Ingrid Fullerton v. Board of Education of the Borough of East Newark, Hudson County, 3/30/2023, (#96-23)

96-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Ingrid Fullerton,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of East Newark,
Hudson County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro-se petitioner was a non-tenured teacher employed by the respondent Board for the 2022-23
school year pursuant to an employment agreement. 	Petitioner was terminated via a letter dated
September 22, 2022 which relieved her of her duties immediately and indicated that she would be on
leave with pay for the 60-day period. 	The following day another letter from the Superintendent
informed petitioner that her termination had been reexamined based upon recent conduct and that
the immediate termination was for cause and without pay. 	Petitioner filed an appeal on
October 18, 2022, challenging her termination. 	She claimed, inter alia, that the Board’s actions:
violated the 60-day notice of termination, defamed her character, and wrongfully terminated her
under New Jersey’s Family and Medical Leave Act. The Board filed a motion for summary decision.
The ALJ found that the petition does not arise out of the New Jersey school laws; therefore, the
Commissioner lacks jurisdiction pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9, and the respondent Board’s motion for
summary decision could not be addressed. Accordingly, the ALJ took no further action and dismissed
the petition.
Upon review, the Commissioner found that the most relevant statute cited by petitioner in her
exceptions is N.J.S.A. 18A:6-30.1, which provides that “[w]hen the dismissal of any teaching staff
member before the expiration of his contract with the board of education shall be decided, upon
appeal, to have been without good cause, he shall be entitled to compensation for the full term of
the contract . . . ”, and that the petitioner appears to argue that the Board improperly terminated her
while she was using a sick day and before she had any observations. 	The Commissioner concurred
with the ALJ that the petition did not reference any New Jersey school laws, and the Commissioner
therefore lacks jurisdiction over the claims alleged in the petition. However, affording broad latitude
to the petitioner as a pro se litigant, the Commissioner determined that the matter should be
remanded to the OAL for consideration of petitioner’s argument under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-30.1.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It has
been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 09468-22
Agency Dkt. No. 279-10/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
Ingrid Fullerton,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of
East Newark, Hudson County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed, as have the exceptions filed by the petitioner pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4. The Board did not file a reply.
In this matter, petitioner challenges her termination by the East Newark Board of
Education (Board). Petitioner was a non-tenured teacher who was employed by the Board
for the 2022-23 school year pursuant to an employment agreement. In a letter dated
September 22, 2022, the Superintendent provided petitioner with a 60-day notice of
termination, relieved her of her duties, and placed her on administrative leave with pay. The
following day, the Superintendent informed petitioner that due to inappropriate and harassing
text messages, she was instead recommending immediate termination for cause. Petitioner
filed the instant petition of appeal, making claims that the Board: violated the 60-day
96-23

2
termination notice in her contract; defamed her character; and wrongfully terminated her
under the New Jersey Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Further, petitioner contended that
the Board’s actions violated the 4th and 5th amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the petition does not arise out of the
New Jersey school laws, and therefore the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction, pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9. As such, the ALJ dismissed the petition.
In her exceptions, petitioner cites to various education statutes to support her
contention that this matter involves New Jersey school law and falls under the Commissioner’s
jurisdiction. The most relevant statute cited by petitioner is N.J.S.A. 18A:6-30.1, which provides
that “[w]hen the dismissal of any teaching staff member before the expiration of his contract
with the board of education shall be decided, upon appeal, to have been without good cause,
he shall be entitled to compensation for the full term of the contract . . . ” Petitioner appears to
argue that the Board improperly terminated her while she was using a sick day and before she
had any observations.1
Upon review, the Commissioner agrees with the Administrative Law Judge that the
petition did not reference any New Jersey school laws, and the Commissioner therefore lacks
jurisdiction over the claims alleged in the petition. Nevertheless, affording latitude to
petitioner as a pro se litigant, the Commissioner finds this matter should be remanded for
consideration of petitioner’s argument under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-30.1.
1 Petitioner also argues that N.J.S.A. 34:11D-4 prohibits employers from taking retaliatory action when an
employee uses sick leave. The Commissioner notes that the statute does not fall under the Commissioner’s
jurisdiction.

3
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
2 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1.
Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date
of mailing of this decision.
March 30, 2023
March 31, 2023

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
MOTION TO DISMISS
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09468-22
AGY REF NO. 279-10/22
INGRID FULLERTON,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF
EAST NEWARK, HUDSON COUNTY,
Respondent
_________________________________________
Ingrid Fullerton, petitioner, pro se
Frances Febres, Esq., for respondent (Cleary, Giacobbe, Alfieri & Jacobs,
attorneys)
Record Closed: December 15, 2023 	Decided: January 5, 2023
BEFORE THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner, Ingrid Fullerton filed a pro se Petition of Appeal, dated October 18,
2022, challenging her termination of employment with the Respondent District, and
seeking Emergent Relief. 	The Office of Controversies and Disputes in the New Jersey

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09468-22
- 2 -
Department of Education (DOE) transferred the matter to the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL), where it was filed on October 19, 2022.
Petitioner is seeking payment of sixty days pay pursuant to her employment
contract.
Respondent Board filed its brief in opposition to the request for emergent relief,
and the Certification of Rosaura Bagolie, on October 31, 2022.
Oral argument via Zoom was held on October 31, 2022.
The application for emergent relief was denied by Order of the undersigned
dated November 1, 2022.
A prehearing conference was held on November 9, 2022, and a Prehearing
Order was entered November 14, 2022.
Petitioner 	filed 	a 	motion 	for 	summary 	decision 	dated 	November 	11, 	2022.
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss dated November 17, 2022. 	Petitioner filed her
opposition to Respondent's motion to dismiss on December 6, 2022. 	Respondent filed
its opposition to Petitioner's motion for summary decision on December 8, 2022; and,
Petitioner filed her response thereto, also on December 8, 2022. Respondent then filed
a reply to Petitioner’s response on December 15, 2022.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner 	was 	employed 	with 	the 	Respondent 	District 	pursuant 	to 	an
Employment Agreement for East Newark Board of Education Employees, dated June
30, 2022. 	Petitioner was employed as a non-tenured teacher for the 2022-2023 school
year, at a salary of $62,348.
Petitioner was terminated from her position via Notice of Determination dated
October 7, 2022, with an effective date of termination of September 23, 2022.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09468-22
- 3 -
Initially, 	Petitioner 	was 	terminated 	via 	letter 	dated 	October 	22, 	2022, 	from
Rosaura Bagolie, the Superintendent of the District. Said letter was referenced as a 60-
Day Notice of Termination. Said letter relieved Petitioner of her duties immediately, and
provided that she be on Administrative Leave with pay for the sixty-day period.
Thereafter, 	in 	a 	letter 	dated 	September 	23, 	2022, 	Superintendent 	Bagolie
advised Petitioner that her termination was re-examined based upon recent conduct,
and the termination of employment be immediate and without pay. This letter stated the
termination was for cause. The letter also served as a Ricei notice.
Petitioner claimed a violation of the NJ Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in
her petition of appeal. 	Petitioner was not on leave pursuant to FMLA. 	(See Bagolie
Cert., pg. 3, para. 11.)
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9 states, in pertinent part:
The 	commissioner 	shall 	have 	jurisdiction 	to 	hear 	and
determine, without cost to the parties, all controversies and
disputes 	arising 	under 	the 	school 	laws, 	excepting 	those
governing higher education, or under the rules of the State
board or of the commissioner. For the purposes of this Title,
controversies and disputes concerning the conduct of school
elections shall not be deemed to arise under the school
laws.
Petitioner’s petition of appeal sets forth the following claims:
1. 	Violation of 60 days termination notice;
2. 	Defamation of character;
3. 	Wrongful termination during FMLA leave;
4. 	Violation of NJ FMLA;
5. 	Violation of 4 th Amendment to US Constitution;
6. 	Violation of 5 th Amendment to US Constitution; and,
7. 	Violation of right of privacy.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09468-22
- 4 -
Said petition also alleges interference with unemployment benefits.
None of the above noted claims fall under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of
the Department of Education. 	The only arguable claim 	that may be before the
Commissioner is the contractual claim regarding Petitioner’s termination.
See Picogna v. Board of Educ., 249, N.J. Super. 332, 592 A.2d 570, 1991 N.J.
Super. LEXIS 229 (App.Div. 1991), Dismissal of terminated teacher’s petition was
proper, which sought relief from the Commissioner of Education based upon the
terminated teacher’s allegedly wrongful dismissal by the city board of education, and
allowed the terminated teacher to adjudicate a parallel civil suit that he had commenced
shortly before he filed his petition with the Commissioner, because even though the
Commissioner had jurisdiction to hear and determine without cost to the parties, all
controversies and disputes arising under the school laws, N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9, the contract
claim of a non-tenured school employee did not arise under the school laws simply
because its outcome could have later enabled him to attain tenure under the school
laws; whether the terminated teacher’s employment was wrongfully terminated under
the contract and under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 et
seq. was for the court, not the Commissioner, to decide.
Clearly, this matter is not a controversy or dispute arising under the school laws.
The Commissioner lacks jurisdiction. Accordingly, the undersigned lacks jurisdiction.
As the instant matter is not properly before the undersigned, Petitioner’s motion
for summary decision cannot be addressed.
I make no findings as to the veracity of any claims set forth in the petition of
appeal. 	I only CONCLUDE that the instant matter cannot be addressed in this forum
due to lack of jurisdiction.
i Rice v. Union City High School Regional Board of Education, 155 N.J. Super. 64 (1977)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09468-22
- 5 -
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED,
and that Petitioners’ petition of appeal be DISMISSED; and,
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This 	recommended 	decision 	may 	be 	adopted, 	modified 	or 	rejected 	by 	the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATTN: 	BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES
AND DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500, marked “Attention: Exceptions.” A copy of any exceptions must be sent to
the judge and to the other parties.
January 5, 2023
DATE 	THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
db

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09468-22
- 6 -
APPENDIX
List of Moving Papers
For Petitioner:
Motion for Summary Decision
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
Response to Opposition to Motion for Summary Decision
For Respondent:
Motion to Dismiss
Certification of Rosaura Bagolie, Superintendent of Schools with Exhibits A through E
Opposition to Motion for Summary Decision
Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss