.) The Board did not approve a transfer involving petitioner at that time.
Following the Board meeting, the Board created a new job title “Principal on Special

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18123-24
4
Assignment” and added to the job description “performs other duties as performed by
building principals.” (P-8, 9.)
On August 19, 2024, the Board served petitioner with a “Rice Notice” stating that
the terms and conditions of his employment would be discussed at the Board meeting
scheduled for August 21, 2024. (P-7.) Petitioner emailed the superintendent expressing
his disappointment with the anticipated transfer to the “principal on special assignment”
position, which his attorney told him about. He asked the superintendent where he should
report for the new position and asked for a meeting to discuss the new position. The
superintendent notified petitioner that his transfer would be “pending the appointment of
a new principal for Hazelwood School,” and he was to continue to serve as the Principal
of Hazelwood School until a new principal appointment for that school was made.
Superintendent Freeman sent a sample calendar of duties for the principal on special
assignment, petitioner’s new position. (P-11.)
The purpose of the sample calendar is to “ensure the Principal on Special
Assignment maintains a proactive and comprehensive approach to school security,
balancing immediate needs with long-term planning and community engagement.” These
entries state in part:
• Conduct a New Year security review and update district-
wide emergency plans.
• Host a monthly BTAM (Behavioral Threat Assessment
Management) meeting.
• Meet with local law enforcement to review security plans.
• Conduct a site assessment at three schools.
[P-11.]
At the August 21, 2024, Board meeting, the Board approved the job title for
principal on special assignment and the job description for this position with a new bullet
point, that states “performs other duties as performed by building principals.” A Board
resolution was passed, transferring the petitioner to this position. (P-8, 9; Freeman Cert.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18123-24
5
Petitioner began working in the position of principal on special assignment effective
October 7, 2024, following the appointment of a new principal at Hazelwood Elementary
School.
Arguments of the Parties
With respect to the motion, petitioner argues the only remaining issue is a legal
issue, as to “whether the District’s unilateral transfer of Petitioner to the ‘Principal on
Special Assignment’ position violates his tenure rights as a principal;” and “whether the
title ‘Principal on Special Assignment’ is a principal title for tenure purposes.” (Petitioner’s
Brief in Reply to Respondent’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Decision (Pet’r’s Reply
Br.) at 1,2.)
Petitioner argues that the Board involuntarily transferred him to the position of
principal on special assignment, a role that contains no real principal responsibilities.
Rather, the district “seek to circumvent [petitioner’s] tenure rights by transferring him to a
‘principal’ position in name only.” Since petitioner transferred to the principal on special
assignment position, petitioner has not performed any regular principal duties that are
consistent with the role of a principal and he has been excluded from regular meetings
held for building principals, including the meeting requested by the Board regarding
testing data. (See Petition ¶20; Board’s Answer to Petition ¶20.)
The unilateral transfer removed him from his principal title, and the Board hired a
non-tenured administrator for the principal position previously held by petitioner.
Further, petitioner argues that the revised job description for principal on special
assignment does not contain actual principal functions. Instead, the duties of the position,
which had been initially titled director of school safety and security, consist of overseeing
the Board’s safety and security policies and procedures. (See P-11.) It was only after
petitioner declined to voluntarily transfer to this title that the Board revised the title to
principal on special assignment. This revision retitled the position without making any
material changes to the actual job description, and the job description is a “carbon copy”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18123-24
6
of the job description for the director of school safety and security position, except for the
line that states “performs other duties as performed by building principals.” (See P-9; P-
10.) This difference “only further emphasize[s] . . . that the subject job description is not
that of a building principal” and requires district-wide duties to be performed. (Pet’r’s
Reply Br. at 3.) To further emphasize this distinction, petitioner shared his annual salary
notice for the 2025–2026 school term that identifies the change in petitioner’s office
location to “Central Administration.” (P-17.)
Also, petitioner points out, the Board acknowledged the position was created and
developed partially to address a number of critical district-wide initiatives and strategic
needs that are related to all school buildings and facilities in the district, and this job duty
is contrary to the job duties of a building principal. (Pet’r’s Reply Br. at 3.)
Additionally, to further demonstrate that the Board involuntarily transferred
petitioner to a position that contains no real principal duties, when the non-tenured
principal of Woodland Intermediate School recently took an early maternity leave of
absence beginning October 14, 2024, petitioner was not considered as a temporary
replacement. (See Petition ¶21; Board’s Answer to Petition ¶21.) Instead, the Board
hired an employee who never previously served as a principal in the district to serve as
the maternity-leave replacement, and this employee was non-tenured. The Board then
hired a non-tenured employee to fulfill the remainder of the staff members maternity
leave, despite petitioner’s tenure status.
Finally, petitioner asserts there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the
petitioner is entitled to summary decision, holding the Board’s unilateral transfer of
petitioner to the ‘Principal on Special Assignment’ position violates his tenure rights as a
principal.
In opposition to the petitioner’s motion, the Board disputes petitioner’s factual
allegation that his current job responsibilities as principal on special assignment does not
include any responsibilities which are consistent with the role of a school principal. The
Board argues, petitioner continues to perform both traditional school-principal
responsibilities as well as “additional job responsibilities that are distinct from and beyond

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18123-24
7
the scope of the role of traditional school principal.” (Freeman Cert. at 4.) The Board
claims that the new role was “created and developed partially to address critical District-
wide initiatives and strategic needs that relate to all schools, buildings, and facilities in the
District, as opposed to only one specific school in the District.” (Ibid.) The Board
specifically disputes petitioner’s claim that he was improperly excluded from a principals’
meeting held in the district during the current school year. Instead, the Board invited
petitioner to all meetings that were “necessary or appropriate for him to attend,” and
“petitioner has in fact been invited to multiple Superintendent’s Cabinet Meetings during
the 2024–2025 school year.” (Ibid.)
The Board also argues that petitioner’s claim that he does not perform principal
duties is inconsistent with the facts. Petitioner has been “assigned or responsible for
duties as performed by building principals including, but not limited to, assuming
responsibility for the management of schools in accordance with laws and policies,
exercising leadership in school level planning, maintaining an effective learning climate,
maintaining high standards of student conduct and enforcing discipline as necessary,
reporting incidents of violence, vandalism and substance abuse, ensuring removal of
students found in possession of weapons, planning and supervising emergency drills,
conducting staff meetings, keeping the Superintendent informed of school activities,
assuming responsibility for his own continued professional growth and development, and
attending special events.” (Freeman Cert. at 6–7.) The Board also argues that there are
“substantial disputed issues of fact with regard to the proportion of responsibilities that
petitioner regularly performs in his current position that are typical of a traditional school
principal, as opposed to those that may be reasonably viewed as separate and
distinguishable from traditional principal duties.” (Respondent’s Opposition to Motion for
Summary Judgement at 13.)
The Board also claims that petitioner does not state in his petition that he had any
tenure rights to hold a temporary position as a maternity-leave replacement principal, and
that “the demands of his current position of principal on special assignment would
preclude any assignment of Petitioner as a temporary replacement or substitute for
another building principal during a leave of absence.” (Freeman Cert. at 5.) Respondent
further contends that “the primary focus of the Principal on Special Assignment role

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18123-24
8
relates to ‘District-level priorities,’” and any assignment of petitioner to a temporary
position of principal at the Woodland Intermediate School would “detract from his
essential job responsibilities in his current position as Principal on Special Assignment.”
(Ibid.)
The Board also argues that it has “ensured that Petitioner has retained all tenure
rights and status in the position of principal pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5 and N.J.S.A.
18A:28-6 and petitioner has not been subjected to any reduction in salary or
compensation.” (Respondent’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Decision at 7.) Rather,
the decision by the Board “reflects an assignment designed to meet District needs,
consistent with Petitioner’s qualifications and the Board’s discretion.” (Freeman Cert. at
6.)
Finally, the Board asserts, there remains material issue of facts as to “the nature
and scope of responsibilities performed by petitioner”, and therefore this matter should
proceed to a plenary hearing to present testimony and evidence.
Additional Findings of Fact
The factual dispute raised by the Board is whether petitioner is performing job
duties consistent with the role of a school principal, in his current job responsibilities as
principal on special assignment. More specifically, the Board argues, there are material
facts in dispute regarding the “specific nature, extent, and scope of the job responsibilities
performed by petitioner in his current position in the district, as principal on special
assignment.” The Board contends that petitioner’s duties encompass “both traditional
school principal responsibilities as well as additional job responsibilities that are distinct
from and beyond the scope of the role of a traditional school principal,” and consist of
“district-level priorities.” (Freeman Cert. at 4.) Petitioner contends that the newly created
principal on special assignment job description is identical to the description for the
director of school safety and security position that he declined and is outside the scope
of the principal position. The only difference between the duties of the positions is a one-
line bullet point that states to “perform[] other duties as performed by building principals,”
and since petitioner transferred to the principal on special assignment position, he has

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18123-24
9
“not performed any regular principal duties that are consistent with the role of a principal.”
After reviewing the entire record, I FIND as FACTS:
1. The duties of principal on special assignment as set forth in the
superintendent’s certification are not related to duties performed by a principal
in a single school building. The duties performed by petitioner are
district wide initiatives relating to all school buildings and district facilities.
(Freeman Cert. at 4.)
2. The principal on special assignment qualifications does not require a valid New
Jersey principal certificate or certificate of eligibility. The qualifications for
principal on special assignment are identical to the qualifications for director of
school safety and security, a non -affiliated position.
3. The record does not demonstrate whether or not petitioner has earned a school
safety special certificate, a requirement for the “principal on special
assignment” position.
4. The purpose of the role of principal is to manage a single school building and
“to provide leadership and managerial oversight of the instructional program
and school operations to ensure a school climate that fosters the educational
development of each pupil.” (P-12.) Whereas the principal on special
assignment role is to ensure a “proactive and comprehensive approach to
school security, balancing immediate needs with long-term planning and
community engagement” focused on “district-level priorities” and “initiatives
that relate to all schools, buildings and facilities in the District, as opposed to
one specific school in the district.” (P-9.)
5. The sample calendar of duties provided to the petitioner to prepare for the role
of principal on special assignment does not include principal duties:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18123-24
10
• Conduct a New Year security review and update district-
wide emergency plans.
• Host a BATM (Behavioral Threat Assessment
Management) meeting.
• Meet with local law enforcement to review security plans.
• Conduct a site assessment at three schools.
[P-11.]
6. The petitioner is no longer required to work in a single school building. His
new work location is a central administration location. (P-17.)
7. The Board merely “correct[ed]/revise[d]” the job title of the director of school
safety and security to principal on special assignment, inserted a catch all
phase to the job description, “performs other duties as performed by building
principal”, and transferred petitioner to the same job with the same duties as
set forth in the director of school safety and security position, without his
consent.
8. The petitioner lost no salary or benefits as a result of the transfer.
Also, the Board’s attempt to raise an issue of fact with respect to its appointment
of a supervisor to a principal position to cover a maternity leave, and the appointment of
a non-tenured employee to cover the remainder of the school year is not persuasive and
does not create a disputed issue of fact. The petitioner did not seek an entitlement to fill
a temporary maternity leave placement. Rather petitioner added these facts for “context”
to buttress his claim that the district excluded him from being a building principal for
purposes of tenure despite that work being available.
Finally, the Board, by its own actions, demonstrated that it is unreasoned to expect
that while performing the duties of principal on special assignment the petitioner can also
incorporate and perform building principal duties. For instance, the Board held petitioner’s
transfer to his new position as principal on special assignment “pending” until a new

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18123-24
11
appointment was made to replace him as the principal Hazelwood Elementary School.
Moreover, the Board in its responding submissions set forth that even a temporary
position to other principal positions would “detract from his essential job responsibilities
in his current position as Principal on Special Assignment,” a position with “district level
priorities.”
Accordingly, I FIND the petitioner does not perform any regular principal duties
consistent with the role of his tenured position as principal when the District involuntarily
transferred petitioner to the principal on special assignment position.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
While the Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules governing motions, N.J.A.C.
1:1-12.1 to -12.7, do not specifically limit the types of motions that may be made in
administrative hearings or otherwise preclude a “motion to dismiss,” the more common
method for resolving a case on the papers without a plenary hearing is by a motion for
summary decision pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5.
Under N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5, “[a] party may move for summary decision upon all or
any of the substantive issues in a contested case.” N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a). Such motion
“shall be served with briefs and with or without supporting affidavits,” and “[t]he 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.” N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b).
However, a motion for summary decision shall be denied if, by responding affidavit, an
adverse party “set[s] forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue which can
only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding.” Ibid.
Summary judgment is analyzed in accordance with the principles established by
the Supreme Court in Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995):
[A] determination whether there exists a “genuine issue” of
material fact that precludes summary judgment requires the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18123-24
12
motion judge to 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. The “judge’s function is not . . . to weigh
the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to
determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.”
[Citation omitted.]
See also Nat’l Transfer, Inc. v. N.J. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 347 N.J. Super. 401, 408–09
(App. Div. 2002).
A summary decision “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.” N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). That rule is substantially similar to the summary judgment
rule embodied in the New Jersey Court Rules. See R. 4:46-2; Judson v. Peoples Bank
& Trust Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67, 74 (1954).
Having considered the parties’ submissions, I CONCLUDE that the evidence at
this juncture is sufficient to properly dispose of this matter by way of summary decision
because there are no genuine issues of material fact.
Petitioner challenges the Board’s decision to transfer him from the title of building
principal to the title of principal on special assignment because it violates petitioner’s
tenure rights under N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5, which protect him from a unilateral transfer to a
separate position without consent or tenure charges, citing Armental v. Englewood, OAL
Dkt. No. EDU 07775-24, Commissioner Decision March 7, 2025 (Tenure laws prohibit
transfer from one separately tenurable position to another absent consent because an
involuntary transfer under those circumstances constitutes a dismissal). It is well
established that teaching staff members earn tenure not just in a district as a whole, but
also in specific positions of employment. See Nelson v. Board of Education of Twp of Old
Bridge, 148 N.J. 358,372-73 (1997) (observing that the position of principal is separately
tenurable.) Howley v. Ewing Bd. of Educ., 1982 S.L.D. 1328, 1339, aff’d, 1983 S.L.D.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18123-24
13
1554. The “position” in which a teaching staff member achieves tenure is either one of
the specifically designated positions in N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5 or other employment for which
an appropriate certificate is required. Ellicott v. Frankford Twp. Bd. of Educ., 251 N.J.
Super. 342, 347 (App. Div. 1991); see Howley, 1982 S.L.D. at 1337. Insofar as the
position of principal is specifically enumerated in the tenure statute, our courts have held
that this position is “separately tenurable.” Nelson v. Old Bridge Bd. of Educ., 148 N.J.
358, 366 (1997). It is uncontroverted that the petitioner held his position as principal
under tenure.
Turning to the merits of petitioner’s motion, with respect to the duties that petitioner
currently performs in his role of principal on special assignment as compared to his
previous duties as a building principal, it is well established that a school board has the
right to deploy staff as it sees fit, including the right to make involuntary transfers.
Carpenito v. Rumson Bd. of Educ., 322 N.J. Super. 522, 529 (App. Div. 1999). However,
the right to make such transfers is not entirely without limitations, as clarified in the
seminal discussion of tenure and seniority rights contained in Howley, 1982 S.L.D. at
1339–40:
The power of a board of education to transfer teachers is
limited only to the extent provided by the Tenure law . . . . The
word “transfer” is most often used in tenure related cases in
the context of the proposition that teaching staff members
may be transferred within the scope of their certificates. As a
blanket statement, this is not entirely correct . . . . Under the
tenure statutes it is clear that a person tenured in a “position”
may not be transferred from that position without his or
consent . . . . Transfer without such consent constitutes a
dismissal from the position and cannot be accomplished
without compliance with the tenure hearing law.
Tenured teaching staff members may be involuntarily transferred to another
assignment within his or her position, “where no loss of salary or other reduction in
employment is suffered and the [teaching staff member] is not singled out for the transfer
on a prohibited basis.” Id. at 1340; Williams v. Plainfield Bd. of Educ., 176 N.J. Super.
154 (App. Div. 1980). Such a transfer does not rise to a violation of that teaching staff

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18123-24
14
member’s tenure rights. See also Sheffield v. N.J. State Dep’t of Human Servs., 93
N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 26.
While the Board argues that because petitioner continues to perform principal
duties, and there is no loss of salary or other reduction in employment, it is uncontroverted
that petitioner is tenured in the position of “principal” and a transfer within petitioner’s
principal position did not occur. Petitioner was transferred without his consent to a role
that does not contain the duties of the building principal. City Ass’n of Supervisor and
Administrators v. the State-operated School District of the City of Newark, Essex County,
OAL Dkt. EDU 00849-13, Agency Dkt. No 318-11/12 Initial Decision August 27, 2024,
Final Commission Decision, August 13, 2015 (held the district’s transfer of a tenured
principal to a position in which the principal does not perform the work of the principal is
a tenure violation).
Even if the parties differing views on the duties petitioner performs each workday
remains unresolved, N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.3(b), which defines the scope of the principal
endorsement to the administrative certificate further supports petitioner’s position:
The principal endorsement is required for any position that
involves service as an administrative officer of a school or
other comparable unit within a school or school district. Such
positions shall include assistant superintendent for curriculum
and instruction, principal, assistant principal, vice principal,
director, and supervisor. Holders of this endorsement shall
be authorized to:
1. Provide educational leadership by directing the
formulation of goals, plans, policies, budgets, and
personnel actions of the school or other comparable
unit, by recommending them to the chief district
administrator, and by directing their implementation in
the school or other comparable unit;
2. Direct and supervise all school operations and
programs;
3. Evaluate school staff, including teaching staff
members; and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18123-24
15
4. Direct the activities of school-level supervisors.
[Emphasis added.]
The regulation makes it clear that the principal endorsement is intended to
authorize its holder to perform school-building-level administrative functions, and once
petitioner left the school building to report to his new assigned position, he no longer
performed those duties. The record is clear, petitioner is now charged with serving as
the primary Emergency Management official for the District, maintaining a proactive and
comprehensive approach to school security, balancing immediate needs with long-term
planning and community engagement and with a primary focus on “[d]istrict-wide
initiatives and strategic needs that relate to all schools, buildings, and facilities in the
District,” as opposed a single school in the District. The record demonstrates that
petitioner is no longer managing the school or exercising leadership of a single school
building, and, per N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.3, he is not performing duties in the role of the
principal.
Even more, the position of principal on special assignment does not require a
principal endorsement to qualify and perform the duties and responsibilities.
The record is clear, and I CONCLUDE that the involuntary transfer of petitioner to
the position of principal on special assignment violated petitioner’s tenure rights under
N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5 because the petitioner had been involuntarily transferred to a new and
distinct position from that of principal. I also CONCLUDE the District’s involuntary transfer
of a tenured principal to a position that contains no real principal responsibilities is a
violation of tenure. I further CONCLUDE the principal on special assignment is not a
position within the scope of petitioner’s certification and endorsement as principal and
therefore petitioner’s tenure rights have been violated.
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that petitioner’s motion for summary decision should be
granted. The Board violated petitioner’s tenure rights when he was involuntarily
transferred to the position of principal on special assignment.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18123-24
16
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the District restore petitioner to the position of building
principal in accordance with his tenure entitlements.
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, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500, marked “Attention: Exceptions.” A copy of any exceptions must be sent to
the judge and to the other parties.
August 15, 2025
DATE MARY ANN BOGAN, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
MAB/sg/nn