Valerie Mattes V. Board of Education of the Township of Washington, Warren County, 2/28/19, (#52-19)

52-19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Valerie Mattes,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Washington, Warren County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner – an administrator formerly employed by the respondent Washington Township Board of
Education – alleged that the Board wrongfully denied her request for payment for unused sick leave upon her
retirement. The Board contended that petitioner did not retire, but rather resigned and pursued employment
elsewhere; accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to the payment she sought.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	although it is well established that contractual claims generally do not
require an interpretation of the school laws and fall outside of the Commissioner’s jurisdiction, the
Commissioner does have jurisdiction here, as petitioner’s appeal must be examined within the procedural
context of this matter; Mattes filed an application for Deferred Retirement Benefits with the Division of
Pensions and Benefits, with a deferred retirement date of March 1, 2018; in May 2015, petitioner notified the
Board of her retirement, effective June 30, 2015; the Board treated her separation as a resignation, advising
her that she was ineligible for payment of accrued sick leave; petitioner appealed in Superior Court in 2016;
the Board argued both that petitioner was not entitled to the sick leave payment and, alternatively, that
jurisdiction properly lay with the Commissioner; Superior Court dismissed this first appeal and directed that
the matter be transferred to the Commissioner; Mattes appealed to the Commissioner in 2017; the ALJ
dismissed this appeal as untimely, but found that sick leave entitlement could not be enforced until after the
March 2018 deferred retirement date; the instant appeal was filed when the Board again declined to make the
sick leave payment after petitioner’s deferred retirement date in March 2018. The ALJ concluded that:
Mattes relied on past proceedings in filing the within petition; it would be inequitable to dismiss and send her
back to a forum that earlier declined jurisdiction; the Commissioner has subject matter jurisdiction here, as
the dispute requires analysis of the parties’ rights and obligations both under contract and school laws;
petitioner’s separation from employment constituted retirement because it is the last place Mattes worked as
a TPAF member; petitioner is entitled to the sick leave payment promised in her contract because
N.J.S.A. 18A:66-113 allows for deferred retirement, her application for which was indisputably approved by
the Board of Trustees of TPAF; and the petitioner’s appeal was timely, as her cause of action was triggered
by her retirement date of March 1, 2018. Accordingly, the ALJ ordered the Board to pay petitioner $15,000
for unused sick leave days, per her contract with the District.
The Commissioner concurred with the findings and determination of the ALJ herein; accordingly, the
Initial Decision of the OAL was adopted as the final decision in this matter.
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 27, 2019

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 06936-18
Agency Dkt. No. 97-4/18
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Valerie Mattes,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Washington, Warren County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
have been reviewed. 	Respondent’s exceptions have also been reviewed and considered by the
Commissioner.1
Upon such review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ’s determination – for the
reasons thoroughly set forth in the Initial Decision – that petitioner is entitled to payment of $15,000 as
compensation for her accrued, unused sick leave. Accordingly, the Initial Decision is hereby adopted as
the final decision in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	February 27, 2019
Date of Mailing: 	February 27, 2019
1 The exceptions – while reflecting the Board’s obvious disagreement with the findings and conclusions
contained within the Initial Decision – are unpersuasive, and, substantially recast and reiterate the arguments
made below, which have been exhaustively addressed by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the Initial
Decision.
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).

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06936-18
AGENCY DKT. NO. 97-4/18
VALERIE MATTES,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP
OF WASHINGTON, WARREN COUNTY,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
Sandford R. Oxfeld, Esq., for petitioner (Oxfeld Cohen, attorneys)
Nathanya Simon, Esq., for respondent (Scarinci Hollenbeck, attorneys)
Record Closed: October 31, 2018 	Decided: November 29, 2018
BEFORE ELLEN S. BASS, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Valerie Mattes, an Administrator formerly employed by the Washington Township
Board of Education (the Board), alleges that the Board wrongfully denied her request for
payment for unused sick leave upon her retirement. The Board replies that she did not
retire, but rather resigned and pursued employment elsewhere; accordingly, Mattes has
no entitlement to the payment she seeks.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06936-18
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The 	petition of 	appeal 	was 	filed 	with 	the Commissioner 	of 	Education 	(the
Commissioner) on April 19, 2018. 	The Board filed an answer on May 10, 2018. 	The
contested case was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on May 11,
2018.
The parties agreed that this case presented a purely legal question; accordingly,
they filed a comprehensive Joint Stipulation of Fact on October 25, 2018. 	I received a
brief from the Board on October 22, 2018, and from Mattes on October 26, 2018. 	The
Board filed a reply brief on October 30, 2018. 	Mattes filed a reply brief on October 31,
2018, at which time the record closed.
This appeal comes in the aftermath of an earlier petition, filed in or about January
2017, through which Mattes sought the identical relief. 	The earlier petition was
dismissed 	as 	untimely, 	although 	both 	the 	Administrative 	Law 	Judge 	and 	the
Commissioner left open to Mattes the opportunity to refile her claims, as will be more
fully explained below.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The parties stipulated to the salient facts and I FIND as follows:
Mattes’ First Request for Sick Leave Payment
Mattes was employed by the Board as a “Principal/Child Study Team Director,”
pursuant to a contract dated February 27, 2015. 	That contract had a term of one year,
from July 1, 2014 until June 30, 2015. Article 3, Clause B read as follows:
The 	Principal/Child 	Study 	Team 	Director 	shall 	be
allowed twelve (12) days sick leave per year for the
term on [sic] this Contract. 	Unused sick leave days

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06936-18
3
shall be cumulative in accordance with the provisions
of Title 18A. Upon retirement from the Washington
Township School District, 30 days of unused sick
days will be reimbursed, at the rate of $500 per day.
Reimbursement for sick days shall be consistent with
the law in effect at the time this Contract is signed.
Such 	payment 	shall 	not 	exceed 	$15,000.
Accumulated unused sick leave compensation shall
not 	be 	paid 	to 	the 	Principal/Child 	study 	Team
Director’s estate or beneficiaries in the event of death
prior to retirement.
This sick leave clause was not included in a prior contract between Mattes and
the Board. On February 15, 2013, prior to executing this contract, Mattes had submitted
an 	application 	for 	Deferred 	Retirement 	Benefits 	to 	the 	Division 	of 	Pensions 	and
Benefits, with a deferred retirement date of March 1, 2018.
By letter dated May 26, 2015, Mattes submitted “a notification of retirement from
[the] Washington Township School District” to Superintendent of Schools Keith Neuhs,
effective June 30, 2015. 	The Board formally accepted her “resignation” on June 8,
2015. 	On June 12, 2015, Mattes entered into an employment contract with the Five
Town Community School District in Camden, Maine, for a position as Director of Special
Education for a one-year term, from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016. 	Mattes
continues to be so employed, to date.
Prior to June 29, 2015, Neuhs advised Mattes via text message that the Board
did not consider her resignation to be a retirement; he advised via text message on July
8, 2015, that the Board would not be releasing the payment for unused sick leave
described in her contract. 	Mattes asked that he so advise her formally, and in writing.
Via letter dated July 15, 2015, Board President Karen Graf explained that the sick leave
provision was intended “strictly to entice [Mattes] to stay in the district until she reached
age sixty,” or until she had accrued twenty-five years of pensionable public service.
Since Mattes had resigned outside these parameters, Graf explained that she was not
entitled to the payment she sought. 	Indeed, Graf pointed out that although Mattes was

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06936-18
4
leaving the State, she could return to New Jersey, and re-enroll in the pension system
at any time.
By letter dated July 17, 2015, Neuhs again formally denied Mattes’ request for
the sick leave payment described in her contract.
The First Litigation
On or about April 5, 2016, Mattes filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Warren County. 	She sought payment for unused sick leave in the amount of
$15,000, contending that she had retired within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 18A: 66-36. In
an answer filed on May 13, 2016, the Board raised several defenses, to include lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. 	Via a Motion for Summary Decision filed on July 15, 2016,
the Board urged both that Mattes was unentitled to the payment she sought, and
alternatively, that jurisdiction properly lay with the Commissioner of Education. 	Via
Order dated August 26, 2016, the Superior Court dismissed Mattes’ complaint without
prejudice, and directed that the matter by transferred to the Commissioner. 	Mattes
unsuccessfully filed a Motion for Reconsideration on September 2, 2016. 	She filed a
petition before the Commissioner on or about January 25, 2017.
Mattes’ January 25, 2017, petition was dismissed by the Honorable Lisa James-
Beavers, A.L.J., as untimely under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3 (i). 	(Docket Number EDU 02729-
17). 	Judge James-Beavers expressly noted in her June 19, 2017, opinion that the
petition had been filed more than ninety days after Mattes had received notice of Board
action. But, she also held that since the right to payment for unused sick leave does not
arise until retirement, and Mattes had filed for a Deferred Retirement date of March 1,
2018, “any right she had to payment for unused sick time cannot be enforced until then.”
Judge James-Beaves went on to say that “[i]f petitioner does not receive payment for
unused sick leave upon her official retirement date, as recorded by the TPAF, she
should be permitted to again file a petition with the Commissioner to enforce the terms
of her contract.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06936-18
5
A final decision was issued by the Commissioner on September 12, 2017. While
agreeing that the challenge to the Board’s July 17, 2015, denial of sick leave benefits
was untimely filed, the Commissioner likewise agreed that “[a]ny disputes that may arise
between the parties that are triggered by the petitioner’s Deferred Retirement date of
March 1, 2018, are not yet ripe for . . . review.”
This Petition of Appeal
On October 5, 2017, the Board of Trustees of the Teachers’ Pension and Annuity
Fund approved Mattes’ application for Deferred Retirement, effective March 1, 2018.
She was again notified that on February 1, 2018, the Board of Trustees approved her
application for Deferred Retirement effective March 1, 2018; apparently Mattes had
changed her option for the type of retirement payments she would receive. 	She
received an Explanation of Retirement Allowances via letter dated March 27, 2018, and
her first pension check was dated April 1, 2018. 	Through counsel, Mattes again asked
for the sick leave payment promised by her contract. 	The Board declined to make that
payment, and the present petition of appeal was filed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Jurisdiction
This case raises thorny questions about jurisdiction; indeed, the transmittal cover
sheet notes “jurisdiction is a threshold matter.” And upon reviewing the file, I too initially
questioned whether this matter arose under the school laws. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9. 	Our
courts have held that where a controversy does not arise under the school laws, it is
outside the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, even if the dispute pertains to school
personnel. 	Bd. of Educ. of East Brunswick Twp. v. Twp. Council of East Brunswick, 48
N.J. 94, 102 (1966). 	It is well established that contractual claims by school employees
do not invoke the Commissioner’s jurisdiction, as such claims do not require an

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06936-18
6
interpretation of the school laws. Picogna v. Board of Education of Cherry Hill, 249 N.J.
Super. 322, 335 (App. Div. 1991). 	Demikoff v. Harrington Park Board of Education, 97
N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 16. 	Mattes relies heavily on the language of her employment
contract in support for her claim to relief.
I nonetheless CONCLUDE that the Commissioner does have jurisdiction to
adjudicate Mattes’ case for the following reasons. Mattes’ petition must be examined in
its overall procedural context. 	Firstly, in its earlier incarnation, this petition was initially
filed with the Superior Court; I might have suggested that was the proper forum. 	But,
the Superior Court judge disagreed, and the Commissioner accepted jurisdiction. At no
time did the prior A.L.J., or the Commissioner herself, suggest that jurisdiction was
improperly laid here. Mattes relied on this procedural history when she filed the petition
now before me. She did not repeat “the mistake” she made the first time; she now filed
directly with the Department of Education. 	It would be inequitable to dismiss her case
and return her back to a forum that earlier declined jurisdiction. Indeed, were I to do so,
Mattes would rightly protest that she surely has a right to be heard somewhere. 	I
CONCLUDE, based on this procedural history, that Mattes’ somewhere is here.
Secondly, the Board has persuasively argued in favor of jurisdiction. 	While
conceding that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction over purely contractual claims, the
Board notes that “incidental interpretation of the contract necessary to resolve the
educational claims is properly done by the Commissioner.” Middletown Bd. of Educ. v.
Witmer, 2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2260 (App. Div., August 17, 2009). 	And
indeed, the contract provision at issue here specifically references Title 18A; providing
that any payment for unused sick days “shall be consistent with the law in effect at the
time this Contract is signed.” The parameters of the Board’s ability to make payment for
unused 	sick 	leave 	is 	governed 	by 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:30-3.5 	and 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:30-3.6.
Apropos to the issue before me, these statutes provide that payment for unused sick
leave is available “only at the time of retirement from a State-administered or locally-
administered retirement system based on the leave credited at the time of retirement.”
This statutory scheme will guide my determination whether Mattes has “retired” within

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06936-18
7
the contemplation of her contract, and my determination whether the relief she seeks is
consistent with law, as likewise required by her contract. I accordingly CONCLUDE that
the Commissioner has subject matter jurisdiction, as this dispute requires an analysis of
the parties’ right and obligations both under contract and under the school laws.
Mattes’ Entitlement to Reimbursement for Unused Sick Leave
Mattes’ contract, and the applicable law, make it plain that Mattes was entitled to
payment for unused sick leave only “at the time of retirement.” 	N.J.S.A. 18A:30-3.5;
N.J.S.A. 18A:30-3.6. 	Her contract specifies an additional condition precedent for such
payment; that is, that her “retirement” be “from the Washington Township School
District.”
It is clear from the earlier decision by Judge James-Beavers, as affirmed by the
Commissioner, that Mattes had not yet “retired” when she left her employment with
Washington Township in 2015. Indeed, Judge James-Beavers held that
…these statutory provisions [N.J.S.A. 18A:30-3.5, N.J.S.A. 18A:30-
3.6] indicate that an individual is typically not entitled to be paid for
unused 	sick 	time 	until 	her 	date 	of 	retirement 	from 	a 	State-
administered or locally-administered retirement system. 	Here it is
undisputed that petitioner’s deferred retirement date is March 1,
2018. Therefore, any right she has to payment for unused sick time
cannot be enforced until then.
[Mattes v. Washington Township Bd. of Educ., EDU 02729-17, Initial
Decision, June 19, 2017]
It is also easy to CONCLUDE that Mattes is now “retired,” as that term is
understood both under her contract and under the school laws. 	The relevant statutes
define 	“retirement” 	as 	“retirement 	from 	a 	State-administered…retirement 	system.”
N.J.S.A. 18A:30-3.5; N.J.S.A. 18A:30-3.6. 	Mattes retired from the TPAF effective
March 1, 2018. 	She did so via the “Deferred Retirement,” mechanism, described by
statute as when “a member of the pension fund who has 10 years of service credit in

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06936-18
8
the pension fund and who separates voluntarily or involuntarily before attaining the age
of 60 years…[elects] to receive a Deferred Retirement Allowance beginning at the age
of 60 years…” N.J.S.A. 18A:66-113. The trickier question is whether Mattes’ retirement
in 	2018 	constituted 	retirement 	“from 	the 	Washington 	Township 	School 	District,”
notwithstanding the fact that she physically left her employment there years earlier.
The Board urges that several concerns militate against granting Mattes the relief
she seeks. 	Its most significant argument, from a public policy standpoint, is that
granting this petition would allow “similarly situated employees to collect windfalls from
districts across the State…” 	The Board contends that other TPAF-covered employees
with at least ten years of service would be encouraged to resign from their positions;
demand their sick leave pay-outs; and then return to a new school district “where they
could continue to accumulate sick leave and presumably repeat this cycle.” 	This
argument made sense in the context of Mattes’ November 2017 petition of appeal,
because then, she had not yet retired. 	Paying her then could have led to the ills the
Board describes.
But the Board’s argument holds little appeal under facts that reveal that between
the date of her resignation from Washington Township, and the date of her Deferred
Retirement, Mattes engaged in no TPAF-eligible employment. 	By determining that
Mattes’ claims were not ripe until her Deferred Retirement Date, Judge James-Beavers
and the Commissioner guaranteed the Board an opportunity to decline payment if
Mattes had secured TPAF-eligible employment elsewhere after she had “retired” from
Washington Township. 	And had she done so, the Board’s argument that she did not
retire from service in its school district would have made perfect sense and would have
compelled a denial of Mattes’ claim to relief.
But Mattes did not return to employment in a TPAF position at any time after she
left Washington Township. 	I thus CONCLUDE that her separation of employment
constituted retirement because Washington Township is the last place Mattes worked
while a TPAF member. 	And she was employed there when she filed for Deferred

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06936-18
9
Retirement. 	I thus CONCLUDE that Mattes retired from the Washington Township
district and is entitled to the sick leave payment promised by her contract.
The Timeliness of This Petition
Finally, the Board urges that this petition, like Mattes’ earlier one, should be
dismissed as untimely under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). 	This argument is a nonstarter. 	The
Board asserts that the time for appeal was triggered in 2015, when the Board initially
declined payment. 	But Judge James-Beavers and the Commissioner both held that a
cause of action would accrue anew once Mattes retired in March 2018.
Their holdings constitute the law of the case. 	The law of the case doctrine
generally prohibits a second judge, in the absence of additional developments or proofs,
from differing with an earlier ruling. 	The doctrine is a non-binding rule intended to
prevent re-litigation of a previously resolved issue. Lombardi v Masso, 207 N.J. 517,
538 (2011). Our courts have held that “[a] hallmark of the law of the case doctrine is its
discretionary nature, calling upon the deciding judge to balance the value of judicial
deference for the rulings of a coordinate judge against those factors that bear on the
pursuit of justice and, particularly, the search for truth. Little v KIA Motors Am, Inc., 425
N.J. Super 82 (App. Div. 2012). 	Sound discretion dictates that I defer to these earlier
rulings. I CONCLUDE that Mattes’ cause of action was triggered by her retirement date
of March 1, 2018. Her petition was filed on April 19, 2018, and thus is timely.
ORDER
Based 	on 	the 	foregoing, 	the Washington 	Township 	Board 	of 	Education 	is
ORDERED to make payment to Mattes in the sum of $15,000; that sum representing
compensation for unused sick leave days per her contract.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06936-18
10
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, P.O. 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.
November 29, 2018
DATE 	ELLEN S. BASS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	November 29, 2018
Date Mailed to Parties:
sej

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06936-18
11
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
J-1 	Joint Stipulation of Fact with attachments.