Ruth Young-Edri v. Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth, Union County, 7/8/19, (#174-19)

174-19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Ruth Young-Edri,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth,
Union County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner, a tenured teacher employed by the Elizabeth Board of Education (Board), alleged that the
Board failed to comply with the due process requirements of the New Jersey Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights
Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq., when it determined that she had harassed, intimidated, or
bullied a student in her class. Petitioner requested that the charges against her be dismissed, or – in the
alternative – remanded to the Board with the directive that she be afforded the due process to which she is
entitled by law. The petitioner filed a motion for summary decision, which was opposed by the Board.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts at issue in this case, and the matter is ripe for
summary decision; school districts are required by law to adopt policies that prohibit harassment,
intimidation and bullying (HIB) of students, outline expectations for student behavior, and create
procedures for reporting HIB-related concerns; the Commissioner has recognized that the due process
protections contained in law have equal applicability when an HIB charge is directed against a staff
member; 	in this case, the due process protections enumerated in the Act were largely ignored by the
Board; 	petitioner was not given an opportunity to review the report produced by the Board’s anti-
bullying specialist, nor any statements or documentary evidence upon which the report was based; there is
no evidence that the report was ever shared with the superintendent of schools as required by the Act; and
petitioner was not given the opportunity to fully understand the evidence against her and to present
testimony in her defense. 	Accordingly, the ALJ granted petitioner’s motion for summary decision and
remanded the matter to the local board of education with a directive that petitioner be afforded the due
process required under N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusions, and adopted the
Initial Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this matter, for the reasons well stated therein.
Summary decision was granted in favor of petitioner, and the Board was directed to conduct further
proceedings consistent with the requirements of the Act.
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.
July 8, 2019

1
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 17812-18
Agency Dkt. No. 263-10/18
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Ruth Young-Edri,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth,
Union County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) – for the reasons thoroughly stated in the Initial Decision – that the Elizabeth Board of
Education (Board) failed to comply with the due process requirements of the Anti-Bullying Bill of
Rights Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq., related to an allegation of harassment, intimidation, and
bullying (HIB) made against petitioner by a student in her class. 	Staff members accused of
committing an act of HIB are entitled to the same due process guaranteed to students under the Act.
Gibble v. Hunterdon Central Board of Education, Commissioner Decision 254-16 (July 13, 2016).
The record is clear, and the Board did not refute, that: the petitioner was not provided with a written
summary of the HIB investigation, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(d); the results of the investigation were
not reported to the superintendent, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(b); and the superintendent did not
render a decision regarding the allegations, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6)(e).

2
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is hereby adopted as the final decision in this
matter, and summary decision is granted in favor of petitioner. 	The Board is directed to conduct
further proceedings consistent with the Act.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	July 8, 2019
Date of Mailing: 	July 8, 2019

1
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17812-18
AGENCY DKT. NO. 263-10/18
RUTH YOUNG-EDRI,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY
OF ELIZABETH, UNION COUNTY,
Respondent.
_________________________________
Nicholas Poberezhesky, Esq., for petitioner (Caruso Smith Picini, attorneys)
Heather Ford-Savage, Esq., for respondent
Record Closed: May 9, 2019 	Decided: May 30, 2019
BEFORE ELLEN S. BASS, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Ruth Young-Edri, a tenured teacher employed by respondent, the
Elizabeth Board of Education (the Board), alleges that the Board failed to comply with
the due-process requirements of the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (the Act), N.J.S.A.

2
18A:37-13, et seq., when it determined that she had harassed, intimidated, and bullied a
student in her class. 	Young-Edri asks that the charges against her be dismissed, or, in
the alternative, remanded to the Board with the direction that it afford her the due
process to which she is entitled by law.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Young-Edri filed her petition of appeal on October 25, 2018. An answer was filed
by the Board on December 7, 2018, and the matter was transmitted to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) on December 10, 2018. 	Young-Edri filed a motion for
summary decision on March 1, 2019. 	The Board opposed the motion on April 1, 2019.
Young-Edri replied to the opposition on April 8, 2019.
On April 12, 2019, I conferred with counsel via telephone conference. 	I advised
both attorneys that I would like to offer them an opportunity to supply additional
information via supplemental certifications. The Board had opposed the motion, but not
in certification form. And the Board’s submission focused on the truth of the allegations
against Young-Edri, rather than the issue in the case, which is whether the Board had
afforded Young-Edri an adequate measure of due process. Counsel for Young-Edri had
not supplied a certification from his client, and I afforded him an opportunity to do so.
These additional submissions were filed on May 9, 2019, at which time the record
closed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
It is uncontroverted, and I FIND, that Young-Edri is a tenured teacher who has
been employed by the Board for over twenty-six years. 	In or around April 2018, she
became the subject of a harassment, intimidation, or bullying (HIB) investigation,
conducted in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13. 	She was removed from her active
teaching duties and placed on administrative leave.

3
Anti-bullying specialist Peter Vosseler investigated the charges, and interviewed
both teachers and students between April 24, 2018, and May 3, 2018. Young-Edri was
interviewed on April 26, 2018. 	I FIND that a written report was generated by Vosseler,
but that report was not shared with Young-Edri. The report reveals that Young-Edri was
told which child had alleged mistreatment. Young-Edri recounted that the child at issue
was a behavioral problem. 	The summary of her interview reveals that she did not feel
fully supported in dealing with this child; for example, she notes that she was not made
aware that he had a behavioral intervention plan in place. She was asked about several
incidents, to include one involving a mess made at lunch, another about a confiscated
laptop, and yet another involving the child’s personal cell phone. 	The author of the
report shares that Young-Edri denied any wrongdoing.
A letter of reprimand dated May 9, 2018, was issued to Young-Edri by her
building principal, indicating that she was a “perpetrator” in the HIB case, and that she
had created a “hostile educational environment.” 	But I FIND that the letter did not
provide any information about the investigation, or in any way recount the factual
support for the letter’s conclusion that Young-Edri had violated the Anti-Bullying Law.
Despite being afforded two opportunities to do so, counsel for the Board, in her
opposition to the pending motion, shared no evidence that the findings of the anti-
bullying specialist were shared with either the superintendent of schools or with the
Board itself. 	The Board offered no evidence that any investigatory materials were
shared with Young-Edri at any time prior to this litigation.
Young-Edri appealed the HIB determination on May 16, 2018, and requested a
hearing before the Board. 	Pending that hearing, she was transferred involuntarily to
another school building. 	Young-Edri and her attorney appeared before the Board in
executive session on or about July 19, 2018. 	Young-Edri asserts that she and her
attorney were given an opportunity to make brief statements to the Board; Vosseler,
who was at the meeting, did not speak. 	The Board does not disagree. 	On July 25,
2018, Young-Edri received a letter from the Board attorney notifying her that it had
upheld the determination of the anti-bullying specialist. 	But I FIND that this letter again

4
did not detail with specificity the conduct or incidents that were perceived to have risen
to a violation of law.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b) provides that summary decision should 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.” Our regulation mirrors
R. 4:46-2(c), which provides that “[t]he judgment or order sought shall be rendered
forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file,
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 a judgment or order as a matter
of law.”
A determination whether a genuine issue of material fact exists that precludes
summary decision requires the judge to consider whether the competent evidential
materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
are sufficient to permit a rational fact finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor
of the non-moving party. Our courts have long held that “if the opposing party . . . offers
. . . only facts which are immaterial or of an insubstantial nature, a mere scintilla,
‘Fanciful, frivolous, gauzy or merely suspicious,’ he will not be heard to complain if the
court grants summary judgment.” 	Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 529 (1995)
(citing Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 17 N.J. 67, 75 (1954)).
The “judge’s function is not himself [or herself] to weigh the evidence and
determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for
trial.” 	Brill, 142 N.J. at 540 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)).
When the evidence “is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law,” the
trial court should not hesitate to grant summary judgment. 	Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at
252. 	I CONCLUDE that this matter is ripe for summary decision. 	The Board has
offered no facts that would call into question, much less defeat, Young-Edri’s claim that
the Board failed to provide her with the due process required under N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15.

5
Districts are required by law to adopt policies that prohibit HIB; that outline
expectations 	for 	student 	behavior; 	that 	set 	forth 	consequences 	for 	inappropriate
behavior; and that create procedures for reporting HIB-related concerns. 	N.J.S.A.
18A:37-14; N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15. 	In regard to the investigation of bullying charges, the
law requires as follows:
(b) 	the results of the investigation shall be reported to the
superintendent of schools within two school days of the
completion of the investigation . . . ;
(c) 	the results of each investigation shall be reported to
the board of education no later than the date of the board of
education 	meeting 	next 	following 	the 	completion 	of 	the
investigation, 	along 	with 	information 	on 	any 	services
provided, training established, discipline imposed, or other
action taken or recommended by the superintendent;
(d) 	parents or guardians of the students who are parties
to the investigation shall be entitled to receive information
about the investigation, in accordance with federal and State
law and regulation, including the nature of the investigation,
whether 	the 	district 	found 	evidence 	of 	harassment,
intimidation, or bullying, or whether discipline was imposed,
or services provided to address the incident of harassment,
intimidation, or bullying. 	This information shall be provided
in 	writing 	within 	5 	school 	days 	after 	the 	results 	of 	the
investigation are reported to the board. A parent or guardian
may request a hearing before the board after receiving the
information, and the hearing shall be held within 10 days of
the request. 	The board shall meet in executive session for
the hearing to protect the confidentiality of the students. 	At
the hearing the board may hear from the school anti-bullying
specialist about the incident, recommendations for discipline
or services, and any programs instituted to reduce such
incidents;
(e) 	at the next board of education meeting following its
receipt of the report, the board shall issue a decision, in
writing, 	to 	affirm, 	reject, 	or 	modify 	the 	superintendent’s
decision. 	The board’s decision may be appealed to the
Commissioner 	of 	Education, 	in 	accordance 	with 	the

6
procedures set forth in law and regulation, no later than 90
days after the issuance of the board’s decision . . . .
[N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15 (emphasis supplied).]
Regulations promulgated by the Department of Education further assist local districts in
complying with these statutory requirements. N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.7.
The Commissioner has recognized that the due-process protections contained in
law have equal applicability when a bullying charge is directed against a staff member.
See K.T. on behalf of K.H. & T.D. v. Deerfield Bd. of Educ., OAL Dkt. No. EDU 00489-
13, Initial Decision (June 19, 2013), rev’d and remanded, Comm’r (July 30, 2013),
https://www.nj.gov/education/legal/ (where, in the context of a claim that a teacher
bullied a kindergarten student, the Commissioner confirmed that the internal HIB
investigation mandated by law is not discretionary); see also Gibble v. Hunterdon
Central 	Bd. 	of 	Educ., 	EDU 	02767-15, 	Final 	Decision 	(July 	13, 	2016),
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/; Sadloch v. Cedar Grove Bd. of Educ., EDU
00619-14, Initial Decision (March 26, 2015), http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/,
aff’d, Comm’r (June 23, 2015), https://www.nj.gov/education/legal/.
I CONCLUDE that the due-process protections contained in the Anti-Bullying
Law were largely ignored by this board. A written summary of the investigation was not
provided to Young-Edri within five days of the issuance of the anti-bullying specialist’s
report. 	The results of the investigation were not shared with the superintendent of
schools. 	The superintendent rendered no decision relative to the bullying allegations
and investigation, although, ultimately, the Board was required to “issue a decision, in
writing, to affirm, reject, or modify the superintendent’s decision.” 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-
15(b)(6)(e) (emphasis supplied). 	Relative to the scope of the information that should
have been shared with Young-Edri, the recent unpublished Appellate Division decision
in J.L. v. Bridgewater Board of Education, No. A-2022-16 (App. Div. October 16, 2018),
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/, is instructive. There, the local board did not
supply the parents of an alleged bully with investigative reports completed by the anti-

7
bullying specialist and an HIB committee. The matter was remanded to the local board,
which was directed to provide the parents with the full record of the HIB allegations,
“including the underlying investigative report, [and] any additional written reports or
summaries.” 	Ibid. 	Only with this completeness of information, the court determined,
would the hearing contemplated by law afford the family its rightful measure of due
process, and satisfy the requirements of N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(6).
The proper remedy under the totality of the circumstances is a remand to the
Board so that it may afford Young-Edri a proper measure of due process. 	This case is
readily distinguishable from Sadloch v. Cedar Grove Board of Education, where the
Commissioner determined that violations of due process warranted dismissal of charges
against petitioning football coaches. 	As noted in Gibble v. Hunterdon Central Board of
Education, the relief fashioned in Sadloch was based on a unique set of circumstances,
and a “state of the record in that case [that] made it impossible for a determination to
ever be reached.” 	Gibble, EDU 02767-15, Final Decision (July 13, 2016), at *9,
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/. 	Not so here. 	The investigatory report shared
here reveals that the anti-bullying specialist conducted a comprehensive investigation
and interviewed numerous witnesses. 	I CONCLUDE that due process requires that
Young-Edri be given an opportunity to review that report, and any available statements
or other documentary evidence, and be permitted to appear again before the Board for
the hearing contemplated by law. And Young-Edri is moreover entitled to evidence that
her situation was properly shared with the superintendent and the Board.
As for what the board-level hearing should look like, the plain language of the
statute does not require a full adversarial hearing, and it is well established that
statutory language should be given its ordinary meaning. 	Klumb v. Bd. of Educ. of
Manalapan-Englishtown Reg’l High Sch. Dist., 199 N.J. 14, 23–24 (2009).1 The statute
only demands that the hearing be conducted in executive session, and that “the board
1 The opportunity for a full adversarial hearing is available if and when the matter is appealed to the
Commissioner of Education. 	In other contexts, law and regulations make it clear when an adversarial
hearing is required at the board level. See, e.g., N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.3(a)(10), which specifies that the right
to cross-examination is available in a board-level appeal of a long-term student disciplinary suspension.

8
may hear from the school anti-bullying specialist about the incident.” 	N.J.S.A. 18A:37-
15. 	But what is surely required is an opportunity for Young-Edri to fully understand the
evidence against her and to present testimony and documents to the Board for its
consideration; or, put another way, what is required is the modicum of local due process
needed to guard against arbitrary, capricious, or ill-informed Board action.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for summary
decision is GRANTED. 	This matter is REMANDED to the local board of education so
that it can afford petitioner the due process required under N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15. 	This
requires that the Board have its superintendent review the determination of the anti-
bullying specialist; that the results of the investigation be shared with the Board; that
Young-Edri be supplied with the investigatory file to include witness statements and the
report of the anti-bullying specialist; and that she be permitted to present witnesses and
documentary evidence to the Board at a hearing.
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.

9
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.
May 30, 2019
DATE 	ELLEN S. BASS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	May 30, 2019
Date Mailed to Parties: