M.B. and B.B., on behalf of minor child, T.B. v. Board of Education of the Township of Cranford, Union County, 8/12/26 (#301-26)

301-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 15704-25
Agency Dkt. No. 278-8/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
M.B. and B.B., on behalf of minor child, T.B.,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Cranford,
Union County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
have been reviewed and considered.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that the
respondent did not act in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner in determining that
petitioners’ child had committed harassment, intimidation, or bullying.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition
of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	August 12, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	August 12, 2026
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-
9.1. Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days
from the date of mailing of this decision.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15704-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 278-8/25
M.B. AND B.B. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD T.B.,
Petitioners,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP
OF CRANFORD, UNION COUNTY,
Respondent.
________________________________________
M.B. and B.B., petitioners, for minor child T.B., appearing pro se
Christina Michelson, Esq., for respondent (Methfessel & Werbel, attorneys)
Record Closed: May 15, 2026 	Decided: June 15, 2026
BEFORE NANCI G. STOKES, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The petitioners challenge the Cranford Board of Education’s determination that
T.B. engaged in Harassment, Intimidation, and Bullying (HIB) against an autistic student
when he mockingly chewed on a pencil and repeatedly questioned and involved the victim
in activities, while reasonably knowing that it upset him. 	Was the HIB conclusion

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15704-25
2
supported, even though T.B.’s conduct was less severe than that of others? 	Yes. 	A
single incident can be an HIB violation, and a Board of Education’s decision will stand
unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On 	August 	18, 	2025, 	M.B. 	and 	B.B. 	filed 	a 	Petition 	of 	Appeal 	with 	the
Commissioner of Education on behalf of their minor son, T.B., challenging the Cranford
Board of Education’s HIB determination against him. See Exhibit J-1, Petition of Appeal
dated August 18, 2025. 	The petitioners assert that the Board’s decision does not meet
the criteria for an HIB incident and is therefore arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.
They request that the Board’s decision be overturned and the HIB finding removed from
T.B.’s record. Alternatively, they seek T.B.’s conduct to be changed to a violation of the
Student Code of Conduct.
On September 8, 2025, the Board answered the petition, denying the petitioners’
allegations and maintaining that it followed all required procedures and that its decision
met the HIB criteria. 	The Board requests that this tribunal dismiss the petition. 	See
Exhibit J-2, Board’s Answer dated September 8, 2025.
The Department of Education (DOE) transmitted this case to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) as a contested case under the Administrative Procedure Act,
N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, and the Act establishing the OAL, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23, for
a hearing under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6.
On September 9, 2025, the OAL received and filed the transmittal.
The parties engaged in discovery and agreed that no disputed material facts exist.
On April 15, 2026, the Board filed a motion for a summary decision with a joint stipulation
of facts and exhibits prepared by the parties. On April 16, 2026, the Board also submitted
the certification of the Anti-Bullying Specialist (ABS), Alyssa Willner.
On April 30, 2026, the petitioners filed their response to the motion.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15704-25
3
On May 15, 2026, the Board submitted its reply and counsel’s certification, and I
closed the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The parties presented a joint stipulation of facts and exhibits. 	Some stipulations
address the procedural history of this case, and I included them under that section of this
decision. Based upon the parties’ submission, I FIND the following as FACT:
1. On March 13, 2025, an HIB report was made by Principal Lourdes Murphy, and the
investigation was initiated by ABS Alyssa Willner. 	See Exhibit J-3, HIBster Report
dated March 13, 2025.
2. On March 13, 2025, the victim, a black sixth-grade special-needs student, complained
that a group of students made him uncomfortable before school and during recess.
Ibid.
3. The victim and the three alleged offenders were waiting for the doors to open before
school. Id. at 4. The alleged offenders approached the victim and began playing tag
with him. 	Ibid. 	The victim did not want to play with them, but they kept trying to tag
him. Ibid. Offender Two touched the victim’s shoulder to tag him, and the victim was
“bothered” by all three of them. Ibid.
4. The victim went and hid behind the basketball hoop to avoid the offenders and wait for
the door to open for school. Ibid. He also complained that all three alleged offenders
bother him in the hallway, and he is constantly asking them to stop. Ibid.
5. The victim was interviewed on March 17, 2025. Id. at 7–8. He stated that he was not
allowed to play tag with the three offenders, and they were trying to tag him. 	Ibid.
They would ask him in recess and in the hallway, “Can I play with you?” and he would
respond, “No thank you.” Ibid. One of the boys touched his shoulder, and it bothered
him. 	Ibid. 	He complained to his teacher about it, and he explained that he was

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15704-25
4
“[u]nhappy because they kept playing and tagging me but then I wanted to stop playing
with them. I will never be able to do this.” Id. at 8.
6. On March 17, 2025, Offender Two (sixth-grade white male) was interviewed by the
ABS. 	Id. at 12–14. 	On the day of the incident, Offender Two was trying to play tag
with the victim, and the victim told him to stop, so he stopped. Id. at 12–13. The victim
then walked away and went inside the building. 	Ibid. 	He also stated that Offender
One has mocked the victim in Spanish class. Id. at 14. Offender Two denied joining
in and stated that Offender One was a bully in general. Ibid. Offender Two had tried
to get Offender One to stop. Ibid.
7. On March 17, 2025, T.B. (sixth-grade male) was interviewed and reported that
Offender One was teasing the victim on the way to lunch in the hallway. Id. at 15–17.
Offender One asked the victim, “how’s it going?” in a mocking manner because the
victim always says, “yeah, it’s going good, right?” and Offender One replied, “yes.” Id.
at 15. 	T.B. stated that Offender One asked the victim this question to mock him
because the victim always replies the same. Ibid. T.B. stated that he knew Offender
One’s conduct was wrong. Id. at 16. T.B. also said that the victim gets mad at recess
when people try to play tag with him. Ibid. He did not report this incident to a teacher.
Id. at 17.
8. On March 18, 2025, Offender One (sixth-grade white male) was interviewed and
stated that he saw T.B. go up to the victim and say “hi” in the same voice. Id. at 9–11.
Offender One said he was not sure if it bothered the victim because he knew that the
victim has special needs. Ibid.
9. Offender One also stated in his interview that on the day of the incident, he tried to get
the victim to play tag with the boys, Offender Two tapped him on the shoulders, and
the victim said he did not want to play. Ibid. Then the victim walked away from them.
Offender One also said there was a separate incident in Spanish where the victim was
upset with Offender One for chewing on his own sweatshirt while they were talking.
Id. at 11. He said he stopped once he realized it bothered the victim. Ibid. Offender

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15704-25
5
One denied any ill intent in his interactions with the victim because the victim has
special needs. Ibid.
10.On March 17, 2025, Student Witness One was interviewed and stated that he saw
Offender One, Offender Two, and Student Witness Two trying to talk to the victim, and
one boy touched the victim’s shoulder. Id. at 22–23. 	The victim asked them to stop
and they didn’t, and then the victim ran away from them. Ibid. They also made fun of
the way he talks. The victim has autism and speaks differently. Ibid.
11.On March 18, 2025, Student Witness Two was interviewed and stated that the victim
is special, and people tend to make fun of him. 	Id. at 24–25. 	Student Witness Two
admitted to touching his shoulder to play tag with him but did not mean to harass him.
Ibid. 	He said that Offender One had bullied the victim. Ibid. 	He said that the victim
has autism and his mom posted on Facebook that three boys bullied him in school.
Id. at 24.
12.On March 18, 2025, Student Witness Three was interviewed and reported that the
victim has autism, and he saw a few of his friends asking the victim stupid questions.
Id. at 26–27. He also saw Offender One, Offender Two, and T.B. ask the victim, “Are
you my best friend?” in school. Id. at 26. He knew the victim was annoyed because
he kept asking them to stop. Id. at 27.
13.On March 18, 2025, Student Witness Four was interviewed and stated that the victim
was being teased by Offender Two, Offender One, and Student Witness Three. Id. at
28. 	She said that at one point, the victim hid behind a tree because he was scared.
Ibid. She also said that after Spanish class, the victim told them to stop multiple times
in a day, and he told Offender One to go away, and Offender One pretended to cry.
Ibid.
14.On March 24, 2025, Student Witness Five was interviewed and stated that Offender
One was mean to the victim and the other boys follow. Id. at 18–19. She stated that
the victim does not understand that they are mean and is “confused.” Id. at 18. If the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15704-25
6
boys are playing tag, the victim will hide behind a tree to avoid them. Ibid. She also
said that Offender One mimics the way victim speaks and is not nice to him. Student
Witness Five stated that Offender Two and T.B. are part of Offender One’s crew. Id.
at 19.
15.On March 24, 2025, Student Witness Six was interviewed and stated that Offender
One, Student Witness Three, and T.B. go up to the victim sometimes and ask him
questions that make the victim uncomfortable. Id. at 20–21. She also said the boys
bother him outside, and the victim asks them to stop and runs away from them. Ibid.
16.On March 24, 2025, Teacher Witness One stated that the victim had an issue when
others chew on their sweatshirt, and the students purposefully chew their sweatshirts
to upset the victim. Id. at 29. She stated that T.B. chewed on his pencil and believed
it was intended to upset the victim. Ibid. The boys are constantly saying hello to the
victim and giving him high fives knowing that he cannot help but reply to them. Ibid.
Student Witness Two and Offender One have mocked the victim’s speech and voice.
Ibid. 	She also stated that students “look to [Offender One]” in Spanish class,
identifying Offender One as the leader whom “other boys start following.” Ibid.
17.On March 19, 2025, Teacher Witness Two stated that Offender Two, T.B., and
Offender One are aware that Teacher Witness One is “around and they usually stop.”
Id. at 30. The issues typically happen while the students are transitioning to another
class. 	Ibid. 	She is unaware of the other allegations of mocking and stated that she
did “not observe anything blatantly disrespectful" regarding all the students’ conduct
in class. Ibid.
18.Upon completion of the HIB investigation, an HIB violation was found against Offender
One, Offender Two, and T.B. 	Id. at 2–3. 	The ABS determined that their actions
“substantially disrupted or interfered with orderly operation of school or rights of other
students,” and the offenders knew that their actions would physically or emotionally
cause harm. 	Ibid. 	She also concluded that the victim was in fear of physical or
emotional harm and that the offenders insulted or demeaned him and created a hostile

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15704-25
7
educational environment. Ibid. T.B. was directed to attend counseling check-ins and
serve a lunch detention with the guidance counselor. 	Ibid. 	The investigator also
determined that a fourth alleged offender was mentioned; however, there was not
enough corroborating evidence by other witnesses. Id. at 5.
19.On March 30, 2025, the Superintendent, Dr. Rubin, reviewed the HIB findings. Id. at
4–6. He subsequently submitted them to the Board on April 28, 2025.
20.On April 28, 2025, the Board received information regarding the investigation of a HIB
incident involving T.B. and was advised that the Superintendent recommended
sustaining 	the 	HIB 	findings 	based 	on 	the 	investigation. 	See 	Exhibit 	J-4,
correspondence from Dr. Rubin to petitioners dated April 30, 2025.
21.On April 30, 2025, the Superintendent sent correspondence to the petitioner regarding
the HIB finding and his appeal rights. Ibid.
22.On May 8, 2025, the petitioners submitted a written request for information regarding
the HIB investigation and requested that a hearing be scheduled with the Board. See
Exhibit J-5, email exchange between M.B. and Dr. Rubin dated May 8–12, 2025.
23.During 	the 	Board 	meeting 	of 	May 	12, 	2025, 	the 	Board 	voted 	to 	affirm 	the
Superintendent’s recommendation and substantiated HIB in this matter.
24.On 	May 	12, 	2025, 	the 	petitioners 	requested 	via 	email 	to 	appeal 	their 	Board
determination. See Exhibit J-5.
25.On or about May 15, 2025, M.B. forwarded a packet for the Board to review in support
of his appeal, which was reviewed by the Board. See Exhibit J-6, email from M.B. to
Dr. Rubin dated May 15, 2025.
26.On May 19, 2025, the petitioner appeared before the Board and various administrators
in a closed session to appeal the HIB finding.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15704-25
8
27.On May 22, 2025, the Board served the petitioner with a correspondence advising the
petitioner that his appeal was denied. 	See Exhibit J-7, correspondence from Robert
Carfagno to the petitioners dated May 21 and 22, 2025.
28.District Policy 5512 sets forth the HIB Policy for the school district. 	See Exhibit J-8,
Policy #5512.
29.District Policy 5600 sets forth the District’s Student Discipline/Code of Conduct for the
school district. See Exhibit J-9, Policy #5600.
30.The Orange Avenue School provided its students and families with a Handbook each
school year. See Exhibit J-10, Student Handbook.
31.In response to petitioners’ discovery request for T.B.’s remediation records, the Board
responded: “There are none.” See Board’s Discovery Response dated December 23,
2025.
Subsequently, the Board supplied documentation supporting that T.B. completed
the required check-ins and remediation lessons.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Summary Decision Standard
A party may move for summary decision upon any or all substantive issues in a
contested case. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a). The motion for summary decision shall be served
with briefs and may be served with supporting affidavits. 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). 	“The
decision sought may be rendered if the papers and discovery which have been filed,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.”
N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15704-25
9
An issue is “genuine” if, considering the burden of persuasion at trial, the evidence
submitted on the motion and all legitimate inferences could sustain a decision in favor of
the non-moving party. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 530 (1995). A
fact is “material” if it will “affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.”
Anderson 	v. 	Liberty 	Lobby, 	Inc., 	477 	U.S. 	242, 248 	(1986). 	Significantly, 	“bare
conclusions in the pleadings, without factual support in tendered affidavits, will not defeat
a meritor[i]ous application for summary judgment.” U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Am. Arb.
Ass’n, 67 N.J. Super. 384, 399−400 (App. Div. 1961) (citations omitted); see R. 4:46-5(a)
(non-movants “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials” to create a genuine
issue of material fact.).
When a party moves for summary decision, supported by affidavit, the burden
shifts to the adverse party to identify specific facts showing there is a genuine issue
resolvable only by an evidentiary proceeding. 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). 	Given this burden
shift, a party opposing the motion “who offers no substantial or material facts in opposition
to the motion cannot complain if the court takes as true the uncontradicted facts in the
movant’s papers.” 	Burlington Cnty. Welfare Bd. v. Stanley, 214 N.J. Super. 615, 622
(App. Div. 1987). An opponent’s failure to make such a showing entitles the moving party
to summary judgment. 	Brill, 142 N.J. at 529. 	The Brill Court advised that such a
liberalized standard allows for summary judgment in more cases in “a time of great
increase in litigation and one in which many meritless cases are filed.” Id. at 539 (citation
omitted.)
Here, the petitioners stipulated the material facts at issue but now suggest that
certain facts cannot be resolved through this motion. To be sure, petitioners point to the
stipulated facts, largely the witnesses’ and victim’s statements, to minimize T.B.’s
conduct. Undeniably, the HIB report does not attribute all improper conduct to T.B., and
not all eight witnesses address conduct by T.B. 	Further, multiple witnesses identify
Offender One as the ringleader of the group of boys that were unkind to the victim. Thus,
petitioners argue that Offender One’s reported accusation may be biased, and the
credibility of that accusation is an issue that cannot be resolved through this motion.
However, that argument goes to the weight of evidence supporting the Board’s HIB

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15704-25
10
determination regarding T.B., which this decision can address. 	To be sure, Offender
One’s accusation is not the only conduct attributed to T.B. In other words, I can afford a
legitimate inference to the petitioners’ assertion that Offender One’s accusation was
biased for purposes of this motion.
The petitioners generally claim that T.B.’s limited conduct, as compared to others,
lacked the statutory motive and the severity required for an HIB designation. Yet, under
the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (ABRA), a single act can be an HIB violation, and they
acknowledge some actions by T.B. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14(a). 	Indeed, the question is
whether T.B.’s conduct constitutes an HIB violation and whether the Board’s conclusion
that 	he 	committed 	an 	HIB 	violation 	was 	arbitrary, 	capricious, 	or 	unreasonable.
Significantly, the petitioners acknowledged that T.B. played tag with the victim, said hello
to the victim, asked the victim questions, and chewed on a pencil in front of the victim.
See petitioners’ opposition at 3.
Petitioners also argue that whether T.B.’s conduct was intentional requires a
hearing to resolve. However, whether T.B.’s conduct was intentional does not require a
hearing because unintentional actions may be an HIB violation. Wehbeh v. Bd. of Educ.
of Verona, Comm’r Decision No. 51-20, 2020 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 50 (Feb. 4, 2020). 	In
other words, petitioners present legal arguments to challenge the Board’s conclusion that
T.B.’s individual acknowledged conduct was sufficient to support HIB determination.
Thus, I CONCLUDE that no genuine issue of any material fact exists that requires a
hearing in this case, and summary decision is appropriate.
HIB
The Legislature designed the ABRA, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 to -37, “to strengthen the
standards and procedures for preventing, reporting, investigating, and responding to
incidents of harassment, intimidation, and bullying of students that occur in school and off
school premises.” N.J.S.A.18A:37-13.1(f). Each school district must adopt a policy that
prohibits HIB and provides “a procedure for prompt investigation of reports of violations
and complaints.” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6). Every student is bound by the District’s HIB

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15704-25
11
policy, and the District is required to investigate HIB complaints and enforce its HIB
policies, as it did here. Ibid.
Student confidentiality laws preclude the District and Board from sharing another
student’s confidential information, including their name, when conducting investigations
under the ABRA. 	See, e.g., New Jersey Pupil Records Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:36-19
(operating in conjunction with the Family and Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20
U.S.C. § 1232g, to safeguard pupil records.). Accordingly, the report addresses offenders
and witnesses, by number, who were involved in the conduct for which the victim
complained or observed such actions. 	Although petitioners question why another
offender’s conduct did not meet the statutory HIB criteria, the Board cannot share such a
determination.
When a local board of education acts within its discretionary authority, its decision
is entitled to a presumption of correctness that will not be disturbed unless there is an
affirmative showing that the decision was “patently arbitrary, without rational basis or
induced by improper motives.” 	Kopera v. W. Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288,
294 (App. Div. 1960). In other words, the burden is a heavy one.
Indeed, the Commissioner recognizes that Boards should have “the discretion to
operate their schools in a manner that best serves their unique communities,” and the
Commissioner will not interfere with that discretion concerning HIB matters unless the
Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably. G.H. & E.H. ex rel. K.H. v. Franklin
Lakes Bd. of Educ., 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 19, *20 n.4 (Feb. 24, 2014), adopted, Comm’r
(Apr. 10, 2014). Further, “[w]here there is room for two opinions, action is not arbitrary or
capricious 	when 	exercised 	honestly 	and 	upon 	due 	consideration[,]” 	and 	the
Commissioner will not substitute his judgment for that of the Board. Bayshore Sewerage
Co. v. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199 (Ch. Div. 1973), aff’d, 131 N.J. Super.
37 (App. Div. 1974).
Still, 	the 	Board’s 	factual 	determinations 	require 	such 	deference 	only 	when
supported by substantial credible evidence, i.e., having a rational basis. 	Quinlan v. Bd.
of Educ. of North Bergen Twp., 73 N.J. Super. 40 (App. Div. 1962); Schinck v. Bd. of
Educ. of Westwood Consol. Sch. Dist., 60 N.J. Super. 448 (App. Div. 1960). Additionally,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15704-25
12
the reviewing tribunal may reject the findings of fact if the evidentiary record does not
support them. 	In re Suspension of License of Silberman, 169 N.J. Super. 243, 255–56
(App. Div. 1979), aff’d, 84 N.J. 303 (1980).
Under the ABRA, “harassment, intimidation or bullying” (HIB) is defined 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.]
Thus, a HIB finding requires demonstrating three elements, assuming the alleged
incident or incidents occurs on school property, at a school-sponsored function, on a
school bus, or off school grounds as provided for in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15.3. 	Undeniably,
the incidents took place on school grounds and are subject to HIB statutory directives.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15704-25
13
The first HIB element requires that the conduct be reasonably perceived as
motivated by any actual or perceived enumerated characteristic or other distinguishing
characteristic. Secondly, the conduct must also substantially disrupt or interfere with the
rights of other students or the orderly operation of the school. The third condition is that
one of the three criteria enumerated in the ABRA regarding the effect of the conduct must
also be satisfied. Wehbeh v. Bd. of Educ. of Verona, Comm’r Decision No. 51-20, 2020
N.J. AGEN LEXIS 50 (Feb. 4, 2020).
Here, the stipulated facts, including various statements obtained during the
investigation, identify Offender One as the ringleader of a group of boys that interacted
with the victim, a student known to have a disability, during recess and in transitioning to
other areas of the school. Undeniably, these statements support that Offender One had
more interaction with the victim that upset him. 	Still, T.B. was part of the group with
Offender One. 	During his interview, T.B. acknowledged that Offender One teased the
victim on the way to lunch in the hallway by asking the victim, “How’s it going?” in a
mocking manner because the victim always says, “Yeah, it’s going good, right?” 	J-3 at
15. 	T.B. acknowledged that Offender One asked the victim this question to mock him
because the victim always replies the same, and that he knew Offender One’s conduct
was wrong. Id. at 16. T.B. also said that the victim gets mad at recess when people try
to play tag with him. 	Ibid. 	However, the victim, student witnesses three, five, and six,
and teacher witness one, all identify T.B. as acting in a mocking way that T.B.
acknowledges was wrong on the part of Offender One and in a way that upset the victim.
In other words, I need not consider Offender One’s accusation to find support that T.B.
also mocked the victim or tried to get the victim to play tag when he knew such actions
upset the victim. 	To be sure, T.B. need not admit to committing an HIB violation to
determine that an HIB violation occurred.
For the first HIB element, the statute requires an analysis of the victim’s perception
of the actor’s motivation and whether that perception is reasonable. Yet, an analysis of
the actual motivation of the actor is not required. Wehbeh, at *8. Here, I CONCLUDE it
was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable for the Board to conclude that the victim,
who has a known disability, could reasonably perceive that T.B.’s actions, which included
pencil chewing, asking the victim whether T.B. was his best friend, and attempting to play

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15704-25
14
tag with the victim, were motivated by his disability. Indeed, a reasonable person would
perceive that T.B.’s conduct, limited as it may be compared to the other students involved,
was motivated by the victim’s disability.
The second element requires that the incident created a “substantial interruption
in the ordinary operation of the school or in the disruption of the victim’s education or the
rights of other students.” Wehbeh, at *8.
In D.D.K. ex rel. D.K v. Board of Education of the Township of Readington,
Hunterdon County, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 835 (October 6, 2016), adopted, 2016 N.J.
AGEN LEXIS 1348 (November 11, 2016), the Commissioner discussed those situations
where the Board’s HIB determination satisfied the second prong, explaining that:
[C]onduct has been determined to substantially disrupt the
orderly operation of the school when students are so upset or
embarrassed that they are “not fully available for learning.”
G.H. and E.H. on behalf of K.H. v. Board of Education of the
Borough of Franklin Lakes, Bergen County, OAL Dkt. No.
EDU 	13204-13, 	decided 	February 	24, 	2014, 	adopted
Commissioner 	Decision 	No. 	157-14, 	April 	10, 	2014.
Additionally, 	when 	other 	students 	are 	“so 	affected” 	by
behavior that they report it, the orderly operation of the school
may be substantially disrupted. 	T.R. and T.R. on behalf of
E.R. v. Bridgewater-Raritan Regional Board of Education,
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 10208-13, decided September 25, 2014,
adopted Commissioner Decision No. 450-14, November 10,
2014.
[D.D.K., 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1348, at *6.]
The events reported by the victim spanned over a two-week period and involved
multiple students. 	On March 13, 2025, the victim and the three alleged offenders,
including T.B., were waiting for the doors to open before school. The alleged offenders
approached the victim and began playing tag with him, even though he told them to stop.
The victim hid behind a basketball hoop to get away from them. 	The principal reported
this event, which led to the HIB investigation that revealed more inappropriate conduct.
Multiple witnesses and the victim reported that T.B. and the other offenders often asked
the victim questions that distressed him, and the victim asked them to stop, but the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15704-25
15
behavior continued. T.B. also mockingly chewed a pencil in front of the victim. Indeed,
several events involving T.B. upset the victim, and multiple individuals witnessed these
incidents. 	Thus, the victim was not fully available for his education on more than one
occasion. Thus, I CONCLUDE that these events, even though T.B. did not participate in
all inappropriate conduct, caused a substantial disruption in the school’s operation. T.B.
did not commit one inappropriate act, but several. Therefore, I also CONCLUDE that the
Board satisfies the second requirement necessary to conclude that T.B. committed an
HIB violation.
The third element under N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14 requires a conclusion that the HIB act
is one that “a reasonable person should know, under the circumstances, will have the
effect of physically or emotionally harming a student,” “has the effect of insulting or
demeaning any student,” or “creates a hostile educational environment.” In Wehbeh, the
Commissioner highlighted that “[n]one of these criteria require the actor to have actual
knowledge of the effect that their actions will have, or to specifically intend to bring about
that effect.” 	Id. at *8. 	Further, any one of the three criteria satisfies the third element.
Here, the Board found that T.B.’s actions made the victim fearful and avoidant. 	T.B.
acknowledged that behavior like his own caused the victim to be upset. 	Indeed, a
reasonable person would know their conduct in these circumstances was causing the
victim distress. 	Hence, I CONCLUDE the Board was not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable in reaching that conclusion, meeting the third prong of the analysis.
Here, the petitioners presented no credible evidence that the Board acted
arbitrarily or that its decision did not have a rational basis. 	M.B. and B.B. assert that a
comparison of conduct is necessary to sustain an HIB finding, given Offender One’s more
egregious conduct. However, a single event that meets the elements of an HIB violation
remains an HIB violation. More than one witness observed inappropriate conduct by T.B.
as the victim reported. Thus, I CONCLUDE that the Board’s decision that T.B. committed
an HIB violation was appropriate, had a rational basis, and had sufficient evidentiary
support.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15704-25
16
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that the petitioners’
appeal be and is hereby DISMISSED.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify, or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATTN: 	BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES AND
DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-
0500, marked “Attention: 	Exceptions.” 	A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the
judge and to the other parties.
June 15, 2026
DATE 	NANCI G. STOKES, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	June 15, 2026
Date Mailed to Parties: 	June 15, 2026
ljb

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15704-25
17
APPENDIX
Submissions Considered
Joint
Joint stipulation of facts
Joint Exhibits
J-1 	Petitioners 	appeal 	dated 	August 	8, 	2025, 	HIB 	Packet, 	Meeting 	Minutes,
Statements, etc
J-2 	Respondent’s Answer to pro se petition of appeal with affirmative defenses
J-3 	Hibster Report 2024-2025-24, Incident and Transcript of Statements
J-4 	Letter to parents of T.B. dated April 30, 2025
J-5 	Email chain re: FERPA Records & hearing Request between M.B. and Dr. Scott
Rubin, dated May 12, 2025
J-6 	Email chain re: FERPA Records & hearing Request between Dr. Scott Rubin and
M.B., dated May 16, 2025
J-7 	Letter to parents of T.B. dated May 12, 2025 re: April 28, 2025 Board Meeting and
letter dated May 22, 2025, re: District Report 2024-2025-24
J-8 	District Policy on Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying, created June 2023, edited
March 2025
J-9 	District Policy of Student discipline/Code of Conduct
J-10 	Orange Avenue Student/Family handbook 2023-2024
For Petitioner
Petition
Opposition brief dated April 30, 2026
For Respondent
Board’s Discovery Response dated December 23, 2025.
Motion, brief, and supporting certification with exhibits
Reply brief dated May 15, 2026