L.R., on behalf of minor child, M.R. v. Board of Education of the Borough of Paramus, Bergen County, 10/13/2023, (#306-23)

306-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
L.R., on behalf of minor child, M.R.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Paramus,
Bergen County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner appealed the finding of the respondent Board that her daughter committed an act of
harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) pursuant to the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (Act),
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq. On November 4, 2022, the victim, one of M.R.’s classmates, received a text
message with a picture of the character Stewie Griffin from Family Guy and a picture of the victim
stating “Hey Stewie, what do you call someone with a big head?” M.R. admitted to posting the TikTok
video but denied that it referred to the victim and stated that the message was simply an inside joke
between her and another student. 	The petitioner argued, inter alia, that the HIB statute is
unreasonable but failed to allege that the Board’s determination regarding M.R. was arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable. 	The Board filed a motion for summary decision, to which petitioner
responded that she believes the HIB statute is too broad.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts at issue in this case, and the matter is ripe for
summary decision; M.R. admitted posting the TikTok image of Stewie Griffin which the HIB investigation
found referred to the victim in a derogatory manner; petitioner did not allege that the Board’s decision
was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; the investigation revealed that M.R. and two other girls used
“Stewie Griffin” as a code name for the victim due to the size of her forehead; and the hurtful social
media messages caused the victim to miss several days of school and necessitated her transfer to other
classes to avoid being in the same classroom with M.R. The ALJ concluded that the Board’s decision was
not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 	Accordingly, the ALJ granted the Board’s motion for
summary decision and dismissed the petition.
Upon review, the Commissioner, inter alia, concurred with the ALJ that the Board did not act in an
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner in rendering its HIB determination in this case.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL was adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the
petition was dismissed.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It has been
neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 04391-23
Agency Dkt. No. 109-4/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
L.R., on behalf of minor child, M.R.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Paramus,
Bergen County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, and for the reasons stated therein, the Commissioner hereby adopts the
Initial Decision as the Final Decision in this matter. The Commissioner concurs with the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that petitioner failed to demonstrate, pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b), that there existed any genuine issue of material fact warranting an
evidentiary hearing. Therefore, it was appropriate for the ALJ to decide the matter summarily.
In addition, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that the Board’s decision that M.R.
committed an act of harassment, intimidation, and bullying was not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.
306-23

2
Accordingly, the Board’s motion for summary decision is granted, and the petition of
appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1.
Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date
of mailing of this decision.
October 13, 2023
October 18, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04391-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 109-4/23
L.R. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD M.R.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD 	OF 	EDUCATION 	OF 	THE
BOROUGH OF PARAMUS,
Respondent.
__________________________________
L.R., petitioner, pro se,
Sean Fogarty, Esq., appearing on behalf of respondent (Fogarty & O’Hara,
attorneys)
Record Closed: August 30, 2023 	Decided: September 7, 2023
BEFORE KIMBERLY A. MOSS, ALJ:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner, 	L.R., 	challenges 	the 	respondent’s 	finding 	that 	her 	child 	M.R.
committed acts of harassment, intimidation, or bullying (HIB). 	On May 18, 2023, the
matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a hearing as a
contested case. 	The matter was assigned to the undersigned and a telephone

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04391-23
2
prehearing was conducted on June 7, 2023, wherein the parties agreed on a hearing
date of August 24, 2023. 	A status conference was also conducted on July 20, 2023.
During the pendency of the conference, the parties agreed that the August hearing date
would be adjourned, and a new hearing date was scheduled for September 22, 2023. A
discover deadline was given as well as a motion schedule.
Respondent filed a motion for summary decision on August 18, 2023. 	Petitioner
filed a letter dated August 17, 2023, stating among other things that she did believe that
the HIB law was too broad. 	On August 29, 2023, petitioner was asked if she would be
responding to respondent’s motion. She declined to further respond to the motion.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
Having reviewed the submissions from the parties, I FIND the following FACTS:
On or about November 4, 2022, the District received a report of a HIB incident
alleging that the victim was subjected to HIB over a series of messaging and social
media incidents. 	On November 4, 2022, the victim received a text message with a
picture of the character Stewie Griffin from Family Guy and a picture of the victim stating
“Hey Stewie, what do you call someone with a big head?”
M.R. and other students confirmed the existence of a TikTok account. 	M.R.
admitted posting the image of Stewie Griffen with the caption” If you know, you know.”
The victim, because of these incidents did not want to come to school. An investigation
ensued. 	On November 4, 2022, Andrew J. Bianco, the principal of East Brook Middle
school called the parents of the students to advise that there was an HIB allegation.
The District’s investigation began on November 7, 2022. M.R., the victim and another
student were interviewed and gave statements. M.R. admitted posting the TikTok video
but denied it referred to the victim. She stated that it was an inside joke between her
and another student.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04391-23
3
One of the other students involved in the incident was “Aggressor one.” The
victim asked Aggressor one what the Stewie thing was about. Aggressor one gave her
hints based on body type and hair. 	Aggressor one also told the victim it was someone
she hangs out with a lot.
In the investigation, Aggressor one stated that she called the victim Stewie
Griffin, and it became a joke between Aggressor one, Aggressor three and M.R.
Another witness stated that Stewie Griffin was a code name M.R. and Aggressor’s one
and three called the victim. Aggressor one stated that the victim had a big forehead and
was nosy. 	Other students knew that Stewie Griffin was a reference to the victim. 	As a
result of this, the victim was hurt, sad, crying a lot and did not want to come to school.
After the investigation was completed on November 22, 2022, it was determined
that M.R. committed an act of HIB. 	The victim ‘s class schedule was changed but no
discipline was opposed. The Superintendent, Sean Adams, affirmed the findings of HIB
because the HIB behavior was motivated by a distinguishing characteristic of the victim.
The results of the investigation were reported to the Board on December 12, 2022.
The results of the HIB were sent to petitioner on December 13, 2022. 	Petitioner
requested a hearing before the Board which was held on January 23, 2023. 	Petitioner
requested that the determination of HIB be reversed, and that the timeline of the
investigation was improperly conducted at the Board meeting. The Board affirmed
Superintendent Adams decision.
Petitioner argues that the HIB definition includes anything a child does and
believes that the HIB law is unreasonable. Petitioner argues that the investigation did
not fairly interview three children, the investigation exceeded the ten-day requirement,
there was no documentation of a post from M.R. and case notes were distributed by the
Board’s attorneys.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04391-23
4
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
The 	rules 	governing 	motions 	for 	summary 	decision 	in 	an 	OAL 	matter 	are
embodied N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5. 	These provisions mirror the language of Rule 4:46-2 and
the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Judson v. Peoples Bank and Trust
Company 	of 	Westfield, 	17 	N.J. 	67 	(1954). 	Under 	N.J.A.C. 	1:1-12.5(b), 	the
determination to grant summary judgment should be based on the papers presented as
well as any affidavits which may have been filed with the application. 	In order for the
adverse, i.e., the non-moving party to prevail in such an application, responding
affidavits must be submitted showing that there is indeed a genuine issue of fact, which
can only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding. The Court in Brill v. Guardian Life
Insurance Company of America, 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995), set the standard to be
applied when deciding a motion for summary judgment. Therein the Court stated:
The determination whether there exists a genuine issue with respect to a
material fact challenged requires the 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 fact finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the
non-moving party.
There is no material issue of fact in this matter.
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14
“Harassment, intimidation or bullying” means 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 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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04391-23
5
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: 37-15(b) (5) provides:
A school district shall have local control over the content of the policy,
except 	that 	the 	policy 	shall 	contain, 	at 	a 	minimum, 	the 	following
components:
5. a procedure for reporting an act of harassment, intimidation or bullying,
including a provision that permits a person to report an act of harassment,
intimidation or bullying anonymously; however, this shall not be construed
to permit formal disciplinary action solely on the basis of an anonymous
report.
All acts of harassment, intimidation, or bullying 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. 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. The principal shall keep a written record of the date,
time, and manner of notification to the parents or guardians. All acts of
harassment, intimidation, or bullying 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 	haraP.L.2002, 	c.83 	(C.18A:37-14)
Harassment, intimidation, or bullying. The written report shall be on a
numbered form developed by the Department of Education. A copy of the
form shall be submitted promptly by the principal to the superintendent of
schools. 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 harassment,
intimidation, or bullying pursuant to section 2 of , 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. 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 subparagraph (d) of paragraph (6) of this subsection.
The school district shall provide a means for a parent or guardian to
complete an online numbered form developed by the Department of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04391-23
6
Education to confidentially report an incident of harassment, intimidation,
or bullying.
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
harassment, intimidation, or bullying, 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 harassment, intimidation, or
bullying. The superintendent shall notify the principal of this determination
in writing;
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6) provides:
(a)Each 	school 	district 	shall 	adopt 	a 	policy 	prohibiting 	harassment,
intimidation or bullying on school property, at a school-sponsored function
or on a school bus. The school district shall adopt the policy through a
process 	that 	includes 	representation 	of parents 	or 	guardians, 	school
employees, 	volunteers, 	students, 	administrators, 	and 	community
representatives.
(b) A school district shall have local control over the content of the policy,
except 	that 	the 	policy 	shall 	contain, 	at 	a 	minimum, 	the 	following
components:
(6) a procedure for prompt investigation of reports of violations and
complaints, which procedure shall at a minimum provide that:
(a) the 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. The principal may appoint
additional personnel who are not school anti-bullying specialists to assist
in the investigation. The investigation shall be completed as soon as
possible, but not later than 10 school days from the date of the written
report of the incident of harassment, intimidation, or bullying or from the
date of the written notification from the superintendent to the principal to
initiate an investigation pursuant to paragraph (5) of this subsection. In the
event 	that 	there 	is 	information 	relative 	to 	the 	investigation 	that 	is
anticipated but not yet received by the end of the 10-day period, the
school anti-bullying specialist may amend the original report of the results
of the investigation to reflect the information;
(b) the results of the investigation shall 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 harassment,
intimidation, or bullying and enhance school climate, impose discipline,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04391-23
7
order counseling as a result of the findings of the investigation, or take or
recommend other appropriate action including seeking further information;
(c) 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.
(d) 	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 harassment, intimidation, or bullying, or whether discipline
was imposed, or services provided to address the incident of harassment,
intimidation, or bullying. This information shall be provided in writing within
5 school days after the results of the investigation are reported to the
board. A parent or guardian may request a hearing before the board after
receiving the information, and the hearing shall be held within 10 days of
the request. The board shall meet in executive session for the hearing to
protect the confidentiality of the students. 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;
(e) at the next board of education meeting following its receipt of the report
pursuant to subparagraph (c) of paragraph (6) of this subsection, the
board shall issue a decision, in writing, to affirm, reject, or modify the
superintendent’s decision. 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 90 days after the issuance of the board’s
decision; and
(f) a parent, student, guardian, or organization may file a complaint with
the Division on Civil Rights within 180 days of the occurrence of any
incident of harassment, intimidation, or bullying based on membership in a
protected 	group 	as 	enumerated 	in 	the 	“Law 	Against 	Discrimination,”
P.L.1945, c.169 (C.10:5-1 et seq.);
In this matter M.R. admitted posting the TikTok image of Stewie Griffin which the
investigation found referred to the victim in a derogatory manner. 	Petitioner did not
allege that the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 	The
investigation revealed that Aggressor one, Aggressor three and M.R. used Stewie Grifin
as a code name for the victim due to the size of her forehead. 	As a result of this the
victim became upset and refused to return to school, missed several days of school and
did not want to be in the same class as M.R.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04391-23
8
I CONCLUDE that the board ruling that M.R. committed an act of HIB was NOT
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that respondents motion for summary
decision be and is hereby GRANTED.
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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04391-23
9
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.
September 7, 2023
DATE 	KIMBERLY A. MOSS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	September 7, 2023
Date Mailed to Parties: 	September 7, 2023
ljb