Robbinsville Education Association and Danielle Sadock v. Board of Education of the Township of Robbinsville, Mercer County, 3/17/25 (#92-25R)

92-25R
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 12760-23
Agency Dkt. No. 266-10/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Robbinsville Education Association and Danielle
Saddock,
Petitioners,
v.
Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Township 	of
Robbinsville, Mercer County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the recommended Order on Motion to Dismiss in Part issued
by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), the exceptions filed by petitioners Robbinsville
Education Association (REA) and Danielle Saddock pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the
Robbinsville Board of Education’s (Board) reply thereto, have been reviewed and considered.
Petitioners challenge the Board’s use of private vendors Educere and Michigan Virtual to
provide virtual instruction in the subjects of Italian and Physics during the 2023-2024 school
year.1 	According to the petition, the Board passed resolutions to contract with Educere and
Michigan Virtual for virtual instruction in Italian 2, Italian 3, Italian 4 Honors or Advanced
1 In August 2024, this matter was consolidated with Tiffany Strauss v. Board of Education of the Township
of Robbinsville, Mercer County, Agency Docket Number 239-9/23, OAL Docket Number EDU 10708-23
(Strauss). Strauss challenges the Board’s employment of non-certified athletic trainers. On February 5,
2025, the matters were severed following the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to dismiss the Saddock
petition.

2
Placement, and Advanced Placement Physics. Petitioners assert that the instructors have failed
to comply with various statutory requirements imposed on New Jersey teachers and that the
contracts are not authorized by the Legislature.
Specifically, the petition alleges that the online instructors provided by Educere and
Michigan Virtual: (1) do not hold New Jersey teaching certificates or endorsements as required
by N.J.S.A. 18A:26-2 et seq. (Counts I and II); (2) have not undergone criminal history checks as
required by N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 (Counts III and IV); (3) were not individually appointed by a
majority vote of the full Board pursuant to N.J.S.A 18A:27-1 (Counts V and VI); (4) will not be
evaluated by district supervisors pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.1 and N.J.S.A. 18A:6-117 et seq.
(Counts VII and VIII); (5) are not residents of New Jersey as required by N.J.S.A. 52:14-7 (Counts
IX and X); and (6) do not teach classes in-person as required by N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-9 (repeated in all
Counts). 	The petition further alleges in Count XI that the Board lacked legislative authority to
contract with private entities for the provision of educational services.
The Board filed a motion to dismiss, contending that petitioners had not advanced a
viable cause of action because the Board’s contracts with Educere and Michigan Virtual for virtual
instruction did not violate any law, regulation, or district policy and are in fact authorized by
“Option Two” as defined by N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1(a)(2). 	Option Two learning experiences are
“individualized student learning opportunities that meet or exceeded the NJSLS, such as
independent study, online learning, or structured learning experiences.” Camden Voc. Ed. Ass’n
v. Bd. of Educ. of Camden Cnty. Tech. Sch., Camden Co., Commissioner Decision No. 213-22, at 1
(Aug. 19, 2022). The Board asserts that graduation requirements may be satisfied in whole or in
part through Option Two, which permits online learning in all New Jersey Student Learning

3
Standards (NJSLS) areas. 	The Board maintains that it “has properly exercised its rights under
Option Two,” and that the petition fails to allege that the Board’s use of Option Two violates New
Jersey education laws and regulations and simply ignores Option Two altogether. The Board adds
that its use of Option Two was necessitated by the fact that it has been unable to fill open part-
time Italian and Physics positions with in-person teachers, and that the Option Two regulation
itself gives it authority to contract with private entities for educational services.
On February 5, 2025, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the Board’s motion to
dismiss upon concluding that: (1) Option Two permits individualized learning opportunities that
include online learning; (2) Option Two learning opportunities need not be facilitated by certified
teachers; and (3) boards of education are authorized by N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1(d) to perform all acts
consistent with law that are necessary for conduct of the public schools, which impliedly includes
entering into contracts with private vendors to provide Option Two individualized learning
opportunities to students. The ALJ did not specifically address petitioners’ claims made in Counts
III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, or X, other than to conclude that “Option Two does not conflict with Title
18A or Title 6A of the New Jersey Administrative Code.” Order at 7.
Because the ALJ’s disposition of the Board’s motion completely concludes the instant
matter, the Commissioner shall treat the recommended Order as an Initial Decision for OAL
Docket Number EDU 12760-23 only. 	See N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.7 (“Disposition of motions which
completely conclude a case shall be by initial decision.”).
In their exceptions, petitioners seek reversal of the ALJ’s recommended Order. 	They
contend that the ALJ improperly converted the Board’s motion to dismiss into a motion for
summary judgment when it accepted non-authenticated documents as true and dispositive of

4
the issues in the case without allowing additional discovery. They argue that they are entitled to
discovery regarding, but not limited to, the licensing held by the individuals teaching the courses
and the curriculum being used. In addition, they assert that there is no evidence to support the
conclusion that the courses at issue are individualized student learning opportunities envisioned
under the Option Two regulation. They maintain that Option Two is not applicable to this case
and that, even if it is, the Board has not offered evidence to establish that the virtual instruction
complies with Option Two requirements, e.g., that the courses meet or exceed NJSLS. Finally,
they argue that that there is no statutory authority for subcontracting core courses to virtual
instructors when the district supposedly cannot secure staff.
In response, the Board argues that its provision of online Italian and Physics courses via
private vendors to high school students is lawful. It contends that the ALJ did not convert the
motion to dismiss into a motion for summary decision because she was permitted to consider
documents submitted by the Board that are matters of public record (Board policy, Board
meeting minutes, district employment opportunity postings, and New Jersey Department of
Education applicant approvals). Furthermore, the Board asserts that petitioners’ argument that
the Option Two regulation is not at issue is disingenuous because the alleged violations of Title
18 claimed by petitioners are expressly permitted under the Option Two regulation. It argues
that a motion to dismiss cannot be denied based upon the possibility that discovery may establish
the requisite claim, and that petitioners have failed to set forth sufficient facts to state a claim
that the classes at issue are not the type of individualized learning opportunity envisioned by
Option Two. In fact, the petitioner does not even mention Option Two, let alone contain any
facts to support a contention that the Board violated Option Two.

5
Upon review, the Commissioner adopts the ALJ’s Initial Decision in part and rejects it in
part as explained herein. Petitions are subject to dismissal by the Commissioner “on the grounds
that the petitioner has advanced no cause of action even if the petitioner’s factual allegations
are accepted as true.” 	N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10; Jonathan Wadley v. N.J. Dep’t of Educ., Office of
Student Prot., OAL Dkt. No. EDU 09223-22, Initial Decision at 4-5 (Mar. 10, 2023), adopted,
Commissioner Decision No. 110-23 (Apr. 11, 2023) (assessing respondent’s motion to dismiss
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10 under the standards used by courts when analyzing Rule 4:6-2
motions). Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim “must be evaluated in light of the legal
sufficiency of the facts alleged” in the petition. Sickles v. Cabot Corp., 379 N.J. Super. 100, 106
(App. Div. 2005) (quoting Donato v. Moldow, 374 N.J. Super. 475, 482 (App. Div. 2005)). If “the
complaint states no basis for relief and . . . discovery would not provide one, dismissal of the
complaint is appropriate.” County of Warren v. State, 409 N.J. Super. 495, 503 (App. Div. 2009).
First, the Commissioner adopts the ALJ’s recommendation regarding the dismissal of
Counts IX and X of the petition, but for different reasons than those stated in the Order. Counts
IX and X allege that the virtual instructors are not residents of New Jersey in violation of N.J.S.A.
52:14-7, the New Jersey First Act. Even assuming this is true, the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction
to decide that claim because N.J.S.A. 52:14-7 is not a school law, and the Commissioner’s
jurisdiction extends only to controversies and disputes arising under the school laws. 	N.J.S.A.
18A:6-9; Hinfey v. Matawan Reg’l Bd. of Educ., 77 N.J. 514, 525 (1978). See also N.J.S.A. 52:14-
7(d) (explaining that complaints filed pursuant to the New Jersey First Act shall be brought in the
Superior Court of New Jersey); Kratovil v. Angelson, 473 N.J. Super. 484 (Law Div. Aug. 3, 2020).
Thus, Counts IX and X of the petition are dismissed.

6
Second, with respect to petitioners’ remaining claims, the Commissioner rejects the ALJ’s
recommendation to dismiss them because discovery has not taken place and further factual
development is necessary in light of the issues presented. The ALJ’s presumption that the Option
Two regulation definitively applies to this matter – and that petitioners’ claims therefore cannot
survive a motion to dismiss – is premature. N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1(a)(2), the Option Two regulation,
requires boards of education to “establish a process to approve individualized student learning
opportunities that meet or exceed the NJSLS” and that are “based on student interest and career
goals as reflected in the Personalized Student Learning Plans.” 	Moreover, “[g]roup programs
based upon specific instructional objectives aimed at meeting or exceeding the NJSLS shall be
permitted under this section and shall be approved in the same manner as other approved
courses.” N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1(a)(2)(i)(3).
While the Commissioner has previously held in Camden, supra, that Option Two does not
necessarily require that student learning opportunities be facilitated by certified teachers, there
is no basis in the record to find that the Option Two regulation is applicable to the Italian and
Physics virtual instruction at issue in this case. For instance, in Camden, which was adjudicated
following a contested hearing and did not involve virtual instruction, the Commissioner found
that “the Board approved the teaching of financial literacy through the use of Option 2.” Camden,
at 1. Here, while the Board claims in its motion to dismiss that Option Two applies, nothing in
the limited record before the Commissioner reflects that the Board approved the teaching of
Italian and Physics through Option Two as either an individualized student learning opportunity
or a group program under N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1(a)(2). 	Additionally, there is no evidence that the
instruction offered by Educere and Michigan Virtual meets or exceeds the NJSLS as required by

7
Option Two. 	The Board’s reliance upon Option Two in support of its motion to dismiss the
statutory violations alleged in the petition at this early, pre-discovery stage of the proceedings is
unavailing. See generally DeGraff v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. of Belleville, Commissioner Decision No.
5-20R, at 3 (Feb. 4, 2020) (“[T]he choice of whether to utilize Option II belongs to the student,
not the district.”).
Accordingly, the ALJ’s recommendation to dismiss Counts IX and V is adopted, but for
different reasons 	than those 	stated 	in the recommended Order. 	However, the ALJ’s
recommendation to dismiss the remaining Counts in the petition is rejected. 	The matter is
remanded to the OAL for further proceedings so that discovery may take place regarding the
applicability of Option Two, and those proceedings shall continue in whatever manner the parties
and the ALJ deem necessary to fully conclude the dispute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	March 17, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	March 19, 2025

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ORDER ON MOTION
TO DISMISS IN PART
(CONSOLIDATED)
TIFFANY STRAUSS, OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10708-23
Petitioner, AGENCY DKT. NO. 239-9/23
v.
TOWNSHIP OF ROBBINSVILLE
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
MERCER COUNTY,
Respondent.
and
ROBBINSVILLE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12760-23
AND DANIELLE SADDOCK, AGENCY DKT. NO. 266-10/23
Petitioners,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF ROBBINSVILLE
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
MERCER COUNTY,
Respondent.
___________________________________
Richard A. Friedman, Esq., and Amory R. Blank, Esq., appearing for petitioners
Tiffany Strauss, Robbinsville Education Association, and Dannielle Saddock
(Zazzali, P.C., attorneys)

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 10708-23 & EDU 12760-23
2
Caitlin W. Lundquist, Esq., appearing for respondent Robbinsville Board of
Education (The Busch Law Group LLC, attorneys)
Regina M. Philipps, Esq., appearing for respondent Robbinsville Board of Education
(Madden & Madden P.A., attorneys)
BEFORE JOAN M. BURKE, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 7, 2023, petitioner Tiffany Strauss (Ms. Strauss) appealed to the New
Jersey Department of Education (DOE) pursuant to N.J.A.C. 18A:6-9, challenging the
Robbinsville Board of Education (Board or BOE) actions regarding the employment of
athletic trainers. On October 11, 2023, the DOE transmitted this matter to the Office of
Administrative Law for plenary hearing as a contested case pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1
to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13. The case was docketed as EDU 10708-23.
On October 2, 2023, petitioners Robbinsville Education Association (the
Association) and Danielle Saddock (Ms. Saddock) appealed to the DOE pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 18A:6-9, challenging the Board’s use of private entities to provide instruction. The
Board filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of answer. On November 16, 2023, the DOE
transmitted this matter to the Office of Administrative Law for plenary hearing as a contested
case pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13. The case was
docketed as EDU 12760-23 and was assigned to the Honorable Kim Belin, ALJ. Because
the undersigned had the older docket number, the matter was transferred to the
undersigned for further handling on May 10, 2024.
On May 10, 2024, a motion to consolidate the cases was submitted by petitioners’
counsels. I entered an Order of Consolidation on August 23, 2024. Respondent Board
renewed their request to have the motion to dismiss addressed by this tribunal. The
petitioners raised an issue that discovery must be completed before the motion can be
considered. The parties submitted position papers regarding the discovery issue. On

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 10708-23 & EDU 12760-23
3
November 21, 2024, I decided that discovery need not be completed before the motion
can be considered. A scheduling order for the motion was completed, and thereafter the
parties submitted briefs on the motion. The motion record closed on December 11, 2024.
While this matter is consolidated, the motion to dismiss is only against the
Robbinsville Board of Education Association and Danielle Saddock.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioners Robbinsville Education Association and Danielle Saddock bring this
petition against the Robbinsville Board of Education based on the Board’s decision to
contract with private vendors Educere and Michigan Virtual to provide online instruction
in Italian and Physics, respectively, during the 2023−2024 school year. During the
2022−2023 school year, the Italian language and Advanced Placement Physics courses
were conducted in person by teaching staff assigned to Robbinsville High School. (See
Petition of Appeal at ¶ 8.)
The Board asserts that the part-time teaching positions for Italian and Physics
received no applicants as of the start of the 2023−2024 school year, but that the positions
remained open and available to members of the Association. (See Resp’t’s Br. in Support
of Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answers at 1.)
The Board passed resolutions to contract with Educere and Michigan Virtual to
provide instruction in Italian 2, Italian 3, Italian 4 Honors or Advanced Placement, and
Advanced Placement Physics, respectively. (See Petition of Appeal at ¶¶ 13−14, 18−19.)
Petitioners assert that the Educere and Michigan Virtual contracts are not authorized by
the Legislature and that the Educere and Michigan Virtual instructors fail to comply with
the statutory requirements imposed on New Jersey teachers.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In education cases, the Commissioner may dismiss a petition “prior to transmittal
of the pleadings to the OAL . . . on the grounds that the petitioner has advanced no cause

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 10708-23 & EDU 12760-23
4
of action even if the petitioner’s factual allegations are accepted as true.” N.J.A.C.
6A:3-1.10.
If the Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules (UAPR) do not specify a certain
rule, “a judge may proceed in accordance with the New Jersey Court Rules, provided the
rules are compatible” with the purposes of the UAPR. N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.3(a). Under the
Court Rules, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted “may at the option of the pleader be made by motion with briefs.” R. 4:6-2(e).
Like N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.2, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim “shall be heard and
determined before trial . . . unless the court for good cause” defers the claim to be heard
at trial. R. 4:6-3.
In granting a motion to dismiss, the court “assume[s] that the allegations in the
pleadings are true and afford[s] the pleader all reasonable inferences.” Sparroween, LLC
v. Township of W. Caldwell, 452 N.J. Super. 329, 339 (App. Div. 2017) (citing Seidenberg
v. Summit Bank, 348 N.J. Super. 243, 249−50 (App. Div. 2002)). Granting a motion to
dismiss under R. 4:6-2(e) is appropriate prior to discovery where “it is clear that the
complaint states no basis for relief and that discovery would not provide one.”
Sparroween, 452 N.J. Super. at 339−40 (quoting J.D. ex rel. Scipio-Derrick v. Davy, 415
N.J. Super. 375, 397 (App. Div. 2010)).
“When facts beyond the initial pleadings are relied on in determining the motion,
the motion to dismiss is converted to a motion for summary decision” under both the
UAPR and the Court Rules. Thigpen v. Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys., TYP 12347-13, Initial
Decision (May 28, 2014), https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/ (citing Jersey City
Educ. Ass’n v. City of Jersey City, 316 N.J. Super. 245, 253−54 (App. Div. 1998)). The
submission of certifications or documents in addition to the initial pleadings requires that
the motion to dismiss be converted into a motion for summary decision. Jersey City Educ.
Ass’n, 316 N.J. Super. at 254. However, “allegations in the complaint, exhibits attached
to the complaint, matters of public record, and documents that form the basis of a claim”
or that are “specifically referenced in the complaint” do not convert the motion to dismiss
into a motion for summary judgment. Myska v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 440 N.J. Super.
458, 482 (App. Div. 2015) (quoting Banco Popular N. Am. v. Gandi, 184 N.J. 161, 183

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 10708-23 & EDU 12760-23
5
(2005)); see also E. Dickerson & Son, Inc. v. Ernst & Young, 361 N.J. Super. 362, 365
(App. Div. 2003).
Here, the Board submitted exhibits that it purports are “matters of public record
and/or documents that form the basis of petitioner’s claims.” (See Resp’t’s Nov. 14, 2023,
Br. at 7.) These exhibits are comprised of the original petition, the Board’s graduation
policy, the Board’s meeting minutes and employment postings related to open Physics
and Italian positions, and the Department of Education’s approvals of the “Option Two”
instructors. The exhibits have been attached to the Certification of Service of the Motion
to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer (and to the motion itself in the case of the final exhibit).
The facts alleged in the motion are taken entirely from the petition and from the additional
exhibits. Relying on Myska, it is appropriate to proceed with this motion to dismiss using
these exhibits. The motion to dismiss does not need to be converted into a motion for
summary decision.
Respondent’s motion to dismiss alleges that nothing in the petition violates any
law, regulation, or District policy related to Option Two learning. (See Resp’t’s Br. at 5.)
N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1(a)(2), usually referred to as Option Two, provides as follows:
2. The 120-credit requirement set forth in (a)1 above may
be met in whole or in part through program completion of a
range of experiences that enable students to pursue a variety
of individualized learning opportunities, as follows:
i. District boards of education shall establish a process to
approve individualized student learning opportunities that
meet or exceed the [New Jersey Student Learning
Standards (NJSLS)].
(1) Individualized student learning opportunities in
all NJSLS areas include, but are not limited to, the
following:
A. Independent study;
B. Online learning;
C. Study abroad programs;

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 10708-23 & EDU 12760-23
6
D. Student exchange programs; and
E. Structured learning experiences, including,
but not limited to, work-based programs,
internships, apprenticeships, and service
learning experiences.
(2) Individualized student learning opportunities
based upon specific instructional objectives aimed at
meeting or exceeding the NJSLS shall:
A. Be based on student interest and career
goals as reflected in the Personalized Student
Learning Plans;
B. Include demonstration of student
competency;
C. Be certified for completion based on the
district process adopted according to (a)2ii below;
and
D. Be on file in the school district and subject
to review by the Commissioner or his or her
designee.
(3) Group programs based upon specific
instructional objectives aimed at meeting or
exceeding the NJSLS shall be permitted under this
section and shall be approved in the same manner as
other approved courses.
As set forth in N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1(a)(2), Option Two learning allows the 120 credits
of learning required for graduation to be accomplished “in whole or part” through “a range
of experiences that enable students to pursue a variety of individualized learning
opportunities.” Such individualized learning opportunities may include online learning.
N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1(a)(2)(i)(1)(B). Option Two opportunities must “meet or exceed” the
New Jersey Student Learning Standards. N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1(a)(2)(i).
The petition equates instructors of individualized learning opportunities under
Option Two learning to “teaching staff members” employed by public schools under Title
18A of the New Jersey Statutes. However, the Commissioner of Education has already
established that “Option 2 [sic] does not require that student learning opportunities be

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 10708-23 & EDU 12760-23
7
facilitated by certified teachers.” Camden Vocational Educ. Ass’n v. Camden Cnty. Tech.
Schs. Bd. of Educ., Camden Cnty., EDU 00026-18, Initial Decision (June 2, 2022),
adopted, Comm’r (Aug. 19, 2022), https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/. According to
the Commissioner, “the Board still bears responsibility to ensure that students are
meeting or exceeding the NJSLS and demonstrating competency” under Option Two
learning, but the means of instruction is not subject to the requirements of Title 18A.
Camden Vocational Educ. Ass’n, Final Decision at *3,
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/. “The requirements of Option 2 [sic] are distinct
from those for traditional, credit-based instruction,” and thus Option Two does not conflict
with Title 18A or Title 6A of the New Jersey Administrative Code. Ibid.
Accordingly, counts I−X of the petition, which allege that the Option Two instruction
in question has failed to comply with the requirements for teaching staff members in New
Jersey, are without merit.
The final count of the petition, Count XI, alleges that the Legislature has not
delegated any statutory authority to the Board to contract with private entities for the
provision of educational services.
Under the Option Two regulation, school districts may provide independent study,
online learning, study abroad or student exchange programs, and structured learning
experiences such as internships or apprenticeships as individualized learning
opportunities for graduation credit. N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1(a)(2)(i)(1)(A)−(E). The regulation
specifically constructs the list to be inexhaustive using the “include, but are not limited to”
language of subsection (a)(2)(i)(1). Many, if not all, of the listed opportunities would likely
require some form of contract in order to be made available for students. The authorizing
statutes, found in Title 18A, afford boards of education the power to “perform all acts and
do all things, consistent with law and the rules of the state board, necessary for the lawful
and proper conduct, equipment, and maintenance of the public schools of the district.”
N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1(d). It follows that a board would likely have the implied authority under
both the statute and the Option Two regulation to enter into contracts with private entities
to provide individualized learning opportunities to students.

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 10708-23 & EDU 12760-23
8
Thus, Count XI of the petition is without merit, as the Option Two regulation allows
school districts flexibility to select the means by which Option Two opportunities are made
available to students, and the Board acted under its authority to do so by contracting with
Educere and Michigan Virtual.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, I therefore CONCLUDE that none of the counts alleged
in the petition state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
ORDER
Accordingly, and for the reasons articulated above, it is ORDERED that the motion
of respondent Robbinsville Board of Education for an order granting dismissal of the
matter titled Robbinsville Education Association and Danielle Saddock v. Robbinsville
Board of Education is hereby GRANTED, and the Petition of Appeal is DISMISSED. I
further ORDER that the matter titled Tiffany Strauss v. Board of Education of the Township
of Robbinsville be scheduled for a status conference to set discovery dates and a hearing.
This order may be reviewed by the ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, either upon interlocutory review pursuant to N.J.A.C.
1:1-14.10 or at the end of the contested case, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.6.
February 5, 2025
DATE JOAN M. BURKE, ALJ
JMB/jm
cc: Clerk, OAL-T

OAL DKT. NOS. EDU 10708-23 & EDU 12760-23
9
APPENDIX
Exhibits
For petitioner
Petition of Appeal
Petitioner’s Brief in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, December 5, 2024
For respondent
Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss with Exhibits, November 14, 2023
Reply Brief, dated December 10, 2024