A.A. v. Board of Education of the Freehold Regional High School District, Monmouth County, 6/24/25 (#318-25E)

318-25E
OAL Dkt. No. 10825-25
Agency Dkt. No. 191-6/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
A.A.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Freehold Regional High
School District, Monmouth County,
Respondent.
The record of this emergent matter and the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) have been reviewed and considered.
Upon such review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner has failed to
demonstrate entitlement to emergent relief pursuant to the standards enunciated in Crowe v. DeGioia,
90 N.J. 126, 132-34 (1982) and codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6.
Accordingly, the recommended Order denying petitioner’s application for emergent relief is
adopted for the reasons stated therein. This matter shall continue at the Office of Administrative Law
with such proceedings as the parties and the ALJ deem necessary to bring it to closure.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	June 24, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	June 24, 2025
1 If petitioner does not wish to pursue a challenge to the other consequences of the discipline imposed on him, he
may notify the ALJ and the file may be returned to the agency.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ORDER DENYING
EMERGENT RELIEF
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10825-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 191-6/25
A.A.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
FREEHOLD REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
__________________________________________
E. Carlton Kromer, Esq., for petitioner (Kromer Law Firm, LLC, attorneys)
Andrew Li, Esq., for respondent (Comegno Law Group, P.C., attorneys)
BEFORE DEIRDRE HARTMAN-ZOHLMAN, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A.A., a Freehold Regional High School senior, challenges his exclusion from
participation in graduation on June 25, 2025. Can the BOE exclude A.A. from
participating in graduation? Yes. A BOE’s decision cannot be upset unless “patently
arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by improper motives.” Kopera v. W. Orange
Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App. Div. 1960).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10825-25
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 4, 2025, A.A. brought an eight-and-one-half-inch folding knife to school.
On June 5, 2025, the District placed A.A. on a ten-day out-of-school suspension, followed
by forty-five days of home instruction, and excluded him from school activities, including
his high school graduation on June 25, 2025.
On June 17, 2025, A.A. filed a petition of appeal and a motion for emergent relief
with the Office of Controversies and Disputes of the New Jersey Department of Education
(DOE). On June 18, 2025, the petition of appeal and motion for emergent relief were
transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(c)(3),
where they were filed as a contested case under N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A.
52:14F-1 to -13. On June 19, 2025, the BOE emailed its response to the petitioner’s
request for emergent relief. The appeal and motion for emergent relief were heard on
June 23, 2025, and I closed the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the arguments of the parties, together with the documents submitted, I
FIND the following as FACT:
1. A.A. is a senior at the Freehold Regional High School. (P-6.)
2. On June 4, 2025, A.A. admittedly brought a weapon in the form of an eight-
and-one-half-inch folding knife to school.1 (P-6.)2
3. Weapons are prohibited from school under District policy, District
regulations, and the student discipline code of conduct. (R-8 through R-
12.)
1 A.A. asserts that he did so inadvertently. I do not find this material to the analysis.
2 The parties’ exhibits were initially labeled alphabetically. Consistent with the OAL Practice Manual, the
exhibits were relabeled numerically, with each document reassigned a corresponding number, but the
pagination was not changed.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10825-25
3
4. On June 5, 2025, A.A. was placed on a ten-day out-of-school suspension,
followed by home instruction for forty-five days, and excluded from all
school activities for the remainder of the school year, including his high
school graduation on June 25, 2025.
5. A.A. has been diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and
attention deficit disorder. A manifestation meeting was held on June 4,
2025, and a determination made that A.A.’s behavior was not a
manifestation of his disability. (R-6.)
6. According to the District regulation and student discipline policy/code of
conduct, the board may deny participation in extracurricular activities,
including graduation. Specifically, the District’s policy and regulation state
that it can deny participation in “extra-curricular activities, school functions,
sports, graduation exercises, or other privileges as disciplinary sanctions
when designed to maintain the order and integrity of the school
environment.” (R-11; R-12.)
7. In 2022, A.A. was found in violation of school regulation and policy for
possessing a weapon in school and was issued a ten-day out-of-school
suspension.3 (R-14.)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
When the subject matter of a controversy is an action by a board of education, the
petitioner may file “a separate motion for emergent relief . . . pending the Commissioner’s
final decision in the contested case.” N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(a). Here, A.A. has initiated due-
process proceedings challenging his exclusion from graduation.
3 According to A.A. this was a “gel gun.” (R-14.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10825-25
4
The standards for granting emergent relief are outlined in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90
N.J. 126 (1982), and are codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b). The petitioner bears the burden
of proving all four prongs of the Crowe test stated below:
1. Petitioner will suffer irreparable harm if the requested relief is not granted;
2. The legal right underlying the petitioner’s claim is settled;
3. Petitioner has a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the underlying claim;
and
4. When the equities and the interests of the parties are balanced, the
petitioner will suffer greater harm than the respondent will suffer if the
requested relief is not granted.
1. Irreparable harm
As the New Jersey Supreme Court explained in Crowe, “[o]ne principle is that a
preliminary injunction should not issue except when necessary to prevent irreparable
harm.” Crowe, 90 N.J. at 132 (citing Citizens Coach Co. v. Camden Horse R.R. Co., 29
N.J. Eq. 299, 303 (E. & A. 1878)). Indeed, the purpose of emergent relief is to “prevent
some threatening, irreparable mischief, which should be averted until opportunity is
afforded for a full and deliberate investigation of the case.” Ibid. (quoting Thompson ex
rel. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders v. Paterson, 9 N.J. Eq. 624, 625 (Sup. Ct. 1854)).
“Irreparable harm is shown when money damages cannot adequately compensate
plaintiff’s injuries.” Hornstine v. Twp. of Moorestown, 263 F. Supp. 2d 887, 911 (D.N.J.
2003) (citing Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974)). “More than a risk of irreparable
harm must be demonstrated.” Cont’l Grp., Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 614 F.2d 351,
359 (3d Cir. 1980). “The requisite for injunctive relief has been characterized as a ‘clear
showing of immediate irreparable injury’ . . . or a ‘presently existing actual threat; [an
injunction] may not be used simply to eliminate a possibility of a remote future injury, or a

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10825-25
5
future invasion of rights, be those rights protected by statute or by the common law.’” Ibid.
(citations omitted).
As to the first requirement, there are a significant number of cases holding that a
prohibition from attending a graduation ceremony or other similar events does not, in and
of itself, rise to the necessary level of irreparable harm to warrant the extraordinary
remedy being requested. Nevertheless, the Commissioner has recently pointed out that
there is no adequate after-the-fact remedy that can adequately redress the intangibles of
a lost experience after the event is over.
The real issue in a case such as this is whether the petitioner is entitled to
participate in the graduation ceremony. It is only where the petitioner can show such
entitlement and is being prevented from participation that he is being irreparably harmed.
Therefore, the key issue is whether he can show a likelihood of success on the merits. In
the absence of a showing of a likelihood of success on the merits, I CONCLUDE that
petitioner has failed to establish irreparable harm in this case.
2. Settled Legal Right
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-2 grants a local board of education authority to impose discipline,
including suspension and expulsion, upon any willfully disobedient student. However, a
local board of education’s discretionary authority is only entitled to a presumption of
correctness and should not be disturbed unless there is an affirmative showing that the
decision was “patently arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by improper motives.”
Kopera v. W. Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App. Div. 1960).
As to the requirement that the right underlying the claim of a requesting party must
be settled, it is clear that each school district is obligated to provide a thorough and
efficient system of education to all children residing in its school district. N.J. Const.
(1947), art. VIII, ¶ 1; N.J.S.A. 18A:33-1. To carry out this policy, local boards of education
have been granted discretionary authority at N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1(c) and (d) to adopt rules
for the management of the public schools of the district, and to perform all acts and do all
things necessary for the lawful and proper conduct of the public schools of the district.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10825-25
6
In general, a board of education’s actions are entitled to a presumption of
lawfulness and good faith. Where board actions are challenged, the challenger bears the
burden of proving that such actions were unlawful, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.
Schuster v. Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery Twp., 96 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 670, 676 (citing
Schnick v. Westwood Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 448 (App. Div. 1960), and Quinlan v.
Bd. of Educ. of N. Bergen Twp., 73 N.J. Super. 40 (App. Div. 1962)). The “arbitrary,
capricious and unreasonable” standard of review imposes a heavy burden on challengers
of board actions. This standard has been defined by the New Jersey courts as having no
rational basis. Piccoli v. Bd. of Educ. of Ramapo Indian Hills Reg’l Sch. Dist., EDU 1839-
98 (January 22, 1999) (citing Bayshore Sewage Co. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 122 N.J.
Super. 184, 199–200 (Ch. Div. 1973), aff’d, 131 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1974)), adopted,
Comm’r (March 10, 1999) <http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/search.shtml>.
In the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion, the Commissioner of
Education will not substitute his or her own judgment for that of the board of education.
Massaro v. Bd. of Educ. of Bergenfield, 1965 S.L.D. 84, 85. In Kopera, 60 N.J. Super. at
294, the Appellate Division noted “the well established rule that action of the local board
[of education] which lies within the area of its discretionary powers may not be upset
unless patently arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by improper motives.”
In this case, under the regulations and student discipline policy/code of conduct
the board may deny participation in extracurricular activities, including graduation.
Specifically, the District’s policy and regulation state that it can deny participation in “extra-
curricular activities, school functions, sports, graduation exercises, or other privileges as
disciplinary sanctions when designed to maintain the order and integrity of the school
environment.” Petitioner argues that the sanction of missing graduation is not necessary
to “maintain the order and integrity of the school environment.” I disagree.
3. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits of the
underlying claim. Under this emergent-relief prong, “a plaintiff must make a preliminary

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10825-25
7
showing of a reasonable probability of ultimate success on the merits.” Crowe, 90 N.J.
at 133 (citing Ideal Laundry Co. v. Gugliemone, 107 N.J. Eq. 108, 115–16 (E. & A. 1930)).
This typically “‘involves a prediction of the probable outcome of the case’ based on each
party’s initial proofs, usually limited to documents.” Brown v. City of Paterson, 424 N.J.
Super. 176, 182–83 (App. Div. 2012) (quoting Rinaldo v. RLR Inv., LLC, 387 N.J. Super.
387, 397 (App. Div. 2006)).
Based on the evidence submitted, I cannot conclude that the actions of the school
district in imposing discipline upon A.A. were arbitrary, without a rational basis, or induced
by improper motives. This was the second time that A.A. was in possession of a weapon
in school. Notably, A.A. did not brandish the weapons, threaten anyone, or cause violence
in any manner. However, I cannot find that it is arbitrary, capricious, without a rational
basis, or induced by improper motives to deny him the ability to attend graduation for his
possession of a weapon for a second time. This decision is within the discretion of the
board, and there is not enough objective evidence in the record before me upon which I
can base a conclusion that it is arbitrary, capricious, without a rational basis, or induced
by improper motives. There is no question that graduation is a privilege. Under the clearly
enunciated regulations and policies of the District, withholding such privileges may be a
necessary disciplinary sanction designed to maintain the order and integrity of the school
environment. Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that the District’s decision to deny A.A.’s
attendance at graduation was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
4. Balancing the Equities
The fourth and final emergent-relief standard involves “the relative hardship to the
parties in granting or denying relief.” Crowe, 90 N.J. at 134 (citing Isolantite Inc. v. United
Elect. Radio & Mach. Workers, 130 N.J. Eq. 506, 515 (Ch. 1941), mod. on other grounds,
132 N.J. Eq. 613 (E. & A. 1942)).
Finally, I CONCLUDE that A.A. has failed to show that when the equities and
interests of the parties are balanced, A.A. will suffer greater harm than the respondent will
suffer if the requested relief is not granted. While A.A. and his family have a personal
stake in seeing A.A. participate in the graduation ceremony, the school district also has

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10825-25
8
an important interest in seeing that its disciplinary policies are enforced. If those policies
are disregarded without clear justification, it will send a message to the students that they
may disregard those policies and avoid the consequences. Such a message will clearly
damage the efforts of the school district to maintain the order and integrity of the school
environment.
Based upon the foregoing, I CONCLUDE there is a rational basis for the
respondent’s action and that the right underlying petitioner’s claim is settled against the
petitioner’s position.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that petitioner’s request for
emergency relief is hereby DENIED.
This order on application for emergency relief 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. The final decision shall be issued
without undue delay, but no later than forty-five days following the entry of this order. If
the Commissioner of the Department of Education does not adopt, modify or reject this
decision within forty-five days, this recommended decision shall become a final decision
on the issue of emergent relief in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
June 24, 2025
DATE DEIRDRE HARTMAN-ZOHLMAN, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
DHZ/jm

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10825-25
9
APPENDIX
Exhibits
For Petitioner:
P-1 Photograph
P-2 Sketch
P-3 Sketch
P-4 Photograph
P-5 Photograph
P-6 Verified petition
P-7 Supplemental Certification of A.A.
For Respondent:
R-1 Photographs
R-2 Witness statement, Todd Ertel
R-3 Incident report
R-4 Video screenshot
R-5 Statements
R-6 Manifestation determination letter
R-7 Letter, dated June 5, 2025
R-8 District Policy 8467
R-9 District Policy 5600
R-10 District Regulation 8467
R-11 District Regulation 5600
R-12 Student Handbook, privilege section
R-13 A.A.’s incident report list for all school years
R-14 Document, re: September 16, 2022, incident
R-15 Letter, dated September 30, 2022
R-16 Psychiatric evaluation, dated September 24, 2015
R-17 Certification of Michael Mendes
R-18 Supplemental Certification of Michael Mendes