J.M., on behalf of minor child, B.M. v. Board of Education of the School District of the Chathams, Morris County, 5/9/2023, (#201-23)

201-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
J.M., on behalf of minor child, B.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the School District of
the Chathams, Morris County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner disputed the respondent Board’s finding that his son, B.M., committed an act of harassment,
intimidation or bullying (HIB) against a fellow student pursuant to New Jersey’s Anti-Bullying Bill of
Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13.2 et seq (the Act). 	After an investigation by the school’s anti-bullying
specialist, the Board determined that B.M. violated the Act when he offered a cashew nut to A.K. – a
classmate with a known and documented allergy to nuts – causing A.K. to recoil; B.M. then touched
A.K.’s water bottle and lunch bag without first washing his hands. B.M. received a penalty of five days of
lunch detention and a follow-up meeting with a guidance counselor. The Board asserted that B.M.’s
conduct satisfied all of the elements of the statutory definition of HIB under the Act. The petitioner
contended, inter alia, that the Board’s affirmative determination of HIB was arbitrary, capricious, and
unreasonable. The parties consented to resolve the case by summary decision.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: the incident in question was not part of a pattern of conduct; A.K.’s
mother did not seek to have B.M. receive a severe penalty for his actions in this matter; a review of the
Board’s HIB Report Form indicates that school officials acted defensively and overreacted to the incident
between B.M. and A.K.; and the inclusion of an affirmative HIB determination in B.M.’s school record
could be detrimental to him in the future. The ALJ concluded that the record did not support a finding
that B.M. committed an act of HIB and that the Board’s HIB determination was unjustified and
excessive. 	Accordingly, the ALJ reversed the Board’s finding of HIB and ordered that B.M.’s student
record be adjusted to remove any reference to that finding.
Upon review, the Commissioner rejected the ALJ’s conclusion that the Board’s HIB determination was
unjustified and excessive, concluding instead that the petitioner failed to establish that the Board’s
actions in this matter were arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or induced by improper motives. In so
doing, the Commissioner found, inter alia, that B.M.’s conduct satisfied the statutory definition of HIB
and interfered with A.K.’s right to a safe and civil environment at school; further, the HIB investigation
was 	sufficiently 	thorough 	in 	scope. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Commissioner 	upheld 	the 	Board’s 	HIB
determination, and the petition of appeal 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.

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 04092-19
Agency Dkt. No. 37-2/19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
J.M., on behalf of minor child, B.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the School District of the
Chathams, Morris County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by the Board pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and petitioner’s reply thereto,
have been reviewed and considered.
Petitioner challenges the Board’s determination that his son, B.M., committed an act of
harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) against a classmate, A.K., who has a nut allergy.
During the school lunch period, B.M. offered A.K. a cashew, which caused A.K. to recoil. B.M.
subsequently touched A.K.’s lunch bag1 and water bottle with the same hand that had offered
the cashew, even after A.K. warned him to stop due to his nut allergy.
When the school’s anti-bullying specialist investigated the incident, B.M. admitted that
he knew A.K. was allergic to “peanuts” but stated that he temporarily forgot about it. B.M.
admitted touching A.K.’s water bottle and volunteered that he had not washed his hands
1 In the Initial Decision, the ALJ appears to use “lunch bag” and “lunchbox” interchangeably. For consistency, the
Commissioner will use “lunch bag” here.
201-23

2
before doing so. Security camera footage confirmed that B.M. had also touched A.K.’s lunch
bag. B.M. acknowledged that A.K. got “annoyed” with him “due to his allergy.” The HIB Report
Form completed by the anti-bullying specialist states that the single incident at issue
“[t]argeted pupil’s allergy to nuts” and describes the HIB behavior as “jeopardizing the safety of
others.”
At the conclusion of a thorough investigation during which B.M., A.K., and a student
eyewitness were interviewed, the anti-bullying specialist determined that B.M. committed an
act of HIB. The Board agreed, finding that B.M.’s actions were motivated by A.K.’s nut allergy,
that the conduct occurred on school grounds during the school day, and that it had the effect of
upsetting A.K. and compromising his safety. Thereafter, petitioner filed the instant appeal.
Once the matter was transmitted to the OAL, the parties consented to its resolution by
summary decision without the need for a hearing.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the record did not support a finding
that B.M. committed an act of HIB and that the Board’s HIB determination was unjustified and
excessive. The ALJ cited the fact that the incident was not part of a pattern of conduct, and
that A.K.’s mother had not sought for B.M. to receive a severe penalty. The ALJ further found
that the HIB Report Form indicated that school officials acted defensively and overreacted. In
addition, the ALJ considered the negative impact that the HIB determination might have on
B.M. in the future.
In its exceptions, the Board argues that the ALJ erroneously focused upon whether, in
his opinion, B.M.’s actions were severe enough to warrant an affirmative finding of HIB instead
of whether the Board’s HIB determination was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. It also

3
argues that the ALJ inappropriately considered whether B.M. intended to harm A.K. through his
actions.
In reply, petitioner contends that the ALJ correctly applied the arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable standard of review when determining that the finding of HIB against B.M. was
unjustified and excessive. Petitioner also asserts that: (1) the record lacks proof that B.M.’s
conduct was motivated by A.K.’s allergy to peanuts or that B.M. rubbed his hands on A.K.’s
lunch bag; (2) B.M. did not realize that offering A.K. a cashew could cause A.K. to have an
allergic reaction; and (3) the HIB investigation was too limited as it ignored B.M.’s diagnosis of
ADHD and Auditory Processing Disorder, did not include statements from other students at the
lunch table, and failed to give due consideration to all available evidence.
Upon review, the Commissioner rejects the ALJ’s conclusion that the Board’s HIB
determination was unjustified and excessive.2 Board action conducted within the ambit of its
broad discretionary authority “may not be upset unless 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). The Commissioner may not substitute their judgment for that of the
Board. Schinck v. Bd. of Educ. of Westwood Consol. Sch. Dist., 60 N.J. Super. 448, 476 (App. Div.
1960).
The Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq., requires local
boards of education to adopt policies prohibiting HIB which address, among other things,
2 The Commissioner also rejects as unsupported by the record the ALJ’s factual finding #18, which states: “In
reaching his determination that an HIB violation occurred, [the anti-bullying specialist] confirmed that he based his
entire decision on the nature of A.K.’s allergy, parent input, and the medical information the school has on file.” It
appears that, in rendering this finding, the ALJ misconstrued an email which states that the anti-bullying specialist
based his decision regarding A.K.’s allergies “on both parent input and the medical information that we have on file
for him.”

4
procedures for promptly investigating HIB allegations as well as remedial action for HIB
violations. L.W. ex rel. L.G. v. Toms River Reg’l Schs. Bd. of Educ., 381 N.J. Super. 465, 498 (App.
Div. 2005), modified by, aff’d by, remanded, 189 N.J. 381 (2007) (citing N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15);
Dunkley v. Bd. of Educ. of Greater Egg Harbor Reg’l High Sch. Dist., 216 F. Supp. 3d 485, 489
(D.N.J. 2016) (quoting N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15). The Act defines HIB 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.]
In summary, a finding of HIB requires three elements under the Act. First, the conduct
must be reasonably perceived as being motivated by any actual or perceived characteristic
expressly identified in the statute, or by any other distinguishing characteristic.3 Second, the
conduct must substantially disrupt or interfere with the rights of other students or the orderly
3 The parties do not dispute that the conduct at issue took place on school property.

5
operation of the school. Third, one of the three conditions set forth in subsections (a), (b), and
(c) must be satisfied. Wehbeh v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of Verona, Essex Cnty., Comm’r
Decision No. 510-20 (decided Feb. 4, 2020).
B.M.’s conduct satisfies the statutory definition of HIB. Regarding the first element, the
record establishes that, on school property during the lunch period, B.M. held a cashew in his
hand, extended his arm toward A.K., offered the cashew to him, and later touched A.K.’s lunch
bag and water bottle. A.K. reacted by recoiling and warning B.M. to stop his behavior due to his
nut allergy. A.K. reasonably perceived that B.M.’s conduct toward him was motivated by his
nut allergy, which qualifies as a distinguishing characteristic. B.M.’s actual intent is not relevant
under the Act.
As for the second element, B.M.’s conduct interfered with A.K.’s right to a safe and civil
environment at school. See N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 (explaining the purpose of the Act and finding
that “a safe and civil environment in school is necessary for students to learn and achieve high
academic standards”). Concerning the third element, a reasonable person should know that
presenting a cashew to a student with a nut allergy will place that student in reasonable fear of
physical harm. While B.M. claimed that he only knew A.K. was allergic to “peanuts,” A.K.
reacted negatively to the cashew and immediately reminded B.M. of his “nut” allergy. B.M.
proceeded to touch A.K.’s lunch bag and water bottle with the same hand that held the cashew.
Whether or not B.M. intended to harm A.K. is immaterial under the Act.
The Commissioner agrees with the Board that the ALJ erroneously focused upon
whether, from his own perspective, B.M.’s actions were severe enough to warrant a finding of
HIB instead of whether the Board’s determination was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable

6
under the Act. Rather than analyzing B.M.’s conduct under the statutory definition of HIB and
evaluating the reasonableness of the Board’s HIB determination, the ALJ inappropriately
substituted his own judgment for that of the Board. It was not for the ALJ to decide that B.M.
could or should have received a lesser code of conduct violation as opposed to a HIB violation.
Whether A.K.’s mother had sought a finding of HIB against B.M. is irrelevant under the Act, as is
the potential negative impact of a HIB determination on B.M.’s school record. And yet, the ALJ
considered these immaterial factors. Furthermore, the ALJ’s finding that the content of the HIB
Report Form was indicative of a defensive overreaction by school officials is unfounded.
Petitioner’s reply exceptions are unavailing. The record need not contain proof that
B.M.’s conduct was actually motivated by A.K.’s nut allergy. Rather, as explained herein, the
pertinent inquiry under the Act is whether A.K. reasonably perceived that B.M.’s conduct
toward him was motivated by his nut allergy. Additionally, petitioner’s insistence that A.K. is
only allergic to peanuts is contradicted by the record. Moreover, the ALJ never found that B.M.
“rubbed” his hands on the lunch bag or the water bottle. Rather, security video confirmed, and
the ALJ found, that B.M. touched A.K.’s lunch bag with his hands. And whether B.M. realized in
the moment that offering A.K. a cashew could trigger A.K. to experience an allergic reaction is
not relevant under the reasonable person standard stated at N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14(a).
Finally, the Commissioner finds that the HIB investigation was sufficiently thorough in
scope. Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the record reflects that another student seated at the
same lunch table as B.M. and A.K. on the date of the incident was interviewed during the
investigation. That student confirmed that B.M. had offered A.K. a nut and stated that, in
response, A.K. had asked B.M.: “Are you trying to kill me?” Additionally, the anti-bullying

7
specialist was fully aware of B.M.’s 504 plan. The fact that the 504 plan was not mentioned on
the HIB Report Form does not establish that it was not considered. In any event, petitioner has
not cited any legal authority to support the conclusion that B.M.’s 504 plan should have
absolved him of a HIB determination against him.
Accordingly, the ALJ’s conclusion that the Board’s HIB determination was unjustified and
excessive is rejected. Instead, the Commissioner finds that petitioner has not established that
the Board’s HIB determination was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or induced by improper
motives. Accordingly, the Commissioner upholds the Board’s HIB determination, and the
petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.4
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
4 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.
July 6, 2023
July 7, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04092-19
AGENCY DKT. NO. 37-2/19
J.M. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD, B.M.,
Petitioners,
v.
THE CHATHAMS SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF EDUCATION, MORRIS COUNTY,
Respondent.
______
Richard Kaplow, Esq. for petitioner
Frances L. Febres, Esq. for respondent (Cleary Giacobbe Alfieri Jacobs, LLC,
attorneys)
Record Closed: March 17, 2023 	Decided: April 13, 2023
BEFORE ANDREW M. BARON, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner challenges an HIB (Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying, “HIB”) finding
against their minor child by the Chatham School District involving an incident with another
student.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04092-19
2
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 24, 2018, the District ABS officer determined that petitioner had
engaged in an HIB violation, because his actions could have harmed another student.
Two days later, the school principal affirmed the finding, which was followed by a penalty
of five days detention and a follow up meeting with the guidance counselor.
On or about October 31, 2018, the matter was then sent to the Superintendent,
who informed petitioner’s parents that the matter was being formally reported to the
Chatham Board of Education as a bullying incident. Even though the determination had
already been made, the ABS officer continued his investigation and questioning of the
alleged victim.
The matter was then taken up by the Board of Education on November 19, 2018.
Following a hearing, the board affirmed the HIB determination, specifically finding that the
student’s actions were motivated by knowledge of the victim’s nut allergy, which occurred
on school grounds, during the school day and had the effect of upsetting the victim and
compromising his safety.
This appeal was filed and transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law on March
22, 2019. Numerous conferences and efforts to resolve the matter pre and post pandemic
ensued, which were unsuccessful.
Thereafter, by consent, the parties determined that the matter could be decided by
Summary Disposition without testimony.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the facts as submitted by both sides, I make the following FINDINGS OF
FACT, which are essentially undisputed, and which are subject to the interpretation and
application of the New Jersey Anti-Bullying Law.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04092-19
3
1. 	A.K. and B.M. were both seventh grade students attending The Chatham Middle
School on October 17, 2018.
2. 	Sometime during the lunch/recess period that day, the school was notified by
A.K.’s mother that B.M. had waived cashews in A.K.’s face and was touching his
lunch bag and water bottle.
3. 	A.K.has a nut allergy, and apparently shared this incident with his mother when he
returned home from school.
4. 	In an email communication from A.K.’s mother dated October 17, 2018, in a calm
tone, his mother simply requested: “Can you please let Benjamin know that this is
a serious health issue and, for some individuals can be potentially life threatening?
It is unclear how and why this incident was then escalated into an HIB investigation,
as opposed to a code of conduct violation, or simply detention with counseling.
5. 	B.M. has auditory processing, ADHD and other forms of related and other
documented social and learning challenges. He also has accommodations under
a Federal 504 plan. None of this is referenced in the HIB report.
6. 	Thereafter, a HIB investigation was initiated and conducted by the school’s anti-
bullying specialist, Anthony Giaconia.
7. 	Mr. Giaconia filed a nine-page report, and while it appears A.K.’s mother only
asked for the District to speak with B.M. about the potential health ramifications, at
no time was she demanding severe punishment of B.M. that was consistent with
the actions of the District.
8. 	In fact, by the time it got to the school principal, it then escalated once it went to
the District Superintendent who also directed school officials to contact the local
police.
9. 	Although a one-day suspension was recommended, school officials themselves
decided to reduce that to five days of lunch detention, which is a common penalty
for other student infractions.
10. The HIB form which Chatham utilizes contains sixteen possible actions in
connection with the statute. 	However only one box was checked: “Jeopardizing
the safety of others.”
11. The report also allows for the opportunity to reference up to six interviews with
witnesses to the incident. No one was listed.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04092-19
4
12. At a meeting between B.M. and the school counselor which Mr. Giaconia attended
in his capacity as the A.B.S. investigator, Mr. Giaconia told B.M. that “no one thinks
B.M. tried to intentionally hurt, A.K.”
13. Other options on the HIB report which would support a finding under the Act are
not checked, including but not limited to: “threatening comments, gestures or
physical acts, intimidating conduct towards another pupil.
14. For example, it is undisputed that leading up to the incident which the District
determined was an HIB violation, there was no physical aggression or contact by
B.M. against the pupil, there was no teasing or name calling, there were no
insulting or demeaning comments, there were no threatening comments, gestures
or physical acts, there was no indication of intimidating conduct, there was no
spreading harmful rumors or gossip about the pupil, there was no getting another
person to harm a pupil, there was no indication of harassment intimidation or
bullying 	through 	electronic 	communications, 	no 	stalking, 	no 	destruction 	of
property, no public humiliation, stealing or theft, no defacing of property, excluding
or rejection, and finally, no extorting or exploiting a pupil.
15. In fact, it was not disputed that leading up to the incident which gave rise to the
HIB complaint, both boys were friends, even playing together at each other’s
homes.
16. During the interview, A.K. indicated that B.M. waved a cashew in this face, and
when he asked B.M. to stop, B.M. also touched his lunchbox and his water bottle.
17. During his interview with B.M., he acknowledged that he knew A.K. was allergic to
nuts, but that he “temporarily forgot.” He further indicated that he hadn’t “washed
his hands yet. The ABS official interpreted that to mean that B.M. knew the residue
from the nuts he was holding could transfer to A.K.’s water bottle and lunch bag.
18. In reaching his determination that an HIB violation occurred, Mr. Giaconia
confirmed that he based his entire decision on the nature of A.K.’s allergy, parent
input, and the medical information the school has on file.
19. When communicating with B.M.’s parents, Mr. Giaconia indicated that even if the
incident did not constitute a provable act of bullying, “it would still be classified as
a violation of the Code of Conduct and the disciplinary consequences would be the
same.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04092-19
5
20. Although there was some question about the status of the friendship between the
boys on the day of the incident, A.K. who usually sits at another lunch table, chose
to sit with B.M. on the day of the incident, and prior thereto, they had been frequent
guests at each other’s homes.
21. I FIND, that whatever occurred between B.M. and A.K. on October 17, 2018, a
preponderance of the facts and evidence DO NOT support a finding that a HIB
violation was committed by B.M. I FIND that while school officials were justified in
conducting an investigation, the end result, which was to charge and sustain a
finding of a HB violation by B.M. was not justified and was excessive.
22. I FURTHER FIND, that in viewing the extensive nine-page report, together with the
initial email submitted to school officials by A.K.’s mother, there is nothing to
suggest she was seeking to have such a severe penalty imposed, nor does the
report itself suggest a pattern of conduct by B.M. against A.K. that is more in line
with what the Anti-Bullying statute requires. 	I FIND that the lack of entries in all
sixteen boxes which outline what an HIB violation is, speaks volumes to the fact
that out of defensiveness, school officials may have overreacted, including but not
limited to involving the superintendent of schools, and also by contacting the local
police.
23. As school officials indicated to B.M.’s parents, he could have been charged with a
code of conduct violation, which seems more consistent with the underlying
events, and the ultimate penalty of a five-day lunch detention, which is a common
form of discipline in schools. Even though B.M. was a seventh grader at the time,
I FIND that having a bullying incident as part of his school record may be
detrimental to him at some time in the future.
24. For all of the foregoing reasons outlined above, I CANNOT FIND that the events
of October 17, 2018 constitute an act of bullying.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW
The New Jersey Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights, sets forth four elements under N.J.S.A.
18A:37-13 that must be established in order to constitute an incident of bullying in a school
setting. (HIB).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04092-19
6
The first element requires conduct that must be “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.”
The next requirement is the conduct must take place “on school property, at any
school-sponsored function, on a school bus, or off school grounds.
Third, the conduct must substantially disrupt or interfere with the orderly operation
of the school or the rights of other students.
The fourth and final element necessary to establish an HIB incident is that the
conduct must be such 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 or
group of students by interfering with a student’s education or
by severely or pervasively causing physical or emotional harm
to the student.
In addition to the aforementioned criteria, the statute also references that an HIB
investigation must be thorough and timely and be completed within ten days of the
reported incident. See: L.P. and H.P. o/b/o L.P. v. Bd. of Educ. of the West Morris Reg.
High School Dist. OAL Dkt. No. EDU 04462-16, 2016 WL 3361005 (2016).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04092-19
7
Other cases have defined bullying on a case-by-case basis as within the discretion
of the district. 	In C.K. & M.K. o/b/o M.K. v. Voorhees Bd. of Ed. 	OAL Dkt. No. EDU
20510-10 2017 WL 10399002, Final Decision (N.J. Adm. March 2017), an accused
student who was developmentally disabled reached under a bathroom stall and grabbed
a girl’s leg asking for a high-five. Though the accused student was not interviewed during
the investigation, which went beyond the ten-day timeline, the ALJ found that it would not
be in the best interests of the students to be re-interviewed, as the information received
would be inconsequential.
In another matter involving the timing and manner in which an investigation was
conducted, an HIB inquiry consisted of student interviews, written statements and review
of surveillance footage. See: W.H. o/b/o Z.A. v. Beverly Bd. of Educ. OAL Dkt. No. EDU
08075-19, Initial Decision 2021 WL 7629602 adopted Comm’r Final Decision (N.J. Adm.
October 21, 2021). 	In upholding the ABS determination that there was no evidence to
support any element of the HIB statute, the ALJ determined that the District had
conducted a prompt and thorough” investigation.
And, in a case which upheld a District’s fining of an HIB violation, which ultimately
reversed an ALJ’s finding that the HIB investigation was not thorough, the Commissioner
of 	Education 	rejected 	an 	ALJ’s 	determination 	finding 	that 	the 	investigation 	was
insufficient. 	See: L.K. and T.K. o/b/o A.K. v. Mansfield Twp.Bd. of Educ. OAL Dkt. No.
EDU 7067-16, 2019 WL 1259466, Initial Decision rejected, Comm’r Final Decision (N.J.
Adm. April 22, 2019). The conduct of the student in that case was motivated by gender,
and notably however and left undisturbed was the ALJ’s finding was that the ABR focuses
on the impact of the conduct of an accused student, which the victim reasonable
perceived as being the motivation for the conduct itself.
CONCLUSION
The parties by Consent filed a Motion and Cross Motion for Summary Disposition,
suggesting there I no need for a hearing, and the case can be decided as a matter of law
based on facts which are for the most part undisputed.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04092-19
8
I agree, and therefore CONCLUDE there are insufficient facts to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that an HIB violation occurred. 	While food allergies in
children must be taken seriously at all times, I CONCLUDE for purposes of this situation
that District officials overreached, and the matter would have been more appropriately
dealt with at the time through internal alternate means. 	That is not to suggest that no
discipline was warranted, but I CONCLUDE that the events did not give rise to a
determination that B.M. was bullying A.K. The counseling the District required, together
with a lunch detention was sufficient, without escalating the matter to an HIB violation.
ORDER
With the Finding and Conclusion that there are insufficient facts to establish by
a preponderance of the evidence that B.M. committed an HIB violation, it is hereby
ORDERED that the finding against him arising out of an incident on October 17, 2018 is
hereby REVERSED, and a copy of this decision shall be placed in B.M.’s student file. The
District’ internal records concerning B.M. should be adjusted accordingly.
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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04092-19
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, 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.
April 13, 2023
DATE 	ANDREW M. BARON, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	April 13, 2023
Date E-Mailed to Parties: 	April 13, 2023
lr

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04092-19
10
APPENDIX
LIST OF WITNESSES
For Petitioner:
None
For Respondent:
None
LIST OF EXHIBITS IN EVIDENCE
(Confidential and subject to privacy laws due to nature of proceeding, minor
children involved, exempt from OPRA and other public disclosure not to be
released unless court ordered)
For Petitioner
Incorporates by reference Exhibits R-1 through R-5
P-1 	Thumb drive- (Unable to view after first sixty seconds)
For Respondent
R-1 	E-mail notification from A.K.’s mother
R-2 	HIB Investigation report
R-3 	Principal affirmance of HIB finding
R-4 	E-mail clarification to ABS investigator
R-5 	Board Affirmance