C.P., on behalf of minor child, L.P. V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OFWARREN, SOMERSET COUNTY, 2/16/18, (#56-18)

56-18 (OAL Decision: http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/html/initial/edu13907-16_1.html)
C.P., ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD, L.P., 	:
PETITIONER, 	:
V. 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP 	: 	DECISION
OF WARREN, SOMERSET COUNTY,
:
RESPONDENT.
:
SYNOPSIS
Pro se petitioner challenged the determination of the respondent Board that L.P. was not the victim of
harassment, intimidation or bullying (HIB) under the provisions of the New Jersey Anti-Bullying Bill of
Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq. (the Act). 	C.P., the father of L.P. – an eighth grade student in
respondent’s school district – alleged that his daughter had been subjected to harassment, intimidation, or
bullying by two District staff members in the spring of 2016. Petitioner sought reversal of the Board’s
decision finding no HIB, and a determination that L.P. was the victim of bullying behavior by staff
members based on a distinguishing characteristic, specifically L.P.’s Individualized Education Program
(IEP). 	The Board asserted that the required HIB investigation was timely conducted, and the results
supported the conclusion that no HIB occurred in this case.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: the Act applies to any gesture, or any written, verbal or physical act, or
any electronic communication that is reasonably perceived as being motivated either by an actual or
perceived characteristic, such as, inter alia: race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual
orientation, or a mental, physical or sensory disability, or any other distinguishing characteristic; 	the
District’s HIB policy mirrors the New Jersey law, and sets forth a detailed process by which complaints
are investigated to determine whether an action meets the definition of HIB as set forth in the policy and
Act; in the instant case, petitioner alleged that the HIB investigation was flawed, and asserted that the
Board failed to interview witnesses and properly investigate two incidents of harassment and demeaning
conduct against L.P.; 	the Board contended, inter alia, that incidents of HIB must be motivated by a
distinguishing characteristic and substantially disrupt or interfere with the orderly operation of the school
or the rights of students; further, the Board asserted that its determination that no HIB occurred in the
instant case was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. The ALJ concluded that the petitioner
presented no credible evidence that the actions of the District staff members constituted HIB, nor that the
Board acted in an arbitrary manner. Accordingly, the ALJ ordered the petition dismissed.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusions, and adopted the
Initial Decision as the final decision in this matter. The petition was dismissed.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It
has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.
February 16, 2018

1
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13907-16
AGENCY DKT. NO. 210-8/16
C.P., ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD, L.P., 	:
PETITIONER, 	:
V. 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP 	: 	DECISION
OF WARREN, SOMERSET COUNTY,
:
RESPONDENT.
:
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) have been reviewed.1 The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon a comprehensive review of the record, the Commissioner agrees with the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that the Board did not act in an arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable 	manner 	in 	rendering 	its 	Harassment, 	Intimidation 	and 	Bullying 	(HIB)
determinations, pursuant to the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq. The
Commissioner is in accord with the ALJ that the Board investigated the two HIB complaints in a
timely manner and in accordance with the statutory timelines. The HIB complaints were filed on
April 11 and 15, 2016, and the investigations into these complaints were completed on
April 25, 2016 – or within ten school days, as set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(a). Petitioner
has failed to demonstrate that any communications he had with the Board prior to April 11, 2016
constituted a HIB complaint.
1 The Commissioner was not provided with a transcript of the September 25, 2017 hearing at the OAL.

2
This Commissioner also agrees with the ALJ that the alleged actions by the
teacher and guidance counselor were not motivated by any actual or perceived distinguishing
characteristic of L.P. Although petitioner alleges that L.P.’s distinguishing characteristic is that
she has an Individualized Education Program (IEP), there is no evidence to suggest that the
alleged actions were in any way motivated by that distinguishing characteristic, as required by
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in
this matter, and the petition is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	February 16, 2018
Date of Mailing: 	February 20, 2018
2 This decision may be appealed to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36
(N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1).