James Mosser v. Board of Education of the Township of Union, Union County, 10/3/25 (#467-25)

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

467-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 01119-23
Agency Dkt. No. 8-1/23

New Jersey Commissioner of Education

Final Decision

James Mosser,

Petitioner,

Board of Education of the Township of Union,
Union County,

Respondent.

The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the OAL hearing transcripts, the exceptions filed by petitioner James Mosser and respondent
Board of Education of the Township of Union (Board) pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the
Board’s reply to petitioner’s exceptions, have been reviewed and considered.

This matter concerns multiple harassment, intimidation, or bullying (HIB) allegations
made against petitioner, a tenured teacher employed by the Board. In April 2019, petitioner
appealed the Board’s determinations that he committed HIB. Following contested proceedings
at the OAL, in December 2021, the Commissioner remanded the matter to the Board for a hearing
upon concluding that the Board did not comply with the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (Act),
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 to -32, when conducting its HIB investigations (HIB 16 and HIB 17). In October
2022, the new Board hearing took place, and the Board again upheld the HIB determinations.

Subsequently, petitioner filed the instant petition of appeal.

2
Following a contested hearing at the OAL, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rendered
findings of fact, credibility determinations, and legal conclusions in a seventy-two-page Initial
Decision. Regarding HIB 16, the ALJ concluded that the Board’s determination that petitioner
committed an act of HIB toward student G.R. was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable
because petitioner’s conduct—exclusion of G.R. from a theatre “master class”—was not
reasonably perceived as being motivated by any actual or perceived characteristic. Regarding
HIB 	17, 	which 	encompassed 	allegations 	from 	multiple 	students 	primarily 	concerning
inappropriate and insulting comments made by petitioner on unknown dates, the ALJ found that
the Board’s determinations that petitioner committed acts of HIB toward students A.C., N.R.,
N.V., A.P., and E.L. were arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because they did not satisfy the
statutory criteria. 	In addition, the ALJ affirmed the Board’s determinations that petitioner
committed acts of HIB toward students E.C., L.S., B.F., K.H., T.T., and M.M.
Both parties filed exceptions disputing the ALJ’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
credibility determinations. 	In his exceptions, petitioner argues that the Commissioner should
adopt the ALJ’s conclusions regarding HIB 16, and regarding HIB 17 with respect to students A.C.,
N.R., N.V., A.P., and E.L. However, petitioner argues that the Commissioner should reject the
ALJ’s conclusions regarding HIB 17 with respect to students E.C., L.S., B.F., K.H., T.T., and M.M. In
its exceptions, the Board argues that the Commissioner should reject the ALJ’s conclusions
regarding HIB 16, and regarding HIB 17 with respect to students A.C., N.R., N.V., A.P., and E.L.
The Board also argues that the Commissioner should uphold the Board’s HIB findings in totality
as to students T.T. and M.M.

3
Upon careful review of the record and hearing transcripts, the Commissioner holds that
it was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable for the Board to have concluded that petitioner
committed acts of HIB as alleged in HIB 16 and HIB 17 because the evidence in the record fails to
support the conclusion that petitioner’s conduct—even assuming it occurred as alleged by each
student1—substantially disrupted or interfered with the orderly operation of the school or the
rights of other students as is required by N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.
The Act defines HIB as:
[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
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 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 (emphasis added).]
1 Petitioner denies that he committed any acts of HIB. Although he was interviewed by an administrator,
David Shaw, during the HIB 16 investigation, no evidence of that interview was presented to the Board
for review in connection with its final HIB determination, and none is contained in the record. Petitioner
was never interviewed during the HIB 17 investigation.

4
In sum, a finding of HIB requires three elements under the Act. 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 orderly operation of the school or the rights of other
students. 	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.
51-20 at 5 (Feb. 4, 2020). 	If one of the three statutory elements are not satisfied, then the
conduct does not constitute HIB as specifically defined under the Act.
With respect to HIB 16, the ALJ correctly found that G.R.’s exclusion from the master class
was not reasonably perceived as being motivated by any actual or perceived characteristic.
Additionally, the record is devoid of evidence to establish that the conduct substantially
disrupted or interfered with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of other students.
While the Board asserts in their exceptions that the HIB 16 allegations also encompassed insulting
comments made by petitioner about G.R. to her classmates, the fact remains that the HIB 16
investigation did not conclude that any of the alleged conduct by petitioner substantially
disrupted or interfered with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of other students.
No mention of that statutory requirement is made in the HIB 16 investigation report.
When asked during direct examination, Jill Hall, the anti-bullying specialist who conducted
the HIB investigation, testified that her conclusion that “the incident meets the criteria for HIB”
meant that the incident had substantially disrupted or interfered with the orderly operation of
the school and the rights of other students. Transcript of October 30, 2024, p. 62. However,
neither Hall nor any other witness offered testimony explaining how or when the substantial

5
disruption or interference occurred. 	For these reasons, the Board’s conclusion in HIB 16 that
petitioner committed an act or acts of HIB is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because the
statutory criteria were not satisfied.
As for HIB 17, the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that the Board’s HIB determinations
with respect to students A.C., N.R., N.V., A.P., and E.L. were arbitrary, capricious, and
unreasonable because they did not satisfy the statutory criteria. However, the Commissioner
disagrees with the ALJ that the Board’s HIB determinations with respect to students E.C., L.S.,
B.F., K.H., T.T., and M.M. should be affirmed. 	The record contains insufficient evidence to
establish that any of petitioner’s conduct substantially disrupted or interfered with the orderly
operation of the school or the rights of other students.
While the first page of the HIB 17 investigation report indicates via an “X” that the
“incident” substantially disrupted or interfered with the orderly operation of the school or the
rights of other students, the body of the report—which contains allegations from eleven different
students regarding multiple incidents2—fails to explain how or when the substantial disruption
or interference occurred, and fails to identify what specific conduct by petitioner caused the
substantial disruption or interference. 	The HIB 17 investigation report authored by Hall
concludes by stating, “These incidents meet the criteria for HIB as defined in the Anti-Bullying Bill
of Rights specific to James Mosser and Jennifer Williams.”3 It is impossible to determine from
2 The Board did not make HIB findings pertaining to students M.A.D., C.B., and R.R., who were also
interviewed during the HIB 17 investigation.
3 	According to Hall’s testimony, HIB 17 encompassed allegations that petitioner as well as a
paraprofessional, a school counselor, and a choreographer, committed acts of HIB. Transcript of October
30, 2024, pp. 93-94.

6
the report whether petitioner’s conduct caused a substantial disruption or interference, or
whether Ms. Williams’s conduct caused a substantial disruption or interference.
Furthermore, witness testimony during the OAL hearing failed to provide a sufficient basis
upon which to conclude that petitioner’s conduct as alleged in HIB 17 substantially disrupted or
interfered with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of other students. Although Hall
testified generally that the alleged conduct in HIB 17 constituted HIB under the Act, she never
explained how or when the conduct resulted in a substantial disruption or interference. With
respect to student E.C., Hall was asked during direct examination whether inappropriate
comments made by petitioner to E.C. substantially disrupted the orderly operation of the school
and the rights of other students; she replied “yes” without further explanation. 	Transcript of
October 30, 2024, pp. 168-170.
Stating generally that the statutory criteria are met without explaining how they are met
in relation to the alleged conduct is insufficient to sustain a finding of HIB. Moreover, here, it is
significant that the HIB 17 investigation was not initiated because of student or parent HIB
complaints. 	Instead, Hall testified that the school principal directed her to commence the
investigation and to interview a specific group of students. To the extent that the ALJ found or
suggested that a substantial disruption or interference occurred with respect to petitioner’s
alleged conduct toward E.C., L.S., B.F., K.H., T.T., and M.M., the Commissioner rejects those
findings as unsupported by the record.
For these reasons, the Board’s conclusion in HIB 17 that petitioner committed acts of HIB
is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because the statutory criteria were not satisfied.
Because the record contains insufficient evidence to establish that any of the alleged conduct by

7
petitioner substantially disrupted or interfered with the orderly operation of the school or the
rights of other students, it is not necessary to determine whether each individual HIB allegation
satisfied the remaining statutory requirements.
Turning to the Board’s exceptions, the Commissioner disagrees with the Board’s first
exception asserting that the ALJ applied the incorrect standard of review. On the contrary, the
ALJ properly analyzed whether petitioner established that the Board’s HIB determinations were
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Kopera v. Bd. of Educ. of W. Orange, 60 N.J. Super. 288,
294 (App. Div. 1960).
The Commissioner also disagrees with the Board’s second exception asserting that the
ALJ’s credibility determination as to Hall should be modified. “The agency head may not reject
or modify any findings of fact as to issues of credibility of lay witness testimony unless it is first
determined from a review of the record that the findings are arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable or are not supported by sufficient, competent, and credible evidence in the
record.” 	N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c). 	The ALJ found that Hall was not completely credible because
some of her testimony regarding the protected categories or distinguishing characteristics at
issue in HIB 17 conflicted with the HIB 17 investigation report. Upon careful review of the record
and hearing transcripts, the Commissioner finds no basis to reject or modify the ALJ’s credibility
determination as to Hall. Cavalieri v. Bd. of Trs. of Pub. Empl. Ret. Sys., 368 N.J. Super. 527, 534
(App Div. 2004).
Regarding the Board’s third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth exceptions as
to individual HIB allegations that should be upheld, the Commissioner rejects them given the
Commissioner’s determination that none of the allegations meet the statutory criteria for HIB

8
because the record lacks sufficient evidence to establish that the alleged conduct substantially
disrupted or interfered with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of other students
as is required by N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.
In summary, the Commissioner concludes that the Board’s determinations that petitioner
committed acts of HIB are arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because the record lacks
sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that petitioner’s conduct substantially disrupted or
interfered with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of other students.4
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted in part and rejected in part, and the petition
of appeal is hereby granted. Any records concerning the HIB 16 and HIB 17 investigations as they
pertain to petitioner shall be removed from his personnel file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.5
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	October 3, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	October 6, 2025
4 The Commissioner does not condone the use of inappropriate, insulting, or demeaning language by
teachers toward students. Moreover, the Commissioner does not minimize the negative impact that such
language can have on students. 	Under the Act, not all inappropriate and unprofessional conduct
constitutes HIB. While it certainly may violate other Board policies not at issue here, the Commissioner
makes no findings in that regard because this matter is limited to the HIB allegations only.
5 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
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 8-1/23
JAMES MOSSER,
Petitioner,
v.
CITY OF UNION BOARD OF EDUCATION,
UNION COUNTY,
Respondent.
Paul W. Tyschenko, Esq. for petitioner (Caruso, Smith, Picini P.C. attorneys)
Christopher Buggy, Esq. for respondent (Florio, Perrucci, Steinhard & Capelli,
LLC)
Record Closed: July 11, 2025 	Dated: July 25, 2025
BEFORE: KIMBERLY A. MOSS, ALJ:
James Mosser (Mosser or Petitioner) had previously filed a petition appealing
harassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB) determination against him under Docket No.
EDU 09011-19. 	In that matter petitioner filed a motion for summary decision at the
Office of Administrative Law (OAL) which was granted. 	In its Final Decision the
Commissioner 	of 	Education 	remanded 	the 	matter 	on 	procedural 	deficiencies 	and
directed the Union Board of Education (Board) to conduct further proceedings as well as
clearly inform Mosser as to any discipline that was imposed on him, prior to providing a

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
2
new Board hearing. 	At the new hearing, the Board sustained HIB charges against
Mosser. 	Mosser appealed the decision. 	The matter was filed at the OAL on February
7, 2023. 	Petitioner filed a motion for summary decisions on October 10, 2023.
Respondent filed opposition to the motion for summary decision and a cross motion for
summary decision. 	Petitioner filed opposition to the cross motion on January 8, 2024.
These motions were denied. 	The Hearings were held on October 30, 2024, December
23, 2024, January 17, 2024, February 7, 2024, February 24, 2025, March 7, 2025,
March 19, 2025, April 11, 2025, April 21, 2025 and May 23, 2025. 	Closing briefs were
submitted by the parties on July 11, 2025, at which time I closed the record.
TESTIMONY
Jill Hall
Jill Hall is a Student Assistance Counselor (SAC) at Union High School (Union).
The SAC services include mental health services. Prior to being a SAC, Hall was a
teacher for approximately nineteen years. 	She has been an anti-bullying specialist
(ABS) since 2012. She became a SAC at Union High School in February 2017. Prior to
that she was SAC at Kawameeh Middle School. 	Lucille Williams was the bullying
coordinator at Union. Hall is a licensed professional counselor.
All school counselors are trained in the anti-bullying bill of rights (ABR) and how
to 	conduct 	an 	anti-bullying 	investigation. 	The 	anti-bullying 	training 	shows 	how 	to
differentiate between conflict and bullying. The investigation must be completed in ten
school days. Investigations are to find facts, reports are done according to the timelines.
The investigator asks the witness what they saw with their own eyes or what they heard
with their own ears. The standard to determine if a harassment, intimidation or bullying
(HIB) incident occurred is more likely than not.
The Board adopted an anti-bullying policy in 2012. 	This policy was in effect at
the time of the incidents. The policy defines harassment, intimidation or bullying 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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
3
perceived characteristics 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 	grounds, 	at 	any 	school
sponsored function, or a school bus or off school grounds in accordance
with the law, 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 the student in reasonable fear of
physical 	or 	emotional 	harm 	to 	his 	or 	her 	person 	or
damage to his or her property or
B. Has the effect of insulting or demeaning any student or
group of students or
C. Creates 	a 	hostile 	educational 	environment 	for 	the
students by interfering with the student’s education or by
severely or pervasively causing physical or emotional
harm to the student.
If an action meets the definition of HIB, the policy is that it is a HIB. In 2012 Hall
became involved in HIB investigations. 	This was the year that the ABR began in New
Jersey. Hall was trained in ABR and HIB policy. The HIB timeline included proceedings,
documentation, and notification. 	When one becomes aware of an HIB it must be
reported to Administration within two days. The investigation report of the HIB is due in
ten days. Notification is made by the administration.
The teachers, staff and custodians have a duty to report actions that can be HIB
violations. 	The report is made to the principal or vice principal to commence an
investigation. A student can report an HIB incident.
When HIB investigations begin, the parties are notified. The HIB investigation
must be thorough and complete. 	If the investigation is not complete in ten days, it will
be closed and reopened at a later date. The complainant is spoken to first and gives a
statement about what occurred and asked if there were any witnesses. 	A statement
from a complainant or witness is taken. 	The statements by the complainants were not
written, audio or video statements.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
4
Once a report is complete, it is given to the principal and the District anti bullying
coordinator (ABC). 	Also, Hall does not see it again unless there is an appeal when the
report is complete. 	If there is an appeal, the Board hears the appeal and could send it
back for further investigation or concur with the report.
Hall has done 150-200 HIB investigations. All but three or four students were
against student. There is a template for the HIB reports. It reflects the investigation and
the conclusion.
G.R. was a student in Mosser’s advanced theatre class. Her parents were
concerned that G.R. was being excluded from events that other students in the class
attended. 	Mosser made comments about her and excluded her from the master class.
She was insulted and demeaned which interfered with her education and created a
hostile educational environment. The distinguishing characteristic is being excluded
from her classmates in the master class.
G.R. had dropped out of the production of Godspell that Mosser was directing.
Mosser made comments that she would not be cast again because she dropped out.
The issue of G.R. was brought up in January 2018. There was a meeting with Mosser,
Hall and G.R.’s parents to navigate G.R., being frustrated by comments Mosser made
about her in class. Mosser stated that there were criteria for advanced theatre class.
G.R.’s parents believed Mosser retaliated against G.R. because she dropped out of the
prior production. 	G.R.’s parents requested an HIB investigation. The HIB investigation,
HIB 16, began May 11, 2018. 	Hall spoke to G.R. about being excluded from master
class and concerns about her grades. Hall did not speak to Mosser.
In master class, an outside person comes to provide additional instruction.
Previously all the students in advance theatre placement were selected for master
class. 	At this time only the students in the Peter Pan production were selected for
master class. 	G.R. was not in the Peter Pan production. G.R. was excluded from
master class twice during the school year. She felt like she was being targeted.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
5
David Shaw, an administrator in the District, interviewed Mosser. Hall did not
interview Mosser because they are in the same collective bargaining unit, so her
interviewing him would be inappropriate. Hall found that the incident met the criteria for
HIB violation. Hall had previously counseled G.R., which Hall did not believe this was
relevant to the HIB complaint. Two to three students corroborated G.R.’s statement.
Hall does not know if there was a policy that master class was open to all
students. She does not know if it was a policy of Mosser to exclude students from
Master Class. G.R. not getting the part in Peter Pan is not part of the HIB.
There 	was 	a 	subsequent 	HIB 	allegation 	against 	Mosser 	and 	three 	other
members of staff, HIB 17. 	Thirteen students were interviewed. The distinguishing
characteristics are sexual orientation and gender in the HIB 17 report. 	Hall contacted
four parents directly and left a message for three other parents. Hall had been given a
sticky note with the names of the students involved. The concern was comments made
by Mosser which could be considered HIB violations. 	Principal Lowery was made
aware of the allegations and asked Hall to conduct an investigation.
Hall met with the students. Hall contacted the New Jersey Division of Child
Protection and Permanency (DCPP) because one student, B.F. stated that Mosser had
slapped him on the butt in the previous school year and called B.F. cute. Hall contacted
DCPP about another incident where alcohol was served to minors and Mosser was
present or served the alcohol to the minors.
Hall interviewed students E.C., L.S., A.C., B.F., N.R. K.H., T.T., E.L., A.P. M.M.
and N.V. whose names she had been given. Hall interviewed the students at Union in
her office. E.C. was interviewed on June 1, 2018. E.C. was a student at Union.
According to E.C. Mosser said to him, “All you need to date you is to be retarded.” This
made E.C. feel uncomfortable. E.C. believed that Mosser was talking about E.C.’s
girlfriend N.B. Mosser used E.C.’s phone to call another student J.C. and said, “Shut up
J. or I will beat your ass.” Mosser asked E.C. to take a what percent gay are you quiz.
Mosser said this in front of other students. Hall believed E.C. was being truthful.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
6
L.S. was interviewed by Hall on June 1, 2018. 	She stated that Mosser yelled a
lot as it got closer to production time. 	Mosser would say “You guys are retarded.”
Mosser would call the students dumb. Mosser called L.S a slut and made negative
comments about her academics. Mosser pushed her off of the stage and called her
lazy. L.S. played Lisel in the Sound of Music. 	Mosser would call her sleazel and
diseasel. L.S. felt uncomfortable. Mosser had some of the students as friends on social
media. Mosser would use the word retarded toward students and tell them, “You suck.”
He told L.S. that she was dumb. Mosser told L.S. that he was surprised that her grades
were good. L.S. found Mosser’s comments hurtful. L.S. stated that Mosser pushed her
off the stage in the auditorium. The incident was not reported at the time. 	L.S. stated
that it was normal to be pushed off the stage. No other student saw Mosser push L.S.
off the stage. Hall does not know if there were cameras in the auditorium.
Hall interviewed M.M. on June 1, 2018. 	M.M. stated that in March 2017, he was
going to take a driving test. 	He contacted Mosser and said that he would be late.
Mosser told him to “get here.” 	Mosser told the other students that he would not be
doing another big production due to M.M. Mosser repeatedly called the class retarded
and called a student a talentless bitch. 	Mosser told M.M. that he looked homeless.
Mosser called M.M. a fucking idiot.
Hall interviewed A.P. on June 1, 2018. 	A.P. was uncomfortable with a text that
Mosser sent to R.R. She heard Mosser ask E.C., “Are you retarded.” A.P. is a friend of
G.R. She is uncomfortable with Mosser giving students rides home. 	She saw a text
Mosser sent to R.R. where Mosser expressed affection for R.R.
Hall interviewed E.L. on June 1, 2018. 	E.L. dated R.R. at that time. 	She
believed Mosser treated her differently. 	She heard Mosser repeatedly call students
retarded and stupid. 	He called a student a bitch, E.L. was aware that Mosser used
E.C.’s phone to text K.H. 	She was upset that the teachers in the High School were
talking about what was going on in the theatre department. 	Mosser put fear in the
students, they could not talk about what was going on in the theatre department.
Mosser invited R.R. to dinner.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
7
Hall spoke to B.F. on June 4, 2018. B.F. told her that Mosser had hit him on the
butt and told him that he was cute. B.F. wanted to leave the production after that
occurred, but Mosser told him if he left the production, B.F. would not get his community
service hours. B.F. heard Mosser call a L.S. sleazel and diseasel. 	B.F. was not
involved much in the theatre class during the 2017-2018 school year. Hall called DCPP
and Security Officer Sagansty because of the B.F. stating that Mosser hit him on the
butt and called him cute.
E.C. was again interviewed by Hall on June 5, 2018. 	E.C. spoke about being at
an after party where beer was purchased and put in front of him. 	E.C. stated that
Mosser told him it was an acquired taste. 	Mosser put his hand on E.C.’s leg. E.C.
moved Mosser’s hand. 	Mosser sat on E.C.’s lap twice, E.C. told Mosser he was
leaving, and he would not leave with Mosser. Previously Mosser would lean into E.C.
Hall interviewed N.R. on June 5, 2018. 	N.R. said Mosser would use the word
retarded when referring to students. 	Mosser asked a student if he was gay. 	He then
asked the student in front of the class if he was sure that he was not gay. 	Mosser told
N.R. to quit as stage manager but when she did Mosser was upset. 	N.R was not
comfortable with the environment and removed herself from the environment. She told
her father about the situation. N.R.’s father wanted to address it, but she did not.
Hall interviewed K.H. on June 5, 2018. Mosser told her she was lazy and didn’t
do anything. He called the students “rude, insubordinate, stupid little people.” He called
a student an untalented bitch. He made a comment about someone being on the top,
which made K.H. feel weird. K.H.’s father was a security officer at the school and her
mother was on the board of education.
Hall 	interviewed 	T.T. 	on 	June 	8, 	2018, 	who 	is 	African 	American. 	Mosser
humiliated her about her hair in front of the class. He also told her “Are you too retarded
to walk downstairs.” 	T.T. believed that the stairs were unsafe. T.T heard Mosser ask
E.C. to take a how gay are your quiz. 	Mosser made E.C. question his sexuality. T.T.
heard Mosser use the word retarded in class or rehearsals.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
8
Hall interviewed A.C. on June 7, 2018. A.C. heard Mosser use the word retarded.
He told her a monkey could do the work better than she could. He told her to shut her
mouth. 	A.C. typed a letter which A.C.’s mother gave to Hall. 	In the letter, A.C. wrote
about her experience with the performing arts and how her hopes were dashed. 	A.C.
stated that Mosser said, “look at what the monkey could do” to her. She cried and went
to the lady’s room. A.C. was angry and emotional. She was angry that nothing had
changed and that the experience was different than she expected in a negative way.
A.C. was cast as a statue in a production of Mary Poppins.
Hall interviewed N.V. on June 8, 2018. 	N.V. stated that Mosser was harsh and
intense and called him retarded. 	He accused people of being gay or lesbian. He heard
Mosser call someone a slut.
Hall interviewed R.R. on June 14, 2018. 	R.R. was a magnet school student.
R.R. stated that he received a text from Mosser which he felt was an expression of
affection from Mosser and romantic interest, but R.R. did not feel the same way. R.R.
accepted rides to and from rehearsals from Mosser. R.R. had been at Mosser’s
residence to work on film editing.
Hall spoke to C.B. who was also a magnet school student. C.B is openly gay and
was not affected by comments about being gay.
Hall prepared an HIB report from notes and interviews. The investigation was
opened on May 30, 2018.
E.C. was uncomfortable by Mosser’s comments from being told to take the “Are
you gay quiz” and being told someone would have to be retarded to date him. The
distinguishing characteristics are sexual orientation and mental, physical or sensory
disability. This substantially interfered with school and was insulting and demeaning.
L.S. was called a slut, told she was retarded, and Mosser used profanity toward
her. 	The distinguishing characteristic is gender, it was insulting and demeaning and
took place on school grounds.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
9
A.C. was called retarded and told a monkey could do the work better than her.
The distinguishing characteristic are mental, physical or sensory disability and gender.
The comments were demeaning and insulting and occurred at the school.
N.R. heard Mosser call student retarded and hearing students asked if they were
gay. The distinguishing characteristic is mental, physical or sensory disability and
sexual orientation. 	The comments were insulting and demeaning and occurred on
school property.
B.F. was slapped on the butt and told that he was cute. He also heard a student
being called sleazel and diseasel. The distinguishing characteristics are gender and
sexual orientation. This occurred at school.
K.H. also heard Mosser call students retarded, stupid and untalented bitch.
Mosser’s comment about being on the top fit distinguishing characteristics of physical,
mental and sensory disability, gender and sexual orientation. 	The comments were
demeaning and insulting.
T.T. being asked if she retarded fits distinguishing characteristics of mental,
physical or sensory disability. Mosser’s hair comments come under the distinguishing
characteristic of race.
N.V. 	heard 	Mosser 	call 	students 	retarded 	and 	slut. 	The 	distinguishing
characteristic is physical, mental or sensory disability and gender.
M.M. being told that he was retarded and looked homeless, fits the distinguishing
characteristics a of mental, physical or sensory disability and physical appearance. The
comments were demeaning and insulting.
A.P hearing Mosser use of the word retarded fit the distinguishing characteristic
of mental, physical or sensory disability.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
10
E.L. 	hearing 	Mosser 	call 	students 	retarded 	and 	stupid 	fits 	distinguishing
characteristic of mental, physical or sensory disability.
Principal Lowery wrote a report on the incidents which is consistent with her
notes and report.
Hall’s HIB report was sent to the Principal, the Director of Counseling and the
District ABC. 	A HIB report goes to the central office to determine if they agree or
disagree with the disposition.
After Hall’s interviews with the students, she spoke to her supervisor Nicole
Ahern, the District ABC about what would happen with Mosser’s interview. There was a
meeting between Hall, Ahearn and Superintendent Tatum regarding whether the HIB
report can be concluded if Mosser was not interviewed. They contacted the County
Superintendent’s Office and spoke to Maria Mendez who advised that the investigation
could be closed without speaking to Mosser. Hall sent the HIB report to the Board. The
conclusions in Hall’s HIB report were made in collaboration with the Superintendent of
Schools. 	The Superintendent was consulted because Mosser was a member of the
same collective bargaining unit as Hall. After speaking with Maria Mendez, they were
told to conclude and close the case.
Character witnesses are not required to be interviewed in a HIB investigation.
The accused is not required to be interviewed in an HIB investigation, but it is best
practice for the accused to be interviewed.
The incident of L.S. being pushed from the stage by Mosser and Mosser hitting
B.F. on the butt were referred to DCPP. Both claims were not established.
There is no appropriate incident where a teacher can call a student retarded, slut,
idiot or say that they look like they are homeless.
Hall has known Mosser for ten years. 	They are work colleagues. 	He is a
talented theatre director.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
11
The only written complaint provided was in the form of an essay which was
written one year prior to the investigation for an English assignment by A.C. who has
since graduated.
Hall does not know if the Board had her HIB notes at the June 19, 2022 meeting.
There was no way of the Board knowing the allegations that were in her notes that she
did not put into the HIB report.
Hall believes that she was at the July 2022 Board meeting where the HIB was on
the agenda. She was asked to attend and asked about the HIB investigation. This
occurred in a room outside of the library with members of the Board, the Assistant
Superintendent and the Superintendent. She discussed HIB procedures and answered
questions.
At the October 2022 meeting, the Board received a copy of her report. She
believes that the report had redactions. 	Hall did not see the report of the person who
questioned Mosser. She does not recall if anyone was present at the Board meeting
that investigated Mosser’s side of the allegations. 	David Shaw was tasked to interview
Mosser regarding HIB 16. 	Hall sent Shaw a copy of her report. 	She did not receive a
copy of Shaw’s part of the investigation.
At the October 2022 meeting Hall was asked if witnesses had given written or
audio statements and she stated that it was not the procedure. 	Hall does not recall
being asked to do additional investigation from the end of her initial investigation until
the July 2022 meeting.
Once Hall completes an HIB investigation, the documents are kept by Ahern.
They are sent to the Superintendent and then to the Board, who agrees or disagrees
with the finding. 	In the HIB investigation regarding HIB 16, Hall does not recall if any
other student had contact with Mosser over one year before the HIB investigation. 	Hall
asked G.R. how she felt about the situation. G.R. did not attend the master class. Hall

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
12
relied on the complainant to identify witnesses. If a witness was named, she would have
spoken to the witness.
As an ABS, Hall tries to confirm allegations to the best of her ability. 	She does
not recall training on how to verify the accuracy of a complaint. 	She gathers all the
information that is available, listens to what she is told, looks at the HIB criteria and then
makes a determination.
Hall spoke to students who were named by G.R. as part of HIB investigation 16.
She spoke to a total of twelve students. She asked them if other students were present
during the incidents. She spoke to the students who were mentioned as being present.
She was aware that some students had bad experiences with Mosser but did not
address that in the HIB report.
In HIB 17, T.T. stated that Mosser asked E.C. to take a what percentage gay are
you quiz, E.C. mentioned the incident, but it is not in Hall’s notes. A student other than
T.T. acknowledged hearing the comment.
Hall knew that A.C. was experiencing emotional distress. 	She did not know that
A.C. had been referred to by Dr. Stilwell due to emotional outbursts. Hall does not
believe A.C.’s mental health concerns affected her creditably. 	Hall was not aware that
A.C. was on the swimming team and was telling the swim coach that she was at
rehearsals and at the same time she was telling Mosser that she was at swimming
practice. Hall was not aware that A.C.’s mother spoke with Mosser so that A.C. could
have better roles. This could affect A.C.’s creditability.
Hall was G.R.’s counselor prior to G.R.’s complaint against Mosser. The Board
was unaware of this. 	G.R. was excluded from the master class because she had not
been part of the cast of Peter Pan. 	She was in another production and chose to leave
Godspell. This was not in her report and the Board was not aware of it. Hall was aware
that G.R. did not turn in an assignment in the meeting with G.R., Mosser, and Rigo but
this was not in her report. 	She was aware that G.R. auditioned for Peter Pan but does
not know if G.R. knew the words to the songs.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
13
Prior to investigation of G.R.’s complaint there was a meeting between Mosser,
G.R., Hall and G.R.’s mother. At that time Hall believed that Mosser’s conduct met the
HIB criteria, but G.R.’s parent requested that a HIB not be filed. 	In the meeting, G.R.’s
exclusion from master class and missed assignments came up. 	Based on what was
said at the meeting, Hall believes that there was a possible HIB incidence. G.R. stated
that she believed that she was excluded from master class because she did not fulfil her
Godspell obligations. Hall does not recall speaking to the Board about G.R.’s complaint.
Hall received an incident report regarding HIB investigation 17. 	When there is a
complaint, the principal or designee seeks an ABS and asks the ABS to begin an
investigation. 	All the interested parties are made aware of the investigation. 	Hall does
not typically receive a six-page incident report. 	She was not present when principal
Lowery interviewed the students. She does not believe that the allegations that the
students made to Lowery are identical to what the students told her.
In Lowery’s report, L.S. states that Mosser makes gay jokes often and that the
Mosser brainwashes boys to believe that they are gay. L.S. also stated that Mosser said
that he had feelings for R.R. 	and that the boys felt uncomfortable around Mosser. Hall
does not recall L.S. mentioning that to her. 	Hall is surprised that L.S. did not mention
this to her, however it does not affect L.S.’s creditability. Hall asked L.S. broad-based
questions. 	Hall does not recall speaking to L.S. regarding any incident that occurred in
Chatham. She does not recall if she spoke to L.S. about N.V. stating that Mosser sat on
E.C.’s lap.
Hall discussed events that occurred at Arminio’s Pizza in Chatham with E.C.,
who stated that alcohol was purchased, a beer was put in front of him, and Mosser sat
in his lap. 	All of which made E.C. feel uncomfortable. 	E.C. said Mosser grabbed him.
E.C. did not say Mosser grabbed his penis. 	This was not in the HIB report because it
was reported to DCPP. 	E.C. stated that Mosser got upset, went outside and started
crying. 	E.C. told Hall that Mosser was touchy/feely. 	These statements were not in the
HIB report because it falls under DCPP because of impropriety between a teacher and
a student.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
14
Hall had a counseling relationship with four of the students she questioned,
including G.R., E.C., A.P. and E.L. Hall counselling some of the students that she
interviewed was not relevant to the investigation.
B.F. did not tell Hall that Mosser picked up E.C. and would call him out of class.
She does not recall B.F. telling her that Mosser follows B.F. on snap chat. Hall does not
recall E.C. stating that Mosser called M.M. a bitch. In Lowery’s report E.C. does not say
that Moser called the students lazy or stupid. This does not affect E.C.’s creditability. It
was Hall’s determination that Mosser called the students lazy and stupid.
Hall did not see the report of Apex Investigations until August 2024. 	What the
report says E.C. told the investigator is different from what E.C. told her. Hall does not
doubt what E.C. told her. 	E.C. received a scholarship for working with the crew. 	He
stated it made him feel sad for what had gone on. E.C. told Hall that everything he told
her happened, but he felt bad that people were getting in trouble because of what he
said. E.C. also told Hall that Mosser sat on his lap twice.
Hall was deposed on May 21, 2024, regarding civil litigation filed by Mosser. She
received the Apex Investigations report at that time.
L.S.’s allegation that she was pushed off the stage was not witnessed by anyone
Hall interviewed. It could be a hot topic in the school if L.S. was pushed off the stage.
Hall believes that L.S. believes that she was pushed off the stage, but Hall cannot say
with confidence that L.S. was pushed off the stage.
Several students felt that other students suffered from Stockholm Syndrome. Hall
did not believe that. When Hall spoke to the students at the magnet school a counselor
was present. 	Hall knows that David Shaw was deposed in civil litigation but does not
know what he stated. Shaw did not forward his conclusions of his interview with Mosser
to Hall. She does not recall receiving anything from Shaw regarding the investigation.
Hall’s understanding was that when she sent in the report it would be concluded by
Shaw.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
15
Both HIB 16 and HIB17 met the HIB criteria. In her deposition, Hall was asked if
Mosser did all the said things that the students he did. 	Hall answered that Mosser did
not do all the things alleged but there were things that he did that fit the HIB criteria.
There was a school board meeting outside of the library. There was the HIB
hearing on July 22, 2022, and an appeal on October 11, 2022. At the appeal the Board
was not given written statements from the students, because there were no written
statements from the students.
Ms. Santana, a member of the Board, asked why she was given twenty pages of
documents and why Hall was present at the meeting. Santana was flustered by the
number of pages in the report. 	Santana asked if Mosser was interviewed and Mosser
said no. Dr. Francis, another member of the Board, asked Hall a question to which she
responded. 	Hall stated that it was not up to her to make the determination. She
provides information and it is up to the Board to determine if it meets the HIB criteria or
not.
Hall does not recall when people arrived at the Board of Education meeting for
Mosser’s appeal. According to the minutes Yocasta Brens-Watson arrived late at the
meeting. 	Hall does not know if Brens-Watson was filled in on what she missed. She
does not remember Lowery being discussed at the meeting. She does not remember an
email from Lowery one year after the investigation. It is unusual for a principal to be
involved in an investigation one year after it closes. Mosser asked to be reinstated at
the appeal meeting. He stated at the meeting that there was always a supervisor that
could see into his class. 	Hall was not present when the Board vote was taken. The
Superintendent, members of the Board, the Board attorney and the Board secretary
were present at the executive session, this is listed in the minutes of the meeting. Dr.
Scott Taylor was the Superintendent.
The minutes of the Board meeting reflect when Board members enter and leave
the meeting. 	Board member Santana arrived late for the meeting regarding Mosser’s
appeal. 	After Mosser and his attorney left, the Board was in executive session from

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
16
6:55 to 7:10pm. Hall was present at the executive session after Mosser, and his
attorney left. Hall does not recall if she handed out her notes to the Board.
Lowery was placed on administrative leave. 	Hall believes that this occurred at
the end of the 2018 school year. Hall did not have communication with Lowery after he
was 	placed 	on 	administrative 	leave. 	Hall 	would 	not 	have 	been 	told 	if 	Mosser’s
supervisor, Rago, was put on administrative leave.
Hall is a licensed professional counselor. Her training as a counselor has helped
her while doing HIB investigations. 	At the time of HIB investigations 16 and 17, written
statements from the witnesses were not required. As of now, written statements from
the witnesses are best practice. Hall looks for consistent statements and corroboration
in a HIB investigation. A HIB investigation can be inconclusive. Audio video recording is
not required by the anti-bullying bill of rights (ABR). 	Hall determined the emotional
impact on the students. Although she knows some of the students did not get roles that
they wanted, she believes that they were truthful.
In HIB investigation 16, C.E. and M.M. corroborated that Mosser stated that he
was glad that G.R. quit and that the girl who got the part was much better than G.R.
Mosser denied making the comments.
If a student- victim does not want to go ahead with an HIB investigation, the
investigation is closed. 	Maria Mendez works in the County Superintendent’s Office.
She is the go-to person if there is a HIB question. 	If a principal becomes aware of HIB
allegations, an investigation must begin.
Hall believes that L.S. perceived that she was pushed off the stage by Mosser,
but Hall also believes that there is a fifty-fifty chance that it happened because there
was no corroboration. This was reported to DCPP. Hall did not investigate any events
that occurred at Arminto Pizza. A.C. submitted an essay to Hall that she had written the
previous year. A.C. has emotional health issues and did not get a role she wanted in a
play. 	A teacher cannot insult a student who did not get a role the student wanted. 	It is

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
17
possible that Rago was not in earshot of the conversations between Mosser and the
students.
Currently students involved in HIB investigations are encouraged to provide a
statement. Within the last few years taking a written statement has become the best
practice. When Hall takes information from students, she takes it as the students’ truth,
then sees if there is corroboration. She did not speak to adults for these investigations
and did not look at social media. There were allegations against three other teachers.
Mark Rusin
Mark Rusin is a private investigator. 	He owns Apex Investigations. He does civil
and criminal investigations. He has been a private investigator for ten years. Previously
he was a DEA special agent. He ran a DEA taskforce.
Rusin interviewed E.C. on July 16, 2018, who was eighteen at the time. Rusin
says that he asked open-ended questions of E.C. It was a phone interview. Rusin asked
about the Grease after-party at Arminio’s Pizza in Chatham. E.C. said that Mosser
briefly sat on his lap but nothing inappropriate occurred. E.C. said that Mosser was a
decent guy and a mentor. 	E.C. did not say that Mosser put his hand on his leg, or that
Mosser sat on his lap twice, and that someone pulled him away from Mosser, all of
which are in Hall’s report.
Rusin also spoke to Valery Desamours, on August 18, 2018, who was also at the
after party for Grease. Desamours stated that Mosser walked around and socialized
with the students. Mosser tried to sit with the students, but it was a tight fit and Mosser
ended up on E.C.’s lap. 	She told Mosser that it looked inappropriate. 	She did not
believe that Mosser’s actions were deliberate. She did not say that Mosser went outside
or cursed out E.C.
Rusin also interviewed Patricia Fallon on August 5, 2018. 	Fallon was at the
Grease after-party but did not see anything inappropriate. 	Rusin also asked Fallon
about L.S. 	Fallon did not witness L.S. being pushed or falling off the stage. She never

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
18
heard that L.S. fell off or was pushed off the stage. 	Fallon never heard Mosser call the
students names.
Rusin interviewed L.S.’s father on September 24, 2018. He would not allow
Rusin to speak to his daughter. 	L.S.’s father stated that his daughter told him that she
was doing stage crew and Mosser pushed her off the stage. L.S.’s father said that his
daughter did not tell him that Mosser used profanity with the students.
Rusin interviewed Jennifer Williams on July 31, 2018. 	She did not witness L.S.
being pushed off the stage. If L.S. was pushed off the stage, other students would talk
about it. 	She was also at the Grease after-party. She did not observe anything
inappropriate.
He also interviewed Leslie Laurino on August 23, 2018. 	She was present at the
Grease after-party. 	She saw Mosser sitting on E.C.’s lap. 	Both laughed and Mosser
got up and left. No one seemed uncomfortable. Laurino was ordered to be interviewed
by institutional abuse regarding B.F. B.F. said that Mosser smacked his butt.
Rusin does not remember speaking to anyone else. 	If he spoke to anyone else
their name would be in the report. He was given background information about the
incident and a list of people to interview. He was contacted by the law firm with the
information. He typically gets an email about a job.
Rusin knew that there was a Grease after party and Mosser sat on E.C.’s lap,
which could be inappropriate. The focus of his investigation was the after party and L.S.
being pushed off the stage. 	Rusin has not done an antibullying investigation. Rusin is
not familiar with the District or the Union antibullying policy. He has not seen the report
for HIB 16 or HIB 17.
E.C. was the first person that Rusin interviewed. The interview was done by
phone. He does not have any notes of the call. He does his report as he is doing the
interview. Rusin spoke to Mosser prior to the interviews. They spoke more than once.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
19
Most of the interviews he did in this matter were done by phone except for
Williams whose interview was in person. There is an audio recording of Rusin’s
interview with E.C. Rusin told E.C. that he had previously spoken to Williams and
Desamours to get E.C. comfortable, but he had not spoken to them. 	He told E.C. what
other people said had happened then asked E.C. if that is what happened. In the audio
Rusin is leading E.C. to answer in a specific way. He testified that he asked E.C. open-
ended questions but he did not. Rusin does not recall recording the conversation with
E.C. 	Rusin did not record any of the other interviews. 	He did not ask E.C. about
anything except the after party.
Rusin only asked L.S.’s father about the allegation that L.S. was pushed off the
stage by Mosser. He did not speak to B.F. He did not speak to E.L.
Williams was the choreographer for Union. 	Rusin believes that Williams and
Mosser 	are 	friends. 	Rusin 	assumed 	that 	Mosser 	and 	Laurino 	had 	a 	friendly
relationship.
Nicole Ahern
Nicole Ahern has been employed by the Board since 1990. She has been the
District Supervisor of Counseling since the 2011-2012 school year. She has a master’s
degree in counseling. 	Ahern does not recall training in how to conduct an interview.
She has training in how to conduct an investigation. She is familiar with the anti-bullying
statute and its requirements. Ahern is also the District ABC.
In a HIB investigation, the reports come to her and the Superintendent. 	She
keeps the data. 	She has two meetings yearly with all of the ABS’s, keeps information
regarding 	school 	safety 	teams, 	corresponds 	with 	the 	Board, 	works 	with 	the
Superintendent and oversees HIB. 	Ahern has yearly HIB training and takes additional
HIB training offered by the State.
Ahern receives the completed HIB investigations along with the Superintendent.
She makes sure that before the work session Board meeting and Board meeting that
everything that is sent to her is listed.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
20
Ahearn became the ABC prior to the 2017-2018 school year. 	Counselors do
academic 	advising 	but 	there 	is 	also 	a 	social 	and 	emotional 	component. 	Ahern
supervises all of the ABS’s, all of whom are counselors.
Ahern is Hall’s supervisor. 	She was Hall’s supervisor in 2018. In January 2018
there was a complaint brought against Mosser by a student and parent. Ahern was not
part of the investigation. She spoke to Hall about it but does not recall what was
discussed. There was a second set of complaints against Mosser. She cannot recall the
details but knows that they involved more than one student. Both complaints were
considered as founded. 	Ahern spoke to Hall at the end of the investigations about the
investigation windows.
Ahern was not present when the HIB was presented to the Board. If the Board
approves the HIB recommendation, she is not notified. 	If there is an appeal of the
Board decision, she is notified that there is an appeal and once the appeal is conducted,
the Board secretary tells her the outcome of the appeal. 	Ahern was informed that
Mosser filed an appeal. 	As an ABC she appears at approximately one Board meeting
per year. She was present at a meeting regarding Mosser on June 11, 2019.
Central Office advises who is to come to the Board meeting. She does not know
why Hall was at the October 2022 Board meeting. 	Ahern is familiar with the HIB16
report and HIB17 report. They are the typical reports that were used in 2018.
Ahern’s involvement in Mosser’s HIB investigations is not more typical than her
involvement in other HIB. Ahern recalls speaking to Hall about concerns regarding HIB
16. She does not recall what the concern was, but it may have been about investigating
a teacher.
In Hall’s May 24, 2024, deposition, she stated that she was concerned about
investigating a fellow teacher and Ahern told her, “you were given a directive.” Ahern
testified that if Hall was given a directive from her administrator, that she must follow the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
21
directive. At the time of HIB 16, Hall’s administrator was Corey Lowery. Ahern does not
recall speaking to Lowey regarding Mosser.
At the time of HIB 16, the procedure was a principal receives an HIB complaint
and directs an ABS to investigate. 	Ahern may have spoken to Mosser’s supervisor,
Ron Rago, about a situation leading up to HIB 16 as a parent’s concern. This was
related to a class.
Ahern received copies of Hall’s HIB 16 and HIB 17 reports. 	She reviewed both
and was satisfied with the reports. 	Ahern, Tatum, Bennaquista and Hall met at the
conclusion of the HIB 17 interviews as to what to do next as the ten days were over.
The County Supervisor’s office was contacted. They spoke to Maria Mendez at the
County Supervisors office who told them that the case can be closed. The County
Supervisor office was contacted because the Superintendent, Tatum needed further
advice.
Union Academy for the Performing Arts is a magnet school. Ahern accompanied
Hall there when Hall interviewed several students. Ahern was not part of the interviews;
she was in another area of the counseling office. 	She does not recall discussing these
interviews with Hall.
When Hall was asked to resubmit the HIB 16 and 17 reports to the Board in
2022, Ahern does not know if Hall made any changes to the reports before she
resubmitted it. Ahern did not interview Mosser. 	She did not arrange for anyone to
interview Mosser. On May 11, 2021, Hall signed a certification stating that Ahern
arranged for the interview with Mosser. 	This is incorrect. The Assistant Supervisor
assigned an administrator to interview Mosser. 	She does not recall being asked to
arrange for Mosser to be interviewed.
David Shaw interviewed Mosser because he was a building supervisor but did
not supervise the building where Mosser worked. 	Shaw was not an administrator over
Mosser. 	An Assistant Superintendent can assign an administrator to conduct a staff
interview.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
22
Ahern knows that Lowry initiated HIB17. She does not know how Lowery
received the complaint. It is typical for principals to interview students prior to beginning
a HIB investigation. Principals are initially involved at the onset of a HIB investigation.
The principal receives information, does initial fact findings, parental notification, directs
the ABS and receives the outcome. The principal’s fact finding is prior to the HIB
investigation. The HIB investigation is more in depth than the principal’s fact findings.
Lowery opened HIB 17 and referred it to Hall as far as Ahern knew. 	Opening a
case means that it should be investigated for potential HIB. Ahern has not seen
Lowery’s report regarding HIB 17.
HIB 16 and 17 investigations were conducted in accord with the District policies.
Ahern does not recall speaking to Hall regarding the lack of social media availability
mentioned in HIB 17. If social media was available, it should have been included in the
report. However, if social media is documented in a witness statement, it is not
troubling. If the ABS did not ask to see social media, that would be troubling.
Ahern did not speak to Hall about the allegation that Mosser pushed L.S. off the
stage. 	Ahern does not know if that area has cameras. 	Ahern does not recall an
incident where it is alleged that Mosser slapped a student on the butt.
The HIB 16 investigation was brought to her attention in her role as a supervisor.
Shaw was supposed to question Mosser. 	Ahern believes that she emailed Shaw to
make sure he submitted the report of his interview with Mosser to Central Office. She
learned later that Shaw’s report was not submitted to Central Office. Ahern never spoke
to Shaw about the content of his report. She does not know if Shaw produced a report
and if he did, why it was not submitted. 	Ahern does not think that Shaw’s report was
presented to the Board. Ahern did not receive a copy of Shaw’s notes.
The purpose of an HIB investigation is to take students’ statements as reported.
If events were seen by adults, an administrator should have interviewed the adults.
Ahern does not know if this occurred in this matter. Ahern knew Mosser from work and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
23
from Mosser frequenting a restaurant that her husband owned. She considered Mosser
a friend.
An ABS takes all the information and writes a report about what was said. 	It is
not up to the ABS to prove or disprove allegations. An ABS must use what is in front of
them to make a determination. If there are inconsistent statements they will be listed in
the conclusion of the report. Ahern does not receive the investigators’ notes.
Ahern was not an ABS and had not conducted an investigation for the Board.
Copies of reports were given to the Board prior to Board meeting. 	Now Board
members get the reports a few days before the meeting.
Ahern has not previously seen the minutes of the October 2022 Board meeting.
She does not discuss Board meetings or executive sessions with her co-workers. 	She
does not discuss HIB investigations with her co-workers.
ABS’s job is to provide information from the students, ABS do not make a
determination. HIB investigations can have multiple offenders and multiple victims. HIB
reports are redacted before they are given to the Board. The redaction is done by the
Board secretary.
Ahearn is not sure if Hall told her that she counseled some of the students. The
fact that Hall counseled some of the students might have been relevant. 	Ahern does
not know if any additional investigation was carried out once the matter was remanded.
Ahern and Lowery were colleagues. They would speak to each other depending on
what was going on. 	Hall was a SAC as well as an ABS. 	A SAC does not necessarily
have a caseload. It is a different position from a school counselor.
Ahern meets with the ABS’s at least twice a year. She also meets with the other
County ABCs. Ahern supervises Hall as a SAC and ABS. 	Hall is hard working and
knowledgeable in the field of counseling and substance. 	She connects well with the
students.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
24
The ABR includes mandating policy, reporting, notification, resources, training,
school self-assessment as well as other components. 	Staff members are required to
report all acts of HIB. 	If an administrator receives a complaint of HIB and does not
respond to it, the administrator may be subject to discipline. 	HIB16 report form is a
template. 	The form lists the nature of the HIB, protected category, effect of HIB
incident, mode of HIB incident and conclusion.
When a HIB investigation is conducted, there is no set number of people that the
ABS must speak to. 	The ABS do not have to speak to every possible witness.
corroborating evidence is a form of accuracy. The HIB 16 report meets the criteria for
HIB.
Lowery spoke to the students before May 29, 2018. The HIB investigation began
on May 30, 2018. 	A DCPP form is used by staff to document something reported to
DCPP.
Maria Mendez works in the County Supervisor’s office. 	Mendez was called
because 	Mosser 	was 	not 	interviewed 	for 	HIB17. 	Mendez 	said 	close 	out 	the
investigation without speaking to Mosser.
Ahren knows that messages disappear from Snapchat. 	The HIB 17 report is
organized by student. 	Ahern agrees with the conclusion of HIB investigation 17 report.
Lack of intelligence is a distinguishing characteristic. 	Calling a student lazy or dumb
meets the HIB criteria. There is no context for calling a student retarded. Calling a
student retarded fits the HIB criteria. 	In May 2018, Lowery was the principal of Union.
Ahern does not recall speaking to Lowery regarding HIB 17. Lowery took policy and
rules seriously. Ahern did not have a social relationship with Lowery.
Ahern did not attend the October 2022 Board meeting. Ahern does not think that
there 	was 	a 	conflict 	because 	Hall 	counseled 	some 	of 	the 	students 	and 	did 	the
investigation. Students can be more open with a counselor that they have a relationship
with.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
25
The ABS decides who gets interviewed in HIB investigations. The ABS could
consult with the principal if there is a list. 	All witnesses should be interviewed. There is
a problem if the only witnesses spoken to are those identified by the complainant.
Ahern believes the HIB investigation reports but feels that Mosser did not get due
process because in one instance he was not interviewed and in the other the report of
his interview was not given to the Board. She does not know if Lowery was obligated to
produce a report.
Mendez was an HIB resource for superintendents. The HIB investigation reports
indicate certain areas where statements were corroborated. 	The Board should have
been made aware of a possible conflict of interest since Hall counseled some of the
students.
Dr. Gerald Benaquista
Dr. Gerald Benaquista has a master’s degree in educational leadership and
special education. 	He has a PHD in educational law. 	He began working in Union as a
special education teacher in 2000. He became a vice principal. Benaquista became the
Director of HR. 	In January 2018 he was the Assistant Superintendent of Schools for
Union Township. 	He has been the Superintendent of Schools in Union Township since
December 2023.
As the Director of HR, Benaquista spoke to staff about documentation. And how
to gather information. He has had HIB training over the course of his time in Union. The
Union HIB policy is reviewed yearly. The Board’s attorneys train the superintendents on
different matters including HIB. 	He has no HIB certifications. Ahearn provides HIB
training for the ABS’s. The County Superintendent is a resource for Superintendents.
When HIB matters are reported now a District 338 form or parent 338 form is
done. When there is an HIB complaint, the principal decides whether to investigate the
complaint. 	When the investigation goes forward, the parents are noticed. When the
investigation report gets to the Superintendent, the Superintendent recommends that it
be reported to the Board. It is reported to the Board at a Board meeting and the Board

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
26
decides whether to affirm the recommendation or not at the following meeting. Form
338 was not in use in 2018. Prior to the change in the District HIB policy, when the
principal 	was made aware 	of 	a HIB complaint, the 	principal must initiate 	a HIB
investigation. 	Benaquista does not know if the principal has help when determining
whether a HIB complaint should be investigated.
When a staff member is involved in a HIB complaint, the administrator of the
building 	that 	the 	staff 	member 	works 	in 	does 	not 	interview 	the 	staff 	member.
Benaquista does not recall if he was the person that assigned Shaw to interview Mosser
for HIB 16. Lowery could not assign a person to interview Mosser. 	When the Mosser
investigation was complete, the reports would have gone to Tatum, who was the
Superintendent at that time.
A principal speaking to students about a HIB complaint before assigning it to be
investigated is not unusual. 	Benaquista does not recall speaking to Lowery about
Mosser. 	He does not recall if there were any other HIB complaints against a teacher in
2018 at the school where Mosser worked. There were two ABS at Union High School in
2018, Hall and Lucille Williams. 	Lucille Williams’s daughter, Jennifer Williams was a
subject of the HIB investigation. Benaquista does not recall seeing the report of Lowery
regarding Mosser. He does not recall if he received any pre-HIB investigation reports
from Lowery.
If a student told Lowery something different than the student told the ABS, it
could be different, but the message could be the same, or the message could be
different because of how the report is documented. Lowery’s report is his determination
that there should be a HIB investigation. He does not believe that Lowery’s report went
to the ABS. 	He believes that there should have been a district investigation into this
matter after the DCPP and IAIU investigation were completed.
Benaquista did not recall if he was involved in the HIB investigations of Mosser.
He did not know that Hall had a previously counseling relationship with some of the
students. He does not believe that this is a conflict because a student may be more
comfortable speaking with their in-school counselor. He does not believe that it is

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
27
relevant that the Board knows if the ABS has a counseling relationship with some of the
students.
Benaquista stated that he knows Shaw. 	Shaw did not directly report to him in
2018. He does not know if Shaw wrote a report regarding his interview with Mosser. He
does know that Shaw interviewed Mosser for one of the HIB investigations. 	He
expected Shaw to share the contents of his interview with Hall or whoever did the final
report. The Superintendent only gets the final report.
The HIB 17 investigation was done while Mosser was on leave, therefore Mosser
was not interviewed. He does not know who spoke to other members of staff during the
investigation. Benaquista cannot recall if he received any reports about other adults that
were interviewed in HIB 17 investigation. He does not recall seeing the HIB reports at
the time of the investigations.
Benaquista would have hoped that the students showed Hall any social media
that they referenced, however if Hall quoted what the student said, she is referencing it.
Investigation of social media is getting more evidence but if it is unavailable look at the
context. If the ABS do not ask to look at the social media that a student references, the
investigation can still be fair.
The Superintendent refers to the HIB report to the Board to be reported and in
the next Board meeting to be affirmed. 	The ABS document statements determines if
the HIB criteria is met. 	It is not anyone’s role to determine credibility. 	The ABS
determines if the evidence meets the HIB criteria. 	In an investigation, the statements
are taken as if they are true. Part of the investigation is taking statements and evidence
and making a determination. The investigation determines if the HIB is confirmed.
Benaquista did not see a recording of L.S. being pushed off a stage. He did not
hear L.S. say that she had been pushed off the stage. He cannot recall if he specifically
heard that a student had been hit on the butt by Mosser. Benaquista was interviewed as
part of the IAIU exit interview. He was taken aback by what he was told.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
28
Benaquista does not know if any adult staff were interviewed for the HIB 17
report. He does not recall meeting Hall, Tatum and Ahern. Maria Mendez works at the
County Superintendent’s office in the instruction program area. 	She was called for
questions regarding HIB matters.
Benaquista was at the Board meeting discussing Mosser’s appeal in October
2022. He believes that the HIB reports are accurate. 	He did not see deficiencies in the
reports. Hall was present at the meeting. 	When there is a HIB appeal, it is normal for
the ABS to be present at the board meeting. 	He cannot recall if Shaw’s report was
presented to the Board. Hall gave an overview of the investigation. 	The Board
members asked questions for clarity. He does not know when the Board receives the
appeal documents.
The Superintendent makes a recommendation to the Board. There are monthly
HIB resolutions before the Board. There was no additional investigation into these
matters after they were remanded. Benaquista is not sure if the policy is to take a
statement from the alleged offender.
Benaquista knew Mosser from when he was an administrator at the school where
Mosser worked. 	Mosser puts on great theatrical performances. 	Benaquista knew
Lowery when they were both administrators. Lowery was a talented administrator.
In HIB investigation 17, E.C. did not reference social media, L.S. mentioned more
than social media, A.C. 	complaints were not attributed to social media, the HIB
investigation began on May 30, 2018. 	Lowery sent an email containing his report to
Tatum on May 29, 2018.
According to Lowery’s report, on May 23, 2018, detectives came to speak with
him regarding allegations against Mosser. 	Lowery spoke to the students and wrote a
report of this initial investigation. If DCPP or IAIU is doing an investigation, the school
does not investigate at the same time. Carla Sousa was the IAIU investigator. 	She
called Benaquista regarding the IALA investigation. 	They spoke for forty minutes. 	She
provided details of her investigation. 	E.C. did not cooperate with her investigation. The

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
29
investigation found that the allegations were not established. Sousa’s investigation was
not part of the HIB investigation. Hall is one of the best HIB investigators in the District.
In 2018, it was mandatory that if a principal received an HIB complaint and there
would be an HIB investigation. 	It was not mandatory that the principal write a pre-HIB
report. Benaquista is not sure if the Board was told that Shaw was a part of HIB 16 or if
the Board asked about Shaw. He does not recall Hall discussing corroboration with the
Board.
Not all the statements in the HIB report are marked as corroborated.
Dr. Scott Taylor
Dr. Scott Taylor began as the Superintendent of Union in July 2021. He was
previously the Superintendent of Highland Park. 	The role of ABS is to investigate HIB
claims, meet with people who could have information about the allegations. 	Generally,
the ABS will determine who will be interviewed. The ABS is not responsible for verifying
accuracy. He does not believe it is anyone’s responsibility to determine accuracy. The
ABS should, to the best of her ability to verify that the incident occurred.
Taylor has not seen HIB 16 or 17 reports prior to this hearing. 	The reports
appear sufficient to him. He does not believe that it was necessary to speak to Mosser
for these investigations. When Taylor meets with the subject of an investigation, the
subject always defends himself.
Taylor may have an issue with the fact that the only witnesses that were
interviewed were people named by the complainant but there are times when you
cannot get other witnesses. It is not necessary for all the students who were present to
be interviewed.
Taylor never saw Lowery’s report. He has seen similar reports. The principal has
the discretion in consultation with the Superintendent to write a report on a HIB matter.
Taylor does not know why Hall did not speak to Mosser. 	He was not aware that a

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
30
teacher could not interview another teacher in an HIB investigation. Taylor knows Shaw
but does not know what role Shaw played in these investigations. 	He has not seen
Shaw’s report.
Taylor attended the Board meeting of the appeal of Mosser. There were notes at
the meeting, but Taylor does not recall what the notes were. 	He does not recall if Hall
told the Board that she counselled some of the students. He did not see the HIB reports
at that time. The lack of dates in the report does not strike him as a problem. If he was
the Superintendent at the time of the investigation, he would not have questioned Hall.
He did not have to approve the HIB report before the July 2022 meeting. He does not
know if an additional investigation occurred. Taylor does not believe that he was asked
any questions at the meeting. He does not know when the Board members received the
materials for the meeting.
Taylor did not speak much at the Board meeting. He was at the meeting to make
sure the procedures were followed. He never discussed the investigation with Hall. The
HIB reports suggest verbal abuse occurred in 2018. Taylor does not require students to
sign written statements in investigations. 	In an investigation, Taylor looks for multiple
people saying the same thing. 	It is not a problem only interviewing witnesses listed by
the complainant. It is not necessary that social media posts be included in the report. If
an investigator does not ask to see social media that is referenced in the investigation, it
could be a problem.
There was no re-investigation of these matters from 2021 to October 2022. 	He
did not review the District paperwork on Mosser prior to July 2022. The Superintendent
either approves the ABS recommendation or returns it for further review.
Maria 	Mendez 	is 	the 	Executive 	County 	Superintendent 	for 	Union 	County.
Superintendents 	often 	consult 	with 	the 	County 	Superintendent. 	Taylor 	was 	the
Superintendent of Union from July 2021 to August 2023. 	He is familiar with ABR. He
has seen other districts’ anti-bullying policies. 	Every district must have an anti-bullying
policy. 	If a bullying incident is reported the ABS investigates. The ABS writes a report
which goes to the Superintendent, who determines if the report should be affirmed. If

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
31
the Superintendent affirms the report, it is presented to the Board and then the Board
votes to affirm or reject it. The Board’s decision can be appealed.
Taylor was not copied on July 26, 2022, letter to Mosser. He does not recall
seeing that letter. Taylor tried to distance himself from the matter of the Mosser,
although he kept track of the status of the case. 	He does not recall seeing the October
17, 2022, letter from Mosser’s attorney
Taylor does not know of a formal restriction for an ABS not to interview a teacher
in her collective bargaining unit. Not having social media attached to the HIB report is
not a big deal since there was enough to corroborate verbal abuse.
Katherine Lewis
Katherine Lewis (Lewis) worked at Burnett Middle School in Union in 2012-2013.
She directed middle school theatre shows. She is presently a theatre teacher at Linden
High School. 	She met Mosser in March 2013. They both wanted a seamless transition
from the students in the middle school theatre program to high school theatre program.
She and Mosser cast shows together. Her personal friendship with Mosser began in the
Summer of 2018. 	Lewis thought something was strange about the allegations. 	She
contacted 	Mosser 	in 	the 	summer 	of 	2018 	and 	volunteered 	to 	be 	his 	union
representative.
A group of five to six people would cast the high school productions. 	Mosser
would make the final decision on casting if it was a close call. 	Lewis never heard
Mosser use harassing, intimidating, bullying or vulgar language to the students. She
never heard Mosser curse at a student. She never heard Mosser call anyone retarded
in her presence. 	She believes that she would have heard if Mosser had called a
student retarded, stupid, idiot or slut. Many of the students in Mosser’s productions had
been in her productions in middle school or in her social studies class in middle school.
Lewis is familiar with G.R. Lewis was on the production team for Godspell and
Peter Pan at high school. She did not hear Mosser say that the girl who took G.R.’s
place in Godspell was better than G.R. 	G.R. dropped out of the Godspell to do

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
32
community theatre. 	G.R. was replaced by a nineth grade student, who was incredible.
The other students stated that the replacement was better than G.R. but Mosser did not
say it. That nineth grader is currently in the off-Broadway production of Little Shop of
Horrors. Lewis never saw Mosser mistreat G.R.
There were always two adults present at crew activity or rehearsals. During
master class there was always someone in the theatre industry who spoke to the
students. Sometimes only advanced theatre students or students in a particular play
would be allowed in the master class. 	The rules for master class were set forth in
writing by Mosser. 	No one could audition unless they signed that they understood the
rules.
Lewis knows E.C. She never heard Mosser call E.C. retarded or ask him to take
a what percent gay are you quiz. 	No one from the district spoke to her about the
allegations against Mosser. Lewis knows L.S., who was in her class for three years. In
L.S.’s freshman year she was cast in a play where Lewis played her mother. 	Lewis
never heard Mosser call L.S. a slut. L.S. and Lewis shared a lot backstage but L.S. did
not speak to her about Mosser. The high school stage is between three to five feet.
Lewis was on the crew for Peter Pan. IAIU contacted Lewis to find out if Mosser
pushed L.S. off the stage. There is a camera in the audition room. No one told her that
Mosser pushed L.S. off the stage.
Lewis knows A.C., who was in her social studies class. 	Lewis never heard
Mosser use derogatory language towards A.C. 	A.C. made a Facebook rant. 	Another
student printed it and gave it to Mosser. A.C. got parts in productions. 	A.C tried out for
Footloose but had a melt down and left. A.C. displayed concerning behaviors. She has
talent but self-sabotages.
Lewis knows B.F. from middle school. 	She did not see Mosser slap B.F. on the
butt. 	Lewis knows T.T. 	She never heard Mosser humiliate T.T. regarding her hair.
Mosser would speak about hair regarding whether a character would wear her hair a
certain way. 	Lewis had built the stairs for production. 	Jennifer Williams ran the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
33
rehearsal for the dance number. 	The stairs were not painted. T.T was consistently
getting to her spot late and having trouble with the steps. 	Williams went up and down
the stairs to show T.T. that there was nothing wrong with the stairs. Lewis asked T.T.
what was wrong and T.T. responded that the stairs were not finished. Lewis asked T.T.
if she was okay. T.T. said that she was fine.
Lewis taught N.V. in middle school and N.V. had been in some of Lewis middle
school productions. 	Lewis never heard Mosser call L.V. gay, retarded or slut. N.V.
never told her that Mosser said these things to him. N.V. told Lewis that he was gay.
Lewis knows M.M. 	She never heard Mosser discuss M.M.’s clothes. In March
2017 there was a tech rehearsal. 	Attendance at rehearsals is mandatory. 	M.M. spoke
to Mosser about getting his driver’s license. 	Mosser told him to make sure it did not
coincide with the rehearsal. 	M.M. was taken out of a musical number in the production
because he missed the tech rehearsal.
Lewis also knows E.L. 	She never heard Mosser call E.L. stupid. Mosser is not
an abusive person. 	He is the best teacher. Both of her daughters have worked with
Mosser. She has no concerns about leaving her children with Mosser.
Lewis knows K.H. She recalled that on a snowy day Mosser, Lewis and some of
the other teachers went in to build and paint sets. 	Some of the students came in to
help. The students were not required to come in to help. 	Mosser did not tell the
students that if they did not come in on the snow day that they were lazy. 	Some of the
students that came in to help called the students who did not come in to help lazy.
Lewis never witnessed sexually charged comments from Mosser.
Mosser’s productions were well received. 	The caliber of talent in the students
was high. Many former students have careers in theatre.
In the 2013-2014 school year, Lewis sat in on auditions for Union High School
Performing Arts Company (UHSPAC). 	The auditions are done in week one of the
production. There is a director, Mosser, music director, choreographer and others that

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
34
take part in the audition process. In 2014-2015, Lewis was part of the production of one
show in the fall and part of the crew in the spring show. 	In 2015-2016, Lewis helped
cast the fall and spring shows. In 2016-2017 Lewis helped cast Cinderella and was a
production assistant. At this time, Lewis was in the process of getting her master’s
degree in performing arts. 	She had to work on production design element and have it
reviewed.
In 2017-2018, Lewis was the Crew Head for Godspell production and the
Production Manager for Peter Pan production. While in the process of getting her
master’s degree, Lewis would call Mosser and discuss theatre. Lewis and Mosser
worked closely on productions. Their friendship did not begin until 2018. She and
Mosser are still friends to this day. She has spoken to Mosser about this matter. Their
first conversation about the case was when she offered to be his union representative.
She spoke to Mosser when he found out that there were two HIB reports against him.
She did not speak to Mosser about her testimony but did tell him that she was testifying
at the hearing. 	She was sent the HIB reports prior to her testimony. She had not seen
any of the documents in this case before she was sent the HIB reports from Mosser’s
attorney. Lewis has not done any HIB investigations.
Lewis was interviewed by IAIU regarding L.S. and general crew practices. She
was asked if Mosser told the students that they were not good enough. She stated that
Mosser never told that to the students. 	Mosser was very professional. He wanted the
students to know what it was like in the real world. 	The tech rehearsals were twelve
hours where there were two hours off. 	Mosser had a good relationship with the
students. If Lewis is in one area of the auditorium, she would not hear what was said in
another area of the auditorium. 	The students may have thought that Mosser made the
casting decision. Lewis spoke to the students after the 2017-2018 school year. None of
them told her about the Mosser accusations.
James Mosser
Mosser began working for the Union County Board of Education as a theatre
teacher in January 2008. He has a BFA in musical theatre performance and a master’s
degree in educational leadership. He also has a supervisor’s certification. He teaches at

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
35
Union High School. 	He teaches four general theatre classes, an advanced theatre
class and one show choir class. There are two advanced theatre shows, one in the fall
and one in the spring. In the 2017-2018 school year, Mosser was named teacher of the
year. Several of his theatre students have gone on to careers in theatre and television.
After school he ran the Union High School Performing Arts Company (UHSPAC).
UHSPAC puts on shows. 	Once Mosser took over, UHSPAC was entered for Rising
Stars awards and won several. The success of UHSPAC was not typical before Mosser.
After Mosser took over, most of the UHSPAC performances were sold out. Mosser
worked at the UHSPAC from 3:00p.m. to 9:00 p.m. If there were rehearsals, he would
work at UHSPAC every day. There was always a staff member with Mosser. During the
weekends parents also helped with building sets.
A supervisor was present when there was a tech rehearsal. Rago was his
supervisor. Rago had an office in Mosser’s classroom. Typically, the door to Rago’s
office was open and faced the class. Rago was not at rehearsals on a typical basis.
Mosser’s teaching reviews were on the high end. He never received a less than
acceptable performance review. No adults had any concerns about his demeanor.
In the 2016-2017 school year, Mosser, Laura Muller and Lisa Abate were
considered the music department at Union. At some point Muller and Abate did not work
on the productions. 	Some of the students took leadership roles to help with the
productions. Other students saw that as favoritism. 	Mosser provided the students with
a contract outlining their participation and a student handbook. On the first day of
theatre rehearsals the staff and the students read the handbook and discussed what
was expected of everyone. Students and parents could ask questions. 	The parent and
the student had to sign the contract before the student could audition. G.R. and her
mother signed the contracts. The contracts generally required the students to show up
and behave. The shows have extensive rehearsal processes and the contract and
handbook outlines where the students should be. None of the students were confused
about the contract or the handbook. 	Mosser stated that the students could not be
excused during the last two weeks of tech rehearsals and must tell him if they have a
conflict. 	The 	students 	are 	required 	to 	schedule 	their 	other 	activities 	around 	the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
36
rehearsals. 	No exemptions are made. There is an attendance sign-in sheet for
attendance at rehearsals. If one of the students has a conflict, they must provide written
notice to Mosser by the end of the first week of rehearsals.
In the fall of 2017, G.R. was cast in Godspell. 	G.R. at that time decided to
audition for a show outside of school, High School Musical. G.R. was cast in High
School Musical and accepted that role. G.R. wrote Mosser regarding conflicts with both
productions. She would have to miss many days of rehearsal for Godspell due to her
being cast in the other show. 	G.R. had a featured role in Godspell. Mosser told G.R.
that she would have to choose which role she was going to play. G.R. chose to do the
outside of school project, High School Musical. She wanted to do something outside of
the academic theatre.
In spring 2018 UHSPAC did a production of Peter Pan. G.R. tried out for the
production. She did not know the words to the song and did not finish the dance. 	The
contract and the handbook were related to after school and extracurricular activities.
Mosser also had a class guide for his classes. The class guide included a performance
policy, assignments, working on the fall and spring shows, writing a paper in the spring
and fall and developing a binder. The students had to sign the class guide.
Prior to 2017-2018, G.R. had taken classes with Mosser. She had taken general
musical theatre with Mosser. 	Musical theatre classes were electives. Every teacher
must have a written form for the students stating the expectations for the students and
what grading was based on.
In master class, Mosser would bring in guest speakers including musicians,
Broadway talent, writers and actors. The guest speakers had to be approved by the
principal and Rago. 	There were six master classes during 2017-2018. Mosser set the
conditions for the master classes. 	There was no policy regarding who attends master
class.
The cast of Peter Pan advocated for the NBC Rise America Grant, they made a
video and submitted it and won the grant. 	The casting decisions for the shows were

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
37
made by a team of eight people. The students audition then leave. 	The casting team
created lists of who could do what part. 	They next had callbacks. The team would
discuss the callbacks and agree on the cast list. The roles in the productions were very
competitive. 	If a student wants a role the audition must be as close to polished as
possible. The auditions were the same for all the students. Rehearsals were thirty hours
a week.
Mosser met with G.R.’s mother in approximately 2015-2016. As a freshman G.R.
auditioned for a production called Union Goes to Hollywood. G.R. received a call back.
There was a Disney medley in the show that had five or six snippets from Disney
musicals in the show. 	G.R. did not sing at the call back. 	It was decided that alumni
from UHSPAC would do the Disney medley. After the call back at approximately 10:30
p.m. G.R.’s mother banged on the door demanding to speak to Mosser because G.R.
did not sing at the call back. The next morning, G.R.’s mother sent Mosser an email
saying that she had said inappropriate things. G.R.’s mother told Mosser that if he did
not start casting G.R. that she would make his life miserable. Mosser received many
emails from G.R.’s mother.
In the spring of G.R.’s freshman year, she was cast in a major role in Mary
Poppins. Mosser does not try to cast the same people all of the time. After G.R. was not
in the master class, G.R.’s mother became aggressive. 	She contacted Mosser directly
and there was a meeting between Mosser, G.R.’s mother and Hall. Hall was a therapist
for G.R. The meeting lasted twenty to thirty minutes.
G.R. was replaced in Godspell by K.S., who had an incredible stage presence.
The students were saying that K.S. was better than G.R. G.R. said Mosser should give
her dance lessons. 	There was a company class to learn the dance but G.R. did not
attend. Mosser denies saying that K.S. was better in the Godspell role than G.R. 	He
denies saying “If she (G.R.) thinks that she will be cast in Peter Pan she should think
again.” The cast of Peter Pan went to the Paper Mill Playhouse because the production
was nominated for best musical.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
38
Mosser became aware of HIB investigation 17 in June 2019. He never called any
students retarded. He knows E.C. who was in the company of Godspell and Peter Pan.
E.C. took on the role of carpenter for productions and built a lot of sets for both shows.
E. C. was romantically involved with a fellow cast member. Mosser never asked E.C. to
take a what percent gay are you quiz.
UHSPAC used Facebook groups to communicate with each other. UHSPAC has
social media accounts with Facebook and Instagram. There is also a departmental
Snapchat. He has never deleted or hid social media. Mosser and E.C. had discussions
about E.C.’s personal life. 	E.C. was looking for stability. 	He found it in theatre. E.C.
wanted to be a musical theatre major but was getting pressure from his family to do
something more practical.
Prior to being informed about HIB investigation 17 Mosser had no indication that
E.C. had a problem with him. E.C. tried out for a production of Grease that Mosser
directed. That was not affiliated with UHSPAC.
Mosser stated that he never called L.S. a slut, he never stated, “You guys are
retarded” or used F-bombs at or about students. He never said L.S. was dumb. He did
not call her sleazel and diseasel. He was not surprised that L.S. grades were good, and
he did not push L.S. off stage. He never pushed any student off a stage. There are two
cameras in the auditorium. Which were operable. He did not have access to delete
anything off the cameras.
Mosser last saw A.C. in the 2016-2017 school year. A.C. did theatre in middle
school, where Mosser first remembers seeing her. 	A.C. had a middle school audition
where she had a breakdown during the rehearsal and ran out of the back of the theatre
crying.
In 	A.C.’s 	first 	audition 	as 	a 	freshman, 	she 	had 	many 	conflicts, 	which 	he
approved. 	She then showed Mosser her swim schedule and missed additional days.
He spoke to the swimming instructor, who told him that A.C. was missing swimming

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
39
classes because she was in the play. They compared schedules and realized that A.C.
was missing rehearsals and swim practice to be with her boyfriend.
A.C. would go to adults and express what upset her. 	He never called A.C.
retarded. He never used the word monkey in a conversation with her. A.C. was on the
crew for the Sophisticated Ladies show. 	She missed performances of the show.
Mosser told her she had to decide.
A.C. was in the crew for a production of Grand Night for Signing. 	She was to
build and paint sets. 	She wanted to be the lighting operator. 	A.C. had the role of the
statue of the queen of England in the production of Mary Poppins. 	A.C. auditioned for
Footloose. 	She had three call backs. 	A.C. went to the guidance office. She was upset
that the call backs were not for the roles that she wanted. When it was A.C.’s turn to
sing, she became overwhelmed and ran out of the room and did not come back. A.C.
went to the school psychologist Jaime Stillwell after this. 	A.C.’s family was not
comfortable with her speaking to the psychologist.
In the summer A.C.’s mother tried to win Mosser’s favor. After A.C. stormed out,
her mother contacted Lowery for a meeting. Mosser, Lowery and A.C.’s mother met,
and all agreed that A.C. not be involved in the theatre department. A.C. was also taken
out of his classes.
S.N. participated in two shows. Three years before 2017-2018. 	She posted on
social media that she was not needed in the show and other people were getting the
roles that she wanted. Another student printed out S.N.’s social media post and gave it
to Mosser. He pulled S.N. aside and asked her what was happening and asked her if
she had an issue with him.
N.R. was a student stage manager assigned to the choreographer during the
Peter Pan production. 	She was dating E.C. 	She would spend the dinner break with
E.C. and often came back late or barely on time. N.R was supposed to make sure that
the props and scenery were where they were supposed to be. Every day the rehearsals
were fifteen minutes late because N.R. had not set up the props. 	N.R. posted a snap

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
40
chat in Portuguese about the choreographer for Peter Pan. Students showed Mosser
the post. Mosser asked the choreographer if something had occurred. He then spoke to
N.R. regarding the post. He asked N.R. if she was not comfortable with the position to
speak to him. The next day N.R. resigned as the stage manager. Mosser never asked
N.R. if she and her boyfriend were still together. He never asked any student were they
gay.
Mosser did not tell B.F. that he was cute and did not smack B.F. on the butt.
Mosser did not use the words sleazel and diseasel. 	He did not tell B.F. that he would
not get community service credit if he left the program. B.F. is friends with M.M., A.P.,
T.T. and K.H., B.F. was a crew member for the Cinderella production. His job was to
push a house onto the stage. 	B.F. came to a rehearsal inebriated and pushed the
house on to the stage at the wrong time nearly running two students over. B.F. was
upset when Mosser called him out about the incident. 	B.F. was not in the theatre
department during the 2017-2018 school year.
K.H.’s mother was a member of the school Board. She was a member of the
school board when Mosser’s matter came before the Board. 	Her father was a security
guard at Union. 	Mosser did not require the students to come in on snow days. He did
not call students lazy for not coming in on snow days. K.H. was in every show. Mosser
did not tell K.H. that she was an untalented bitch. 	He did not use sexually charged
comments. K.H. posted on social media “Remember the time we killed UHSPAC.” This
was after the HIB allegations against Mosser.
Mosser stated that he may have commented on T.T.’s hair in relation to the
character that she was playing. He does not recall asking T.T. if she was retarded. T.T.
and E.C. are friends. 	Mosser denies that he said you guys are retarded, accused
students of being gay or lesbian. He did not pressure students to stay late. 	N.V. was
dating C.B. 	N.V. was in the Grease production that Mosser directed, which was not
related to the school. He talked about what was going on with his life.
M.M. was friends with all of the complainants in HIB 17. 	He was very close to
B.F. 	Mosser did not tell M.M. that he looked homeless. 	M.M. sent Mosser an email

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
41
saying that he wanted to take his driver’s exam during the tech rehearsals in the spring
of 2017. 	Mosser told him no, that would violate his contract. 	M.M. went to the driving
exam. M.M. was pulled out of one of the musical numbers. M.M. was in the Godspell
and Peter Pan productions. 	M.M.’s mother sent Mosser an email stating that he was
inflexible, and M.M. would not be participating.
A.P. was involved with C.E. 	She became pregnant. 	A.P. had a supporting role
in Cinderella in Spring 2017. Mosser never gives students rides home.
E.L. was a featured soloist in Godspell and played the role of Peter Pan. E.L.
was having challenges with the role of Peter Pan. Her body tensed whenever she was
lifted off of the stage. She started to shut down after she was not nominated for an
award as lead actress.
Mosser was not questioned by the police.
All the complainants in HIB17 were friends. 	Mosser never used the word
retarded or retard with or in front of any students. Mosser never invited students to go
eat with him. 	C.B. was a student who did shows with Mosser. 	R.R. was in the fall
production of Godspell as Judas and the spring production of Peter Pan as Captain
Hook. 	R.R. was heavily involved in video aspects. 	R.R. shot and edited the Rise
America video which won a grant. 	R.R. did all the promotional packages for UHSPAC.
Mosser did not send a text message to R.R. expressing affection. 	He never expressed
romantic interest in R.R. 	He did not give R.R. rides to and from rehearsals. 	R.R. did
the video editing in the classroom. R.R. has never been to Mosser’s home. 	He is not
sure if he contacted R.R. regarding information about an internship.
The 2018 Grease production was not affiliated with Union Board of Education. It
was done by the Chatham Players. Some of the staff from Union were involved in the
production but on their own time. 	Mosser participated personally only. There was a
Grease after party. 	Mosser never provided beer or sat on anyone’s lap. 	He did not
touch a cast member’s penis.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
42
G.R. and A.C.’s mothers constantly complained. They wanted their children in
certain roles for opportunities. 	Mosser was trying to build a network for the students.
The culture at Union is to appease the parents.
Mosser did not see the HIB reports until the first OAL hearing. 	He did not have
the Lowery report at the October 2022 appeal. 	Mosser has been on Administrative
Leave since spring 2018. Mosser came to the school for rehearsals and was told to go
to the principal’s office. Lowery informed Mosser that he was on Administrative Leave.
Mosser went to the Board office the next day, but they refused to meet with him. All his
electronic access at the school was terminated. He never received anything in writing
about the leave.
Mosser was never contacted by Hall. 	He met Shaw, who took notes. 	He does
not know what happened to Shaw’s notes. Shaw’s name did not come up at the appeal.
When Mosser met with Hall and G.R.’s mother, he had documentation, which was not
reflected in HIB 16 report or provided to the Board at either meeting. 	Mosser believes
that his side of the situation was not presented to the Board. The October 2022 appeal
was approximately forty-five minutes long. There were questions before he was allowed
to present his case. 	Mosser had a good reputation for running a high performing and
detail-oriented department.
Mosser is familiar with ABR. He never saw the District anti-bullying policy, but he
was aware of HIB as a concept. He was never an ABC. Mosser knew that Ahearn was
an ABC and Lucille Williams was an ABS. 	Mosser never did an HIB investigation.
Mosser has seen a HIB report. He knows that an ABS questions both sides, witnesses
and makes recommendations.
UHSPAC is classified as a club but does not operate as a club for stipend
purposes. When he began at Union, on his first day of work, he was working to cast the
spring musical. He was also director of UHSPAC at the time. He had several positions
at UHSPAC, spring musical director, fall musical director, and swing choir among
others. Casting was done by the team. Casting sessions went on for hours.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
43
Officer Ardito was the head of security. He had retired from the police force and
worked security for the Board. 	Mosser was present when the security cameras were
installed. The footage from the cameras could be seen in the security office and the
principal’s office. 	At the October 2022 Board meeting none of the complainants were
present. He does not know the purpose of an incident report.
Mosser has worked on professional productions in New York as an accompanist,
wardrobe 	tech, 	lighting 	designer, 	stagehand, 	production 	manager 	and 	assistant
production manager. He has also done professional productions in New Jersey. Mosser
moved to New York in 2005. He worked in New York until 2008.
Mosser believes that the students are young adults and should be treated as
adults but given some leeway and grace. He teaches students the right way to do
things. 	All students are subject to the same protection under the ABR. It is never
appropriate for a teacher to call a student retarded or a slut.
UHSPAC was a part of Union High School. When a student missed a rehearsal,
it was difficult. 	If a student was cast in a UHSPAC production and cast in a community
theatre production at the same time, Mosser would tell the student that he had to make
a decision, and the decision would have consequences. 	G.R.’s mother contacted him
frequently. G.R.’s mother spoke to Mosser about a problem G.R. had not told Mosser
about. 	Mosser has not been the subject of any discipline as a result of these
allegations.
M.M
M.M. went to Union from 2014-2018. UHSPAC did musicals. 	M.M. was in
UHSPAC for three years. 	He was also on the football team from his freshman year to
his junior year. 	In the spring of his junior year, he was in the UHSPAC production of
Cinderella. In the Fall of his senior year, he was in the UHSPAC production of Godspell.
He took musical theatre in his junior year and advanced musical theatre in his senior
year.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
44
The HIB 17 investigation began after the spring 2018 production. Mosser’s
treatment of the students was crazy. He yelled at the students and called them retarded
and stupid. 	M.M. spoke to Hall regarding HIB 17. 	He felt that it was a chance to be
listened to regarding the treatment of the students that had been going on for years.
There was a meeting where Lowery, Hall, vice president Bossard, Ostie and another
vice principal were present when he spoke about Mosser.
M.M.’s most prominent interaction with Moser occurred on March 27, 2017. 	He
went to get his driver’s license that day. 	It was his only conflict. 	The test was at 11:00
a.m. He believed that he would be back in time for the rehearsal. 	He received a
message from Mosser between 3:00 and 3:30 p.m. to return to the school. When M.M.
arrived at the auditorium, he had been replaced by someone else. Although they could
not have conflicts during Tech Week, M.M. thought he was an exception because he
had let Mosser know in advance on the conflict sheet about the driver’s license
appointment. Mosser yelled at him saying that it was unacceptable for people doing
stupid things like getting a driver’s license. 	Mosser said that he would not do another
show like this, and they could thank M.M. This made M.M. feel horrible.
M.M. has since gone to therapy. He was diagnosed with generalized anxiety and
depression when he was sixteen. Being in UHSPAC was his biggest stressor because
of how he would be treated by Mosser if he messed up. When he messed up, it would
be horrible. 	M.M. went home crying because he was made to feel bad because he
chose to get his driver’s license. M.M. needed his driver’s license to help his family.
M.M. did not receive therapy until he went to college. His family could not afford the co-
pay and did not understand his mental health problems. 	He developed coping skills,
meditated, did breathe work, journaled and spoke to his pastor.
M.M. did agree to go to practice and rehearsals on time and he did show up late.
M.M. on another occasion had a root canal and was told to go to rehearsal. Mosser
made a comment about missing rehearsal to get a root canal. Mosser said something
about M.M.’s mother, which made him feel bad. He was intimidated by Mosser. On one
occasion, Mosser asked another student to get a 1 by 3. 	After five minutes, Mosser
said to the student “Are you a fucking retard, my grandmother can find one faster than

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
45
you.” Mosser told M.M. that he looked homeless in the musical theatre room. M.M. was
fourteen or fifteen. The comment made him feel insecure. 	M.M. had self-confidence
issues. M.M. does not remember any adults being present when this occurred. 	There
were times when Mosser would say something offensive and say that it was a joke.
M.M. was not usually in the room with Mosser alone.
In high school M.M. was 6’2 and weighed 200-215 pounds. 	He was always the
largest person on the stage. 	He never wanted to lay hands on anyone. 	He felt small.
M.M. never saw the HIB 17 report prior to testifying. 	Upon reviewing the report about
what he said, M.M. says that it is accurate and true. Although he does not now recall
Mosser calling him a fucking idiot, his best guess is that it occurred at a rehearsal.
Mosser would heckle students and tell them that their performance was bad. 	It was
uncomfortable. 	In class other adults were rarely around. 	When Rago was present he
was usually in his office with the door closed.
M.M. does not remember whether he gave a written statement or if his statement
was recorded. 	M.M. stands by what he told Hall. 	There were many instances where
Mosser called students retarded. M.M. has tried to push those memories back. 	He
never reported the incidents with Mosser to other adults. 	M.M. believed that the adults
that were present were okay with what Mosser was doing. 	M.M. stated that he stayed
in UHSPAC because his family did not have the resources to get him into a theatrical
school. He stayed to learn how to act, sing, dance and build things.
Mosser followed all of the students on snapchat. 	At his meeting with Hall M.M.
showed her the snapchat log. He showed Lowery a snap chat with romp lingerie which
Mosser sent M.M. saying that it would fit M.M. Lowery became angry. M.M. never saw
the Lowery report. When M.M. spoke to Hall, Lowery was present but stepped out. He
does not remember meeting Hall one on one. M.M. told Lowery that Mosser used
profanity. M.M. did not see snapchat messages between Mosser and R.R. 	M.M.
assumed that anything he told Lowery would be passed on to Hall.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
46
M.M. did not drop out of the Mary Poppins production; he had a torn meniscus.
M.M. did not see Mosser push L.S. from the stage, but L.S. told him that Mosser pushed
her from the stage.
Mosser called M.M. carcass and dark ass. M.M. does not remember coming to a
rehearsal under the influence of marijuana. 	He did not use marijuana often. 	M.M. was
not in the Peter Pan production because he had five bulging discs. 	Rago was rarely in
the classroom. M.M. does not remember Abate in the classroom except during choir.
A.C.
A.C. went to Union from 2014-2018. She met Mosser when she was in the fourth
grade, 	when 	she 	was 	in 	a 	production 	of 	Joseph 	and 	the 	Amazing 	Technicolor
Dreamcoat. Mosser was her teacher for musical theatre and advanced musical theatre
at Union. 	UHSPAC was the drama department of Union. 	Mosser was the director of
UHSPAC. 	A.C. was in UHSPAC in her freshman and sophomore year of high school.
A.C. told Hall about her experiences with UHSPAC.
During her freshman year, A.C. was on the stage crew and the swimming team.
Mosser told her that a monkey could do what she did. 	She has swimming practice and
rehearsals at the same time. 	She was kicked out of the stage crew. 	A.C. felt horrible.
Mosser called her a monkey again when she had make-up on, A.C. ran into the
bathroom and cried. 	She is a big crier.
A.C. was kicked out of the production of Great Night for Union. 	She was on the
stage crew for Sophisticated Ladies but was kicked out because she could not dedicate
the hours to the production. She was told to leave the theatre. 	The theatre department
treated children like adults. The word retarded was used often.
A.C. spoke to Hall in the spring of her junior year. 	In the spring of 2017, A.C.
wrote a letter because she was at her wit’s end. 	This was the school year before she
spoke to Hall. She gave the letter to Hall. The letter is an outline of her time with
UHSPAC. 	A.C. told her guidance counselor DeGeorge about what she was going
through, but she did not get much help. 	A.C.’s mother spoke to Lowery during either

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
47
her sophomore year or junior year. 	A.C. went to Lowery’s office and told him that she
wanted to kill herself. 	She was sent for a psychological evaluation. 	After high school,
A.C. saw mental health professionals. 	A.C. wanted to be a performer. 	She wanted to
impress Mosser and the teachers. 	She tried out for auditions and tried out for the USA
trial swim team. The USA swim team is different from the Union swim team.
A.C. did not get the roles in her freshman year. 	She had a featured role in
sophomore year. 	In Mary Poppins she was in the ensemble and was cast as a rock.
A.C. later recalled that she was a statue, not a rock. 	Mary Poppins was the last
production that A.C. was in. 	A.C did not hear statements from the students that they
were out to get Mosser. She does not recall speaking to Lowery regarding Mosser.
A.C. trying to block out the events that occurred when she was in UHSPAC has
not clouded her recollection. 	A.C. does not remember auditioning for Fame in middle
school. A.C. auditioned for Footloose at UHSPAC. She received a call back for the role
of a mother. 	She did not go to the call back. She did not have an incident with Mosser
during the Footloose audition. She never met with a school psychologist at Union. She
does not know Dr. Stillwell. A.C. took dance lessons in the summer before she
auditioned for Footloose.
A.C. does not know how she came to be questioned by Hall. 	A.C.’s mental
health issues began while she was at Union. She was not under doctor’s care or taking
medication while she was at Union. 	She had bad anxiety while she was at Union and
after. There was only one week where the swim practice and rehearsals would overlap.
A.C. does not recall a meeting between her swim coach, Mosser, and herself. She was
kicked out of a production because of her commitment to the USA swim team.
A.C. recalled that Mosser called her retarded in the fall of her freshman year.
Other people were present when this occurred. 	No one said anything to her after
Mosser called her a monkey. 	A.C. was present when Mosser told S.N. to shut her
mouth. The letter that A.C. wrote was not part of a class assignment.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
48
A.C. being in UHSPAC was voluntary. She loved the program, which is why she
kept coming back. 	A.C. does not believe that she moved up the ranks at UHSPAC.
A.C. spoke to her guidance counselor, DeGeorge, about what was happening at
UHSPAC. 	DeGeorge listened to A.C. but took no action. 	A.C. does not know if Hall
and DeGeorge spoke, but she did tell Hall that she spoke to DeGeorge.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In light of the contradictory testimony presented by respondent’s witnesses and
appellant, the resolution of this matter requires that I make credibility determinations
with regard to the critical facts. 	The choice of accepting or rejecting the witness’s
testimony or credibility rests with the finder of facts. Freud v. Davis, 64 N.J. Super. 242,
246 (App. Div. 1960). 	In addition, for testimony to be believed, it must not only come
from the mouth of a credible witness, but it also has to be credible in itself. It must elicit
evidence that is from such common experience and observation that it can be approved
as proper under the circumstances. 	See Spagnuolo v. Bonnet, 60 N.J. 546 (1974);
Gallo v. Gallo, 66 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1961). A credibility determination requires an
overall assessment of the witness’s story in light of its rationality, internal consistency
and the manner in which it “hangs together” with the other evidence. 	Carbo v. United
States, 314 F.2d 718, 749 (9th Cir. 1963). 	A fact finder “is free to weigh the evidence
and to reject the testimony of a witness even though not contradicted when it is contrary
to circumstances given in evidence or contains inherent improbabilities or contradictions
which alone or in connection with other circumstances in evidence excite suspicion as
to its truth.” 	In re Perrone, 5 N.J. 514, 521-522 (1950); see D’Amato by McPherson v.
D’Amato, 305 N.J. Super. 109, 115 (App. Div. 1997).
Having had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, I did not
find 	Hall 	to 	be 	completely 	credible 	because 	she 	testified 	that 	for
E.C.,A.C.,N.R.,N.V.,M.M. 	and 	A.P., 	the 	protected 	category 	or 	distinguishing
characteristic was mental, physical or sensory disability but in the HIB 17 report which
was given to the Board, she did not check that as a protected class. 	She also testified
that race was a distinguishing characteristic for T.T. but did not check off race as a
distinguishing characteristic on HIB 17 which was presented to the Board. I did not find
Rusin to be completely credible because he testified that when he questioned E.C., he

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
49
asked open-ended questions, but upon listening to the recorded interview, it was clear
that he asked E.C. leading questions. In addition, he told E.C. that he had previously
spoken to Williams and Desamours, which he had not. I found Ahern, Benaquista and
Taylor to be credible. Their testimony was truthful and consistent. I found Lewis to have
a bias in favor of Mosser. 	She worked on UHSPAC productions to get her master’s
degree. She volunteered to be Mosser’s union representative in these matters and she
and Mosser are friends. I did not find Mosser to be completely credible. He testified that
he never sat on E.C.’s lap at the Grease after party but E.C., Desamoures and Laurino
told Rusin a private investigator retained by Mosser that Mosser had in fact sat on
E.C.’s lap.
Having reviewed the motions in support of and in opposition to, I FIND the
following FACTS:
Mosser began working for Union as a theatre teacher in January 2008. He has a
bachelor’s degree in fine arts and a master’s degree in educational leadership. 	He
taught four musical theatre classes, an advanced musical theatre class and one choir
class at Union. 	After school he ran UHSPAC. Once Mosser took over UHPAC, it won
several Rising Star awards.
Rago was Mosser’s supervisor. Rago’s office was inside Mosser’s classroom.
During the 2016-2017 school year Mosser, Laura Muller and Lisa Abate were in the
music department at Union. Lowery was the principal at this time.
Mosser gave the students a contract outlining their participation in a production
and a student handbook. 	On the first day of rehearsals the staff and students read the
handbook together. The student and parent had to sign the contract before the student
could audition. The contracts required the students to show up and behave. The
students could not be excused during the last two weeks of tech rehearsals. The
students must tell Mosser if they have a conflict.
Mosser had master classes. 	He would bring in musicians, actors, writers and
Broadway talent to speak to the students. 	The speakers had to be approved by the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
50
Lowery and Rago. During the 2017-2018 school year, there were six master classes.
There was no policy regarding who can attend master class. There was a master class
for the students that were involved in the Peter Pan production. 	G.R. was not allowed
to attend this master class because she was not in the Peter Pan production. 	The
casting decisions for the productions were made by a group of eight people. 	There
were auditions and callbacks.
Hall is one of the ABS’s at Union. 	She is a licensed counselor. An ABS meets
with complainant and others who may have information regarding the HIB complaint.
The ABS is not responsible for determining accuracy, but the ABS should be able to
verify that the incident occurred. As an ABS is given an HIB complaint and investigates.
Benaquista was the Assistant Principal of Schools in Union in 2018. 	He has
been the Superintendent of Schools in Union since December 2023. 	Taylor was the
Superintendent of Union from July 2021 to December 2023.
On May 23, 2018, a detective from the Union Police Department came to Lowery
regarding a tip about inappropriate behavior between Mosser and students. Lowery
spoke to L.S., B.F., E.C., E.L., A.P., M.M. and N.V. as well as Teacher’s Assistant,
Leslie Laurino, Guidance Counselor, Valerie Desamours and Board Secretary, Jennifer
Williams. Lowery wrote a report regarding his interviews. Hall never saw Lowey’s report
until 2024. 	Benaquista did not see Lower’s report. 	Taylor never saw Lowery’s report.
Lowery’s report was not presented to the Board. Principals are involved at the onset of
HIB investigations. The principal does the initial fact finding, parental notification and
assigns an ABS to investigate.
Lowery designated Hall to investigate HIB 16 and HIB 17 on May 30, 2018. Hall
testified that once she receives the HIB investigations, the complainant is spoken to first
and gives a statement as to what occurred and the names of any witnesses. In HIB 16
and HIB 17 there were no written video, or audio statements by the complainants or
witnesses. 	The 	report 	must 	be 	completed 	within 	ten 	days. 	Hall 	spoke 	to 	the
complainants and people that the complainants stated were witnesses. 	She did not
interview anyone that was not the complainants or people the complainants said

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
51
witnessed the incidents. 	Hall had done between 150-200 HIB investigations. 	All but
three or four students were against student.
Lewis met Mosser when she worked at Burnett Middle School. 	She directed
middle school theatre shows. She met Mosser in 2013. They wanted to give students in
the middle school theatre program a seamless transition to the Union program. She was
one of the people that took part in the audition process for theatre shows at UHSPAC.
Lewis was in the process of getting her master’s degree in performing arts. She had to
work on production design element and have it reviewed to get her master’s degree. In
2017-2018, Lewis was the Crew Head for Godspell production and the Production
Manager for Peter Pan production. This was a requirement for her master’s degree.
Lewis’s personal friendship with Mosser began in the summer of 2018. 	She had heard
about 	the 	HIB 	allegations 	against 	Mosser 	and 	volunteered 	to 	be 	his 	union
representative. 	Lewis knew many of the students in HIB 17. 	They had either been in
middle school productions, or she had taught them in middle school.
Distinguishing 	characteristics 	for 	an 	HIB 	are 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. These are
identical to the protected categories listed on Union’s HIB reports.
HIB 16
G.R. was a student in Mosser’s advanced musical theatre class. G.R. was cast in
Godspell in the fall of 2017. At that time, she also had a role in a community production
that occurred at the same time. She chose to do the production at the community
theatre. 	There was a master class that G.R. was not allowed to attend. 	It was for the
cast of Peter Pan. G.R. was not in the cast of Peter Pan because she did not know the
words to the song and did not complete the dance. G.R. believes that she was retaliated
against by Mosser because she did community theatre production instead of Godspell.
In January 2018, there was a meeting between Hall, Mosser and G.R.’s parents.
HIB 16 states that Mosser said the person who replaced G.R. was better than G.R. HIB
report 16 states that these statements were corroborated. 	Hall testified that C.E. and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
52
M.M. corroborated statements. 	Lewis testified that it was students that stated G.R.’s
replacement in Godspell was better than G.R. 	Hall testified that the distinguishing
characteristic in this matter was G.R. being excluded from master class. In the HIB 16
report Hall lists the protected category as other distinguishing characteristics.
Hall did not interview Mosser regarding HIB 16 because they were in the same
collective bargaining unit. 	Mosser was interviewed by David Shaw, an administrator in
another building. Hall never saw Shaw’s report. 	Shaw’s report was not shown to the
Board at either the hearing or the appeal of Mosser in 2022. Hall completed HIB 16 on
May 25, 2018.
HIB 17
HIB 17 had eleven complainants as follows:
E.C.
Hall met with E.C. on June 1, 2018, and June 5, 2018. 	E.C. stated Mosser told
E.C. “All you need to date you is to be retarded. 	T.T. was present when Mosser asked
E.C. to take a what percent gay are you quiz. 	This made E.C. feel uncomfortable. E.C.
stated that Mosser sat on his lap twice and put his hand on E.C.’s leg at an after party
for the community theatre production of Grease. Lowery’s report states that E.C. told
Lowery that at the after party that Mosser sat on his lap and grabbed E.C.’s penis.
E.C. was interviewed by Rusin. 	Rusin is a private investigator employed by
petitioner. 	Rusin asked E.C. leading questions about the Grease after party. 	E.C.
stated that Mosser briefly sat on his lap and nothing inappropriate occurred.
Rusin also spoke to Deramours, Fallon and Laurano about what occurred at the
Grease after party. 	Desamours said that Mosser tried to sit with the students, and it
was a tight fit, Mosser ended up on E.C.’s lap. 	Desamours told Mosser it looked
inappropriate. She did not believe Mosser’s actions were deliberate. Fallon was also at
the after party and did not witness any inappropriate behavior. Laurano told Rusin that
she saw Mosser sitting on E.C.’s lap and E.C. and Mosser laughed, then Mosser got up
and left. The incident at the Grease after party was not included in HIB 17.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
53
Hall testified that Mosser’s conduct, excluding the events of the Grease after
party, which fell under DCPP, constituted a HIB violation. 	Hall testified that the
protected class (distinguishing characteristic) for E.C. were sexual orientation because
Mosser asked him to take a how gay are you quiz and mental physical or sensory
disability because of the comment that someone would have to be retarded to date him.
She testified that Mosser’s conduct substantially interfered with school and was insulting
and demeaning and occurred on school property. 	E.C. did not testify. Lewis never
heard Mosser call E.C. retarded or ask him to take a how gay are you quiz. Mosser
denied all E.C.’s allegations.
L.S.
Hall interviewed L.S. on June 1, 2018. 	L.S. stated that Mosser called the
students retarded and dumb. L.S. stated that Mosser called her a slut and sleazel and
diseasel. 	This made her feel uncomfortable. L.S. stated that Mosser pushed her off a
stage. 	No one else witnessed Mosser push L.S. off stage. There were two operable
cameras in the auditorium at that time. 	There was an IAIU investigation which did not
establish abuse. Hall believed that there was a fifty percent chance that Mosser pushed
L.S. off the stage.
L.S. spoke to Lowery regarding Mosser. She told Lowery that Mosser called her
a slut and sleazel and diseasel. She told Lowery that Mosser pushed her into the
orchestra pit and made a lot of gay jokes.
Lewis had taught L.S for three years. 	She never heard Mosser call L.S. a slut.
L.S. did not speak to Lewis about Mosser. 	Mosser denied pushing L.S. of the stage or
calling her slut, sleazel or diseasel.
Hall 	testified 	that 	the 	protected 	category 	(distinguishing 	characteristic) 	was
gender or gender expression because Mosser called her slut, sleazel and diseasel and
physical, mental or sensory disability because Mosser called the students retarded. The
comments were insulting and demeaning and took place on school grounds. 	L.S. did
not testify.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
54
A.C.
A.C. was a part of the stage crew during her freshman year. 	She was also on
the swim team and USA swim team. 	She was kicked out of rehearsal by Mosser
because of conflicting commitments with swimming. 	She felt horrible. 	She was kicked
out of other productions because of her swimming conflicts.
A.C. testified that Mosser said that a monkey could do what she did and look at
what the monkey could do. 	She ran to the bathroom and cried. 	She testified that
Mosser used the word retarded often. She spoke to the guidance counselor about the
issues with Mosser, but nothing was done. 	At one-point A.C. went to Lowery’s office
and told him that she wanted to kill herself. 	She was taken for a psychological
evaluation.
Over the summer A.C. took dance classes. Mosser and Lewis testified that A.C.
tried out for Footloose and after three call backs, she became overwhelmed and
stormed out of the room and did not return. 	A.C. testified that she did not go to call
backs. Mosser also testified that A.C. was seen by the school psychologist, Dr Stilwell.
A.C. testified that she never saw Dr Stilwell.
A.C.’s did not return to UHSPAC after the Footloose audition. 	A.C. wrote a six-
page document while a junior at Union about her feelings regarding what occurred at
UHSPAC. A.C.’s mental health troubles began while she was at Union. 	She did not
have mental health counseling in high school. She was not taking medication when she
was in high school. 	She had and still has bad anxiety. 	A.C. testified that she tried to
block out things that occurred when she was in UHSPAC. 	She does not recall a
meeting between Mosser, her swim coach, and herself. A.C. testified that she is a crier.
Hall 	stated 	the 	protected 	class 	(distinguishing 	characteristic) 	was 	mental,
physical or sensory disability because Mosser used the word retarded and gender or
gender expression because Mosser called her a slut. 	A.C. did not testify that Mosser
called her a slut. The comments were insulting and demeaning and occurred on school
grounds.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
55
N.R.
Hall interviewed N.R. on June 5, 2018. N.R. stated that Mosser referred to
students as retarded and asked a student if he was gay in front of the class. Hall
testified that the protected class (distinguishing characteristic) was mental, physical or
sensory disability because Mosser called the students retarded and sexual orientation
because Mosser asked a student if he was gay in front of the class. 	The comments
were demeaning and occurred at school. N.R. did not testify. Mosser denies N.R.’s
allegations.
B.F.
Hall interviewed B.F., on June 4, 2028. 	B.F. stated that Mosser hit him on the
butt and told him that he was cute. There was an IAIU investigation which did not
establish abuse. Lewis did not see this and Mosser denied that it happened. In addition,
he heard Mosser use the term sleazel and diseasel regarding L.S. 	B.F. stated that he
wanted to leave the production, but Mosser said that B.F. would not get community
service credit. Mosser denied this. Mosser testified that B.F. was a crew member for a
production of Cinderella. B.F. came to a rehearsal inebriated and pushed a house onto
the stage almost running over two people. B.F. was upset when Mosser called him out
over the incident. B.F. was interviewed by Lowery. He told Lowery that Mosser picks up
E.C. from his home and gives him rides. 	He also stated that Mosser makes sexual
jokes.
Hall stated that the protected class (distinguishing characteristic) was sexual
orientation because Mosser hit B.F. on the butt and told him that he was cute and
gender because B.F. heard Mosser call L.S. sleazel and diseasel. The incident occurred
at school. B.F. did not testify.
K.H.
Hall interviewed K.H. on June 5, 2018. K.H. stated that Mosser repeatedly used
the term retarded. He also used the phrase untalented bitch. 	He frequently used
sexually charged comments. 	He would say, “Oh you’re the top.” 	There is a song
“You’re the Top” by Cole Porter. Mosser denied these allegations.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
56
Hall testified that the protected class (distinguishing characteristic) was sexual
orientation/ gender because Mosser used the phrase “You’re the top” as well as Mosser
saying that K.H. was an untalented bitch, physical, mental and sensory disability
because Mosser used the word retarded and other distinguishing characteristic because
Mosser called the students rude little people. The comments were demeaning and
insulting. K.H. did not testify.
T.T.
Hall spoke to T.T. on June 8, 2018. 	T.T. is African American. T.T. stated that
Mosser humiliated her about her hair. 	T.T. stated that Mosser used the word retarded
and asked E.C. to take a how gay are you quiz. 	Mosser made her feel retarded by
using the word retarded. 	During production T.T. felt that the stairs were unsafe.
Mosser asked her if she was too retarded to walk down the stairs. Mosser testified that
he may have commented on T.T.’s hair in relation to a character that she was playing.
Lewis 	testified 	that 	the 	stairs 	were 	for 	production 	and 	were 	not 	painted. 	The
choreographer showed T.T. that the stairs were safe. 	Lewis asked T.T. if she was
alright and T.T. stated that she was fine. Lewis never saw Mosser humiliate T.T.
Hall stated that the protected classes (distinguishing characteristic) are race and
physical 	appearance 	because 	of 	Mosser’s 	comments 	regarding 	her 	hair, 	gender
because T.T. heard Mosser call another student gay or a slut and mental, physical or
physical disability because Mosser called her retarded. T.T. did not testify
N.V.
Hall interviewed N.V. on June 8, 2018. When N.V. and another student could not
find something, Mosser said “What are you retarded.” 	Mosser often accuses students
of being gay to other students. 	N.V. heard Mosser call a student a slut. Mosser was
harsh and intense.
N.V. was interviewed by Lowery. 	N.V. told Lowery that Mosser often makes gay
jokes, called a student whose name was Jason, Gayson. Mosser tells the boys in class
that they are gay. N.V. did not tell this to Hall.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
57
Hall stated that the protected class (distinguishing characteristic) was mental,
physical 	or 	sensory 	disability 	because 	Mosser 	called 	N.V. 	retarded, 	and 	gender
because N.V. heard Mosser call another student a slut. N.V. did not testify. Mosser
denies N.V.’s allegations.
M.M.
M.M. went to Union from 2014-2018. He was in UHSPAC for three years. 	He
took musical theatre class in his junior year and advanced musical theatre in his senior
year. M.M. arrived late for a tech rehearsal because he was getting his driver’s license.
He advised Mosser of the conflict. When he arrived at the rehearsal, he had been
replaced in the dance by another student. 	Mosser said he would not do another show
like this, and they could all thank M.M. 	This made M.M. feel horrible. 	M.M. went home
crying. He needed his driver’s license to help his family. Mosser stated that he told M.M.
that going to get his driver’s license would violate the contract M.M. signed.
M.M. was diagnosed with generalized anxiety and depression at sixteen. 	Being
in UHSPAC was a big stressor because of how he was treated by Mosser. 	M.M. now
goes to therapy. 	He could not afford therapy when he was at Union. M.M. was
intimidated by Mosser. Even though when he was at Union M.M. was 6’2 and weighed
200-215, he felt small.
Mosser asked a student to get one by three. 	After five minutes, Mosser said to
the student are you fucking retarded, my grandmother can find one faster than you.
Mosser told M.M. he looked homeless on an occasion where there were no other adults
present. 	This made him feel insecure. 	There were many instances where Mosser
called students retarded.
M.M. did not give a written statement. He remembers being interviewed by Hall,
Lowery and three vice principals at the same time. M.M. in the interview stated that
Mosser followed the students on snapchat. 	M.M. showed Lowery a Snapchat photo
Mosser sent him of romp lingerie saying it would fit M.M.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
58
Mosser called M.M. carcass and darkass. 	M.M. does not remember coming to
rehearsals under the influence of marijuana. Rago was rarely in the classroom.
Hall 	listed 	the 	protected 	class 	(distinguishing 	characteristic) 	as 	physical
appearance because Mosser said that he looked homeless, and mental, physical or
sensory disability because Mosser used the word retarded. 	The comments of Mosser
were demeaning and insulting.
A.P.
Hall interviewed A.P. on June 1, 2018. She heard Mosser say that E.C. was
retarded. She saw a text that Mosser sent to R.R. where Mosser expressed affection for
R.R. which made her uncomfortable. Hall had a counseling relationship with A.P. 	A.P
told Lowery that Mosser made people feel worthless, was verbally abusive and saying
that they were retarded.
Hall 	listed 	the 	protected 	category 	(distinguishing 	characteristic) 	as 	mental,
physical and sensory disability because A.P. heard Mosser call E.C. retarded. A.P. did
not testify. Mosser denies A.P.’s allegations.
E.L.
Hall interviewed E.L. on June 1, 2018. E.L. said that Mosser repeatedly called
students retarded or stupid. Mosser treated her differently when she began dating R.R.
Mosser instilled fear in the students. 	Hall had a counseling relationship with E.L. Hall
testified that the protected category (distinguishing characteristic) was physical, mental
and sensory disability because Mosser called the students retarded. E.L. did not testify
C.B
Hall interviewed C.B. on June 14, 2018. 	C.B. stated that comments made about
his sexual orientation did not make him feel uncomfortable because he was openly gay.
Hall testified that this did not meet the criteria for HIB

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
59
R.R.
Hall interviewed R.R. on June 14, 2018. R.R. stated that Mosser sent him
messages expressing romantic affection. R.R. responded that he did not feel the same
way. 	Mosser denies ever sending the text. He stated that he accepted rides from
Mosser and had been to Mosser’s home for film editing. Hall testified that this did not
meet the criteria of HIB.
Lewis testified that Mosser was not an abusive person. She never heard Mosser
call a student a slut or retarded. 	She never witnessed Mosser use sexually charged
comments. 	Mosser and Lewis worked closely on productions. 	If someone is speaking
in one area of the auditorium, someone in another area of the auditorium would not hear
what the person said.
Mosser denied ever calling any student retarded, slut, idiot sleazel and diseasel.
Mosser denied making sexually charged comments. Mosser denies asking E.C. to take
a how gay are you test.
Although 	some 	of 	the 	complainants 	interviewed 	mentioned 	social 	media
exchanges between Moser and the complainants, Hall did not look at any of the social
media and no social media was included in HIB 16 report or HIB 17 report. Hall did not
look at any of the social media postings which Ahearn finds troubling.
HIB 17 report has eleven complainants. The HIB report form lists the following
categories as protected categories (distinguishing characteristics): race, color, religion,
ancestry, origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity & expression, mental,
physical or sensory disability and other distinguishing characteristics. In her testimony
Hall stated that mental, physical and sensory disability was a protected category
(distinguishing characteristic) for E.C.,A.C.,N.R.,N.V.,M.M.,A.P., and E.L. Hall testified
that 	mental, 	physical 	and 	sensory 	disability 	were 	the 	only 	protected 	category
(distinguishing characteristic) for A.P. and E.L. HIB 17 report did not check mental,
physical or sensory disability or race as a protected category listed the report. HIB 17

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
60
report checked gender, sexual orientation and other distinguishing characteristics as the
protected classes for the complainants in HIB 17.
HIB 17 lists most of HIB as verbal, physical and electronic communication. 	Hall
testified that she did not look at the social media the complainants told her about and
none of the social media posts were submitted to the Board with HIB 17.
Ahearn believes that she emailed Shaw about turning in his report on his
interview of Mosser. 	Ahearn never saw Shaw’s report and does not know if he
produced a report. Benaquista does not recall if he assigned Shaw to interview Mosser.
Hall prepared HIB 16 and HIB 17 reports from her interviews and notes. 	Once
she completed the reports, they were sent to Ahern and the director of counseling. No
adults were interviewed for HIB 17. Hall, Ahearn and Tatum met to discuss whether the
HIB 17 investigation could be concluded without interviewing Mosser. They contacted
Maria Mendez. 	Maria Mendez is the Executive County Superintendent for Union
County. Mendez is called when there are questions regarding HIBs.
Ahern 	was 	the 	ABC. 	In 	HIB 	investigations 	reports 	come 	to 	her 	and 	the
Superintendent. Ahearn keeps the data. She has two meetings per year with the ABSs
and 	oversees 	HIB. 	Ahearn 	is 	Hall’s 	supervisor. 	Ahearn 	recalls 	speaking 	to 	Hall
regarding HIB 16 but does not recall the reason for the conversation. Ahearn did not
arrange for Mosser to be interviewed.
The Board affirmed the HIB findings in a meeting in June 2019. Mosser had filed
a 	petition 	for 	relief 	that 	was 	transmitted 	to 	the 	Office 	of 	Administrative 	Law. 	In
September 	2021, 	Mosser’s 	motion 	for 	Summary 	Decision 	was 	granted. 	The
Department of Education remanded the matter to the Board. No additional investigation
was carried out. There was a HIB hearing before the Board in July 2022, and an appeal
was filed by Mosser. The appeal was heard by the Board in October 2022.
In 2018, the procedure for a HIB investigation was that the principal receives a
HIB complaint and directs the ABS to investigate. 	Ahearn received HIB 16 and HIB 17

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
61
reports and was satisfied with both. When the matter was remanded to the Board, from
the Department of Education, Hall resubmitted HIB 16 and HIB 17 reports. 	Hall did not
make any changes to the reports before submitting them. The Superintendent refers to
the HIB report to the Board to be reported and in the next Board meeting to be affirmed.
The purpose of an HIB investigation is to take statements from students as reported. If
the events were seen by an adult, the ABS should interview the adults.
Ahearn did not see the minutes of the October 2022 Board meeting. HIB reports
are redacted before they are given to the Board. Ahearn did not attend the October 22,
2018, Board meeting. Mosser did not get interviewed during the HIB 17 investigation
and the report of his interview with Shaw for HIB 16 investigation was not given to the
Board.
Hall, Benaquista and Taylor were present at the October 2022 Board meeting for
Mosser’s appeal. Mosser was present as well. There were no written statements by the
complainants presented to the Board. A Board member, Santana, was flustered by the
number 	of 	pages 	in the 	reports. 	The 	Board 	was 	informed 	that 	Mosser 	was not
interviewed for either HIB report. 	Board members Yocasta Brens-Watson and Santana
arrived late to the meeting. Mosser asked to be reinstated at the meeting. After Mosser
and his attorney left, the Board went into executive session. The executive session
lasted from 6:55 p.m. to 7:10 p.m. 	Hall was present at the executive session but left
before the Board vote was taken. None of the complainants were at the October 2022
Board meeting.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
N.J.S.A.18A:37-14 defines Harassment, Bullying and Intimidation as:
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),

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
62
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.
HIB 16
In 	this 	matter, 	Hall 	testified 	that 	the 	protected 	category 	(distinguishing
characteristic) was that G.R. had not been allowed to participate in the master class.
This particular master class was for students that were in the production of Peter Pan.
G.R. was not in that production. There was not a mandatory criterion for which students
attended which master classes.
I CONCLUDE that the decision of the Board affirming HIB 16 was arbitrary
capricious and unreasonable because being excluded from the master class is not a
distinguishing characteristic.
HIB 17
In HIB 17 report the following are listed as protected categories (distinguishing
characteristics): race, color, religion, ancestry, origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender
identity & expression, mental, physical or sensory disability and other distinguishing
characteristics. 	Each is proceeded by a box to mark to note which the distinguishing
characteristic was found in the HIB report. Hall did not check mental, physical or
sensory disability or race as a protected category (distinguishing characteristic) in the
HIB 17 report. However, Hall testified that mental, physical and sensory disabilities,
sexual orientation, gender identity and expression were protected categories for E.C.,
L.S., A.C., N.R., K.H., T.T., N.V., M.M., A.P. and E.L. For A.P and E.L. mental, physical
or sensory disability were the only distinguishing characteristics. Hall also testified that
race was a protected category (distinguishing characteristic) for T.T. HIB 17, which was

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
63
submitted to the Board, did not list mental, physical or sensory disability or race as a
protected category (distinguishing characteristic).
There was no testimony and nothing in the HIB report that showed that anyone
other than M.M. had a mental, physical or sensory disability.
I CONCLUDE that the Board’s decision affirming HIB 17 in regard to A.P. and
E.L. 	is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable because the report that the Board relied
on did not state that physical, mental or sensibility was a protected category in HIB 17,
but Hall testified that it was the only protected category for A.P. and E.L.
E.C.
There was no testimony that E.C. had a physical, mental or sensory disability.
T.T. stated that she heard Mosser asking E.C. to take a what percent gay are you quiz.
E.C. told Hall this occurred. Mosser told E.C. that a girl had to be retarded to date him.
E.C was made uncomfortable and offended by Mosser’s comments.
E.C. gave contradictory statements to Hall, Lowey and Rusin regarding the
Grease after party. He told Hall that Mosser sat on his lap twice and put his hand on
E.C.’s leg at the Grease afterparty. E.C. told Lowery at the after party Mosser sat on his
lap and grabbed his penis. He told Rusin that Mosser briefly sat on his lap and nothing
inappropriate occurred. The events at the Grease after party are not part of the HIB
complaint or report.
I CONCLUDE the finding of HIB regarding E.C. was not arbitrary, capricious and
unreasonable because the distinguishing characteristic is gender orientation. 	Mosser
asked E.C. to take a what percent gay are you quiz, it took place on school property, it
disrupts the orderly operations of the school, it occurred in front of another student and
demeaned and insulted E.C.
L.S.
There was no corroboration in that Mosser pushed L.S. off of the stage. The only
other student to mention it was M.M. who testified that he did not witness L.S being

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
64
pushed off the stage. 	There was an IAIU investigation which did not establish abuse.
There were camaras in the auditorium which would have recorded the incident, but no
video evidence was presented at the Board meeting or the hearing. 	No one in the
school ever mentioned that this incident occurred. 	Hall testified that it was a fifty-fifty
chance that Mosser pushed L.S. off the stage.
Mosser called L.S. slut, sleazel and diseasel. 	B.F. in the interview with Hall
stated that he heard Mosser call L.S. sleazel and diseasel. This made L.S. feel
uncomfortable.
I CONCLUDE the finding of HIB regarding L.S. was not arbitrary, capricious and
unreasonable because the distinguishing characteristic is gender, being called a slut,
sleazel and diseasel it took place on school property, it disrupts the orderly operations
of the school other students heard the comment, and demeaned and insulted L.S.
A.C.
Mosser called A.C. retarded and a monkey. 	A.C. testified that she attempted to
block out events that occurred while she was at UHSPC. Her mental health issues
began while she was at UHSPAC. 	She told Lowery that she was going to kill herself
while she was at Union. 	Mosser, calling A.C. retarded, fits in the protected category of
physical, mental or sensory disability. However, HIB report 17 that was submitted to the
Board did not list mental, physical or sensory as a protected category for any of the
complainants. 	A.C. did not testify that Mosser called her a slut. 	Mosser calling A.C. a
monkey is clearly inappropriate, but it is not a distinguishing characteristic. 	In this
matter there is no racial connotation to calling her a monkey.
I CONCLUDE that the finding of HIB regarding the A.C. was arbitrary, capricious
and unreasonable because A.C. did not testify that Mosser called her a slut. Mosser
calling her a monkey is not a distinguishing characteristic, and the distinguishing
characteristic of physical, mental and sensory disability was not checked in HIB report
17 which was reviewed by the Board.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
65
N.R.
N.R. heard Mosser call students retarded and asking a student if he was gay.
N.R. felt that the question to the student was too personal. There was no testimony that
N.R. had a physical, mental or sensory disability.
I CONCLUDE that the finding of HIB regarding N.R. was arbitrary, capricious and
unreasonable because although N.R. hearing Mosser ask a student if they were gay
which is a sexual orientation distinguishing characteristic, it did not disrupt the orderly
operations of the school and it did not fit the categories of:
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.
B.F.
B.F. told Hill that Mosser hit him on the butt and said that he was cute. There was
an IAIU investigation which did not establish abuse. 	This fits the distinguishing
characteristics of gender and sexual orientation.
I CONCLUDE that the finding of HIB regarding the B.F. was not arbitrary,
capricious and unreasonable because the distinguishing characteristic was gender and
sexual orientation, this occurred at school in the hallway, it interferes with the orderly
operation of the school and creates a hostile educational environment because B.F.
wanted to leave the production but Mosser said if he left the production, B.F. would not
receive community service credits.
K.H. heard Mosser call other students retarded, rude little people and untalented
bitches. She did not tell Hall that Mosser made those comments about her specifically.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
66
K.H. told Hall that Mosser saying “you’re the top” which is a song from a play made her
feel uncomfortable due to the sexual innuendo.
I CONCLUDE that the finding of HIB regarding K.H. was not arbitrary, capricious
and unreasonable because the “you’re the top” comment K.H. interpreted as sexual
innuendo. 	The distinguishing characteristic is gender. 	It happened at school it
disrupted the orderly operation of the school and caused K.H. to feel weird. 	It had the
effect of insulting or demeaning K.H.
T.T. stated that Mosser talked about her hair in front of the UHSPAC. 	T.T. is
African American. T.T. heard Mosser ask E.C. to take a what percent gay are you quiz.
T.T. also testified that Mosser called her retarded. There was no evidence that T.T. had
a mental, physical or sensory disability.
I CONCLUDE that the finding of HIB regarding the T.T. was not arbitrary,
capricious and unreasonable because the Mosser made statements about her hair was
about her physical appearance. Statements were made in front of the entire production
which interfered with the ordinary operation of the school and caused T.T. to feel
humiliated and insulted.
N.V. heard Mosser call other students a slut, retarded and accused of being gay.
He felt that they were harsh and went over the line. This along with being pressured to
stay late upset N.V. 	There is no evidence that N.V. has a mental, physical or sensory
disability. There is a distinguishing characteristic of gender when Mosser called another
student a slut. 	This occurred on school grounds. 	There was no evidence that the
statement disrupted the orderly operation of the school, however the statement was
demeaning to a student.
I CONCLUDE that the finding of HIB regarding the N.V. was arbitrary, capricious
and unreasonable because there is no indication that the statement of Mosser calling a
student a slut disrupted the orderly operation of the school.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
67
M.M. testified that Mosser said that he looked like he was homeless, which took
place 	at 	the 	school 	and 	made 	M.M. 	feel 	insecure. 	M.M. 	was 	diagnosed 	with
generalized anxiety and depression while he was at Union. 	M.M. is African American
and was called dark ass by Mosser. However, race was not one of the protected
categories that Hall checked off on HIB 17 which was presented to the Board.
I CONCLUDE Mosser telling M.M. that he looked homeless fit the category of
HIB. 	The distinguishing category was physical appearance which is included in other
distinguishing characteristic. M.M. felt unsure by the comment which is demeaning and
insulting. This occurred in the school and disrupted the orderly operation of the school.
I CONCLUDE that there were no HIB findings by Hall for R.R. and C.B.
ORDER
I CONCLUDE that the HIB investigation 16 did not meet the HIB criteria.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Board RESCIND its decision.
It is further ORDERED that the Board’s HIB investigation 17 findings of E.C.,
L.S., B.F., K.H., T.T. and M.M. be and is hereby UPHELD.
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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
68
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.
July 25, 2025
DATE 	KIMBERLY A. MOSS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	July 25, 2025
Date Mailed to Parties: 	July 25, 2025
ljb

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
69
WITNESSES
For Petitioner
Jill Hall
Mark Rusin
Nicole Ahearn
Dr. Gerald Benaquista
Dr. Scott Taylor
Katherine Lewis
For Respondent
A.C.
M.M.
EXHIBITS
For Petitioner
P-1 	Not in Evidence
P-2 	Not in Evidence
P-3 	Handwritten Notes of Jill Hall
P-4 	HIB Letters Dated June 25, 2018, to August 2, 2018
P-5 	Jill Hall email chain regarding HIB investigation May 31, 2018- April 29- 	2019
P-6 	Musical Theatre Class Guidelines and Expectations
P-7 	Union High School Spring 2018-2019 Theatre Department Handbook
P-8 	Jill Hall Email Chain dated April 9, 2018 to May 25, 2018
P-9 	Petition for Relief dated January 9, 2023
P-10 	Not in Evidence
P-11 	Handwritten Notes of the HIB Timeline
P-12 	Email Chain regarding Master Class and New Hires dated January 1, 2018-
December 6, 2018
P-13 	Union High School Master Class Excusal Form and Class Roster Dated April 23,
2018
P-14 	Godspell Audition Application

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
70
P-15 	Union High School Performing Arts Company Policies and Attendance
Agreement Dated September 19, 2017
P-16 	HIB investigation Report Dated May 25, 2018
P-17 	Township of Union Public Schools Anti-Bullying Program Submission Forms
Dated May 30, 2018
P-18 	HIB Investigation Report 17 Addendum
P-19 	Not in Evidence
P-20 	Not in Evidence
P-21 	Union High School Performing Arts Company Fall 2017-2018 Theatre Handbook
P-22 	Class Guide
P-23 	Guest Speaker Form
For Respondent
R-1 	HIB Report 16
R-2 	HIB Report 17
R-3 	Jill Hall Notes
R-4 	Former Board Policy 5131.1
R-5 	Former Board Policy 3517 Surveillance
R-6 	Anti-Bullying Submission Form -HIB 16
R-7 	Anti-Bullying Submission Form- HIB
R-8 	Mosser Acknowledgement Form
R-9 	Letter to Mosser Hib Results dated June 20, 2019
R-10 	Email from S. Paterno to Jull Hall Dated May 31, 2018
R-11 	HIB 16 Notification Letter
R-12 	HIB 17 Notification Letter
R-13 	Emails with G.R.’s Mother
R-14 	Union High School Class Roster
R-15 	G.R. Resume
R-16 	New Jersey Records Retention Schedule
R-17 	SSDS Forms for HIB 17
R-18 	SSDS Forms for HIB 16
R-19 	Minutes of June 11, 2019, Board Meeting
R-20 	Minutes of October 11, 2022, Board Meeting

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23
71
R-21 	Minutes of the October 11, 2022, HIB Hearing
R-22 	Letter to P. Tyshchenko Regarding HIB Results Dated July 26, 2022
R-23 	Letter to P. Tyshchenko Regarding HIB Results Dated October 17, 2022
R-24 	IAIU Notification Forms
R-25 	G.R.’s Mother Emails
R-26 	Email Chain regarding meeting with Mosser Dated May 23, 2018
R-27 	Email from Lowery Regarding Union Police Department Investigation Dated May
25, 2018
R-28 	Email from Lowery Regarding Union Police Department Investigation Dated May
29, 2018
R-29 	Emails from Mother of A.C.
R-30 	Emails regarding IAIU investigation Dated June 7, 2018
R-31 	Email from Hall Regarding HIB investigation Date June 11, 2018
R-32 	Email from Hall Regarding HIB investigation 17 Dated June 12, 2018
R-33 	Email from Union County Prosecutor’s Office Dated July 19, 2018
R-34 	Emails Regarding IAIU investigation Dated August 20, 2018
R-35 	Email String Regarding Morris County Prosecutor’s Office Investigation Dated
March 18, 2019
R-36 	Email Regarding HIB Hearing Dated June 18, 2019
R-37 	January 9, 2023, Petition
R-38 	Board’s Answer to the Petition
R-39 	Mosser Law Division Complaint
R-40 	April 18, 2019, Petition
R-41 	August 30, 2019, Amended Petition
R-42 	Commissioner of Education Decision December 2, 2021
R-43 	Request for a HIB Hearing Dated September 20, 2022
R-44 	Email String with P Tyschchenko Dated October 5, 2022
R-45 	Board Policy 5512
P-46 	IAIU Letter Re: L.S. Dated October 31, 2018
R-47 	IAIU Letter Re: B.F. Dated February 7, 2019
R-48 	IAIU Letter Re: L. S. Dated October 31, 2018
R-49 	IAIU Letter RE B.F. Dated February 7, 2019
R-50 	Audio Tape of E.C. and Ruskin

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01119-23

R-51 Notes of Bennaquista from Exit interview with DCPP

72