Marlena Ventura v. Board of Education of the City of Trenton, Mercer County, 7/25/25 (#369-25)

369-25
OAL Dkt. No. 03072-23
Agency Dkt. No. 60-3/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Marlena Ventura,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Trenton, Mercer
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, and for the reasons thoroughly detailed in the Initial Decision, the Commissioner
concurs with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that the Board acted properly in requiring petitioner to
undergo a psychiatric examination.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition of
appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	July 25, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	July 28, 2025
1 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.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03072-23
AGENCY REF. NO. 60-3/23
MARLENA VENTURA,
Petitioner,
v.
CITY OF TRENTON BOARD
OF EDUCATION, MERCER
COUNTY,
Respondent.
Edward A. Cridge, Esq., for petitioner (Mellk Cridge, LLC, attorneys)
James Rolle, Jr., Esq., for respondent (General Counsel for Trenton Public
School District, attorneys)
Record closed: December 2, 2024 Decided: April 28, 2025
BEFORE JEFFREY N. RABIN, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner, Marlene Ventura, appeals the decision by the respondent, City of
Trenton Board of Education, Mercer County (Board), that petitioner must undergo a
psychiatric examination/Fitness For Duty examination (FFD), pursuant to N.J.S.A.
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03072-23
2
18A:16-2. Petitioner filed a due process petition on March 7, 2023, with the
Commissioner of Education (the “Commissioner”) challenging the directive. The Board
filed an Answer, and the matter was then transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) on April 10, 2023, as a contested matter. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A.
52:14F-1 to -13.
Hearings were held via Zoom on August 23, 2023, and September 18, 2023. Final
post-hearing briefs were received by December 2, 2024, and the record closed.
Extensions to complete the Initial Decision were granted on March 7, 2025 and April 28,
2025.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Testimony
For respondent
Michael Rosenberg was the principal of the Copeland Elementary School in the
Trenton School District. He was petitioner’s principal for five years. As principal, as part
of his morning routine, he would conduct walkthroughs to check on teachers, see how
they were doing, and if they needed any support. During several walkthrough
conversations, petitioner shared with Rosenberg that her anxiety level was “not good”
and “worsening.”
On one occasion in autumn 2021, Rosenberg saw that petitioner brought her cat
into her classroom. Petitioner explained why she needed her cat there, and Rosenberg
told her that she was first required to submit a formal request for a 504 accommodation
through the Human Resources (HR) department. Petitioner did not bring the cat into the
building again. Petitioner did apply to bring her cat to school as a service animal, but that
request was denied due to potential health issues between the animal and students.
In January 2022, Rosenberg had to discuss this issue with petitioner again
because an officer from the Trenton Humane Department had been following up on

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03072-23
3
several reports about a kitten being left in a car in the school parking lot for several hours
during the cold winter months. Petitioner told Rosenberg that she believed her cat was
safe due to there being warm clothing in the car.
Petitioner had been out on administrative leave, approved by HR, for fifty-six days
during the 2021–2022 school year, returning to work at the beginning of the 2022–2023
school year. Petitioner informed Rosenberg that the leave was because she was
receiving therapy for a mental health condition.
Exhibit R-1 was a memorandum by Rosenberg to the district superintendent, which
documented concerns from six teachers as to petitioner’s behavior and raised classroom
security concerns.
Keith Powers, a staff member and union building representative, told Rosenberg
on September 15, 2022, that petitioner had confronted him in the lunchroom about the
lack of organization and control of students in a loud and disruptive manner in front of
students. Powers said this confrontation disturbed the students.
Susan Mueller told Rosenberg on September 15, 2022, that petitioner had
confronted her in a physically agitated manner about student control, claiming a lack of
organization and disruptiveness amongst students. Mueller also complained about
petitioner’s body odor.
Dolores Snow, a school paraprofessional, also complained to Rosenberg that
petitioner had a noticeable body odor.
Melissa Lewis, Rosenberg’s secretary, told Rosenberg that petitioner approached
her in an aggressive manner, which upset her, in order to complain about an allegedly
inappropriate assignment of a four-year-old to her kindergarten class; Lewis showed a
birth certificate to petitioner to prove that the child was five years old.
Lorenzo Gonzales, a veteran parent-liaison, told Rosenberg that petitioner claimed
that her anxiety level was reaching a critical level and that her anxiety would get even

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03072-23
4
worse if she received one more student, despite class size fluctuation not being unusual
at the beginning of a school year.
Finally, Laura Colvin, an experienced school guidance counselor and licensed
mental health counselor, told Rosenberg that she had a discussion in 2021–2022 with
petitioner wherein petitioner reported anxiety resulting from her teaching job. On
September 14 or 15, 2022, Colvin advised Rosenberg that petitioner needed immediate
mental health support.
Rosenberg did not have individual written statements from these six complainants
because they were told by their union not to reduce their complaints to writing. Rosenberg
did not go to speak with petitioner immediately after each of these individual complaints
but spoke with her after all six complaints had been received. Based on his interactions
with petitioner and these six complaints, on September 16, 2022, Rosenberg made his
request that petitioner get a FFD. (Exhibit R-1.)
One time Rosenberg walked into petitioner’s classroom and noted that the
students were watching a movie. Petitioner told Rosenberg that she was having a bad
day and just wanted the children to be quiet.
A “Ms. Pembleton” reported that petitioner had grabbed student “K.S.”
inappropriately. Ms. Pembleton told Rosenberg that petitioner had said to K.S. in class
that she did not care if God came down to this Earth; the student should never move out
of line. Rosenberg filed a report on these complaints. (Exhibit R-2.)
Petitioner complained to Rosenberg upon her return from her mental health hiatus
in 2021–2022 because the paraprofessional assigned to her kindergarten classroom was
not there at the start of the 2022–2023 school year. Petitioner became loud and agitated
during that conversation; this agitated behavior did not occur in front of any students and
did not include profanities; otherwise, Rosenberg would have had to address those issues
in a memorandum. On September 16, 2022, Rosenberg made his request that petitioner
get a FFD. On September 22, 2022, petitioner was placed on administrative leave with
pay and therefore was not working at the school in the 2022–2023 school year.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03072-23
5
Cherelle Tolor has been the Board's executive director of human resources since
September 2022. She was previously director of the Willingboro and Irvington, New
Jersey, Boards of Education. Tolor was made aware of Rosenberg’s email dated
September 16, 2022, to Superintendent Earle. (Exhibit R-1.) Tolor discussed petitioner’s
issues with both Rosenberg and Earle. Tolor did not investigate the six staff complaints
or interview the complainants.
Tolor testified to an issue of corporal punishment allegedly committed by petitioner,
which was reported to the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency
(DCP&P). The State did not establish that any child abuse took place.
Tolor was aware of the complaints made to Rosenberg by Lewis, Gonzalez and
Colvin. Tolor testified that Rosenberg spoke with petitioner after the six complaints were
made. Rosenberg looked at this matter as a disciplinary issue but also wanted to both
help petitioner and ensure the safety of teachers and students. Tolor did not speak with
petitioner after learning of these six complaints.
Petitioner had shared with Rosenberg that she was struggling at work due to
anxiety. Petitioner had a physical altercation with a student in front of his parents. This
altercation, combined with the six staff complaints, led Tolor to believe that petitioner
needed help.
Exhibit R-9 was the district policy, which allows for examinations for cause. Per
paragraph two, there must be competent evidence of behavioral deviations. Per
paragraph three, notice must be given of the request for a FFD. Exhibit R-5 was a revised
FFD notice to petitioner, dated January 19, 2023, changing the date of the FFD.
Melissa Lewis worked as a secretary at the Copeland Elementary School. She
had an interaction with petitioner on September 1, 2022, regarding a child’s age.
Petitioner stated that a four-year-old child had been registered in her kindergarten class,
not yet the required age of five. Petitioner told Lewis that she had called the parents and
verified that the child was four years old. Lewis pulled the child's birth certificate and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03072-23
6
verified that the child was five years old. Lewis called the parents, and one parent stated
that she had never spoken with petitioner.
Susan Mueller was a third-grade teacher employed by the Board at the Copeland
Elementary School. She had an interaction with petitioner in September 2022. Petitioner
came out of the lunchroom, her face was red, she seemed angry, and she raised her
voice and loudly questioned why her students were using the first-floor bathroom instead
of the second-floor bathroom. There was no formal bathroom policy. After this incident,
students questioned Mueller about why petitioner was yelling at her. Mueller reported the
interaction to Rosenberg because she felt that petitioner should not have raised her voice
in front of her students but should have spoken with Mueller privately.
Mueller never complained about petitioner’s body odor.
For petitioner
Petitioner did not present any witnesses and did not put on a case.
Credibility
In evaluating evidence, it is necessary to assess the credibility of the witnesses.
Credibility is the value that a finder of the facts gives to a witness’s testimony. It requires
an overall assessment of the witness’s story in light of its rationality or internal consistency
and the manner in which it “hangs together” with the other evidence. Carbo v. United
States, 314 F.2d 718, 749 (9th Cir. 1963). “Testimony to be believed must not only
proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself,” in that “[i]t
must be such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as
probable in the circumstances.” In re Perrone, 5 N.J. 514, 522 (1950).
A fact finder “is free to weigh the evidence and to reject the testimony of a witness
. . . when it is contrary to circumstances given in evidence or contains inherent
improbabilities or contradictions which alone or in connection with other circumstances in
evidence excite suspicion as to its truth.” Id. at 521–22; see D’Amato by McPherson v.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03072-23
7
D’Amato, 305 N.J. Super. 109, 115 (App. Div. 1997). A trier of fact may also reject
testimony as “inherently incredible” when “it is inconsistent with other testimony or with
common experience” or “overborne” by the testimony of other witnesses. Congleton v.
Pura-Tex Stone Corp., 53 N.J. Super. 282, 287 (App. Div. 1958).
Further, “‘[t]he interest, motive, bias, or prejudice of a witness may affect his
credibility and justify the [trier of fact], whose province it is to pass upon the credibility of
an interested witness, in disbelieving his testimony.’” State v. Salimone, 19 N.J. Super.
600, 608 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 10 N.J. 316 (1952) (citation omitted). The choice of
rejecting the testimony of a witness, in whole or in part, rests with the trier and finder of
the facts and must simply be a reasonable one. Renan Realty Corp. v. Dep’t of Cmty.
Affairs, 182 N.J. Super. 415, 421 (App. Div. 1981).
Michael Rosenberg testified in a clear manner, displaying an excellent
recollection of details. He appeared to be a caring, concerned principal and
knowledgeable about school procedures. He remained calm and clear during cross-
examination. Regarding the six unsolicited staff complaints during cross-examination,
Rosenberg failed to recall exact dates because he had not received written
memorializations of each of the six conversations. But he was able to explain each of
those encounters and narrow the dates down to either September 14 or 15 in each
situation.
Petitioner’s counsel raised the point that Rosenberg did not go and speak with
petitioner after each of the six individual staff complaints were made. However, there was
testimony that Rosenberg did discuss all six complaints with petitioner after the sixth
complaint was made.
Rosenberg testified that Melissa Lewis told him that petitioner approached her in
an aggressive manner, which upset her, in order to complain about an allegedly
inappropriate assignment of a four-year-old to her kindergarten class. Lewis did not
characterize the manner in which petitioner approached her. Petitioner’s counsel wrote
in his post-hearing brief that Lewis “denied that she had ever had an interaction with Ms.
Ventura where Ms. Ventura was ‘agitated,’” but such a denial does not appear in the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03072-23
8
transcript, nor did petitioner’s counsel cite the transcript for that statement. I do not find
that Lewis contradicted any statements of Rosenberg.
Petitioner’s counsel was correct in pointing out that Rosenberg testified that
Mueller criticized petitioner’s body odor, but Mueller testified that she never mentioned
petitioner’s body odor. Despite this inconsistency, I ultimately found Rosenberg to be a
credible witness.
Cherelle Tolor was a knowledgeable witness who answered questions in a very
direct manner. I found her to be a credible witness.
Melissa Lewis seemed annoyed and preoccupied during her testimony. She
needed to be reminded about her conversation with respondent’s counsel. But she was
clear that she did not see firsthand an altercation referred to between petitioner and
another teacher. However, her testimony about the age discrepancy and birth certificate
appeared honest and supported Rosenberg’s testimony about her complaint against
petitioner.
Susan Mueller testified in a seemingly honest and direct manner. She displayed
a good recollection of facts, and I found her testimony credible.
Accordingly, after carefully considering the testimonial and documentary evidence
presented, I FIND the following to be the relevant and credible FACTS:
Petitioner advised Rosenberg on several occasions that her anxiety level was “not
good” and “worsening”; one time Rosenberg walked into petitioner’s classroom and noted
that the students were watching a movie, and petitioner told Rosenberg that she was
having a bad day and just wanted the children to be quiet; in Autumn 2021, petitioner
brought her pet, a cat, into her classroom, without permission; as of January 2022,
petitioner had continued bringing her cat to school, leaving it unattended in her vehicle
during winter weather; at the beginning of the 2022–2023 school year, petitioner applied
to bring her cat to school as a service animal, which request was denied due to potential
health issues between the animal and students; Rosenberg had been informed that

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03072-23
9
petitioner had grabbed student “K.S.” inappropriately, and Rosenberg filed a report;
petitioner complained to Rosenberg upon her return from her mental health hiatus in
2021–2022 because the paraprofessional assigned to her kindergarten classroom was
not there at the start of the 2022–2023 school year─petitioner became loud and agitated
during that conversation.
Petitioner had been out on administrative leave for a mental health condition
approved by HR for fifty-three days during the 2021–2022 school year, briefly returning
to work at the beginning of the 2022–2023 school year.
Six staff members lodged complaints with Rosenberg as to petitioner’s behavior,
and raised classroom security concerns; petitioner approached Melissa Lewis in an
aggressive manner, which upset her, in order to complain about an allegedly
inappropriate assignment of a four-year old to her kindergarten class—petitioner lied to
Lewis about having spoken with that child’s parents before Lewis proved to petitioner that
the child was five years old by showing the child’s birth certificate; petitioner had
confronted Susan Mueller in a physically agitated manner, about student control
issues─petitioner approached Mueller in front of students, with her face red and
appearing angry, and she raised her voice and loudly questioned why her students were
using the first-floor bathroom instead of the second-floor bathroom; after this incident,
students questioned Mueller about why petitioner was yelling at her.
Laura Colvin, an experienced school guidance counselor and licensed mental
health counselor, told Rosenberg that she had a discussion in 2021–2022 with petitioner
where petitioner reported anxiety resulting from her teaching job, and on September 14
or 15, 2022, Colvin advised Rosenberg that petitioner needed immediate mental health
support. Rosenberg did not have individual written statements from these six
complainants because they were told by their union not to reduce their complaints to
writing, but Rosenberg did speak with petitioner after the sixth staff complaint to discuss
each of the complaints; based on his interactions with petitioner and these six complaints,
on September 16, 2022, Rosenberg made his request that petitioner get a FFD. (Exhibit
R-1.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03072-23
10
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The issue is whether the respondent Board proved by a preponderance of the
competent, credible evidence that it may compel petitioner to undergo a psychiatric
examination/FFD in order to keep her job as a Trenton school teacher.
N.J.S.A. 18A:16-2 governs a board of education’s request that an employee
undergo a psychiatric examination and provides:
a. Every board of education may require its employees
and shall require any candidate for employment who
has received a conditional offer of employment to
undergo a physical examination. The board may
require individual psychiatric or physical examinations
of any employee, whenever, in the judgment of the
board, an employee shows evidence of deviation from
normal, physical or mental health.
Petitioner cited to Kochman v. Keansburg Bd. of Ed., 124 N.J. Super. 203 (Ch. Div.
1973), wherein the court analyzed N.J.S.A. 18A:16-2 and stated:
The term “deviation from normal mental health” as used in
N.J.S.A. 18A:16-2 is construed to mean “harmful, significant
deviation from mental health affecting the teacher's ability to
teach, discipline or associate with children of the age of the
children subject to the teacher's control in the school district.”
[Kochman, at 212.]
Therefore, the issue becomes whether the respondent proved by a preponderance of the
competent, credible evidence that petitioner displayed behavior evincing a “harmful,
significant deviation from mental health affecting the teacher’s ability to teach, discipline,
or associate with children of the age of the children subject to the teacher’s control in the
school district.” See Tami Stewart v. Bd. of Ed. of City of New Brunswick, Middlesex
Cnty., OAL Dkt. No. EDU 01186-16, Comm. of Ed. Dec. No. 310-16. If so, then the
respondent is entitled to have petitioner undergo a psychiatric examination pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A:16-2.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03072-23
11
While Rosenberg did not testify that petitioner Ms. Ventura was insubordinate or
disrespectful, he was made aware of several concerning behaviors and facts:
First, petitioner had been out on administrative leave approved by HR for fifty-three
days during the 2021–2022 school year, only briefly returning to work at the beginning of
the 2022–2023 school year. Petitioner herself advised Rosenberg that her absences
were to address a mental health condition. Accordingly, petitioner made Rosenberg and
the school aware that she had needed mental health care.
Second, petitioner advised Rosenberg on several occasions that her anxiety level
was “not good” and “worsening.” Taken in light of petitioner missing fifty-three school
days for mental health reasons the previous school year, Rosenberg would have been
negligent if he had ignored a report from petitioner indicating that her condition was
worsening. A worsening of a mental health issue goes to the heart of the phrase
"deviation from normal mental health." N.J.S.A. 18A:16-2, as cited in Kochman.
Third, Rosenberg walked into petitioner’s classroom one day and saw that the
students were watching a movie. Petitioner told Rosenberg that she was having a bad
day and just wanted the children to be quiet. Based on this fact, petitioner’s mental health
was affecting her ability to teach a class, evidencing a failure to discharge her duties and
responsibilities as a teaching staff member.
Fourth, in fall 2021, petitioner brought her pet cat to school and into her classroom
without permission. She was advised that she needed to obtain permission for a service
animal through HR. She sought such approval in September 2022, when permission was
denied due to potential health issues that students might suffer from due to there being
an animal in the classroom. There was credible testimony that school policy required
preapproval for an employee having a service animal on school premises, but even
without such a policy, it was negligent of petitioner to bring an animal to school without
considering that some of her students might have allergies to cats and without
establishing that her pet was healthy and well-behaved enough to be in a location other
than its regular home. There was no evidence that respondent was attempting to penalize
the petitioner for seeking an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03072-23
12
Fifth, in January 2022, an animal control agent from the City of Trenton brought to
Rosenberg’s attention that petitioner had continued bringing her cat to school, choosing
to leave it unattended in her vehicle during that winter weather month. Petitioner applied
to bring her cat to school as a service animal, but her request was denied due to potential
health issues between the animal and students. It is clear that petitioner wantonly ignored
the instructions given to her by Rosenberg. Not only did she continue to bring her cat
onto school property, but she also displayed harmful behavior towards her own pet cat by
leaving it unattended in her car during a winter month. This behavior indicates a deviation
from normal mental health and raises questions as to petitioner’s ability to be responsible
for the welfare of the students in her charge.
Sixth, Rosenberg had been informed that petitioner had grabbed student “K.S.”
inappropriately, as confirmed by a report written by Rosenberg. This raises questions as
to petitioner’s mental ability to associate with young children.
Seventh, petitioner complained to Rosenberg in a loud and agitated manner upon
her return from her mental health hiatus in 2021−22 that the paraprofessional assigned
to her kindergarten classroom was not there at the start of the 2022−2023 school year.
While poor behavior in front of one’s employer is typically poor form in and of itself, it
might not indicate a deviation from normal mental health, which would affect her ability to
work as a teacher. But this must be taken together in light of the above-referenced facts
and the complaints from six fellow staff members.
The eighth matter was that six school staff members lodged independent,
unsolicited complaints with Rosenberg as to petitioner’s behavior and raised classroom
security concerns. Petitioner upset Rosenberg’s secretary, Melissa Lewis, by confronting
her in an aggressive manner. While petitioner’s complaint to Lewis might have been a
legitimate complaint—Lewis needed to produce a birth certificate to prove that a new
student added to petitioner’s class was of the legal age for kindergarten—there are no
legitimate grounds for a teacher to behave aggressively towards school staff.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03072-23
13
Ninth, petitioner lied to Lewis by stating she had already spoken with the child’s
parents, when Lewis was able to determine, pursuant to a telephone call with the parents,
that they had never spoken with petitioner about their child’s age. Aggressive behavior
and falsification of facts must be considered as evidence of a deviation from normal
mental health that could affect one’s ability to teach.
Tenth, petitioner confronted Susan Mueller in a physically agitated manner about
student control issues. This confrontation took place in front of students; the credible
testimony was that petitioner’s face was red, she appeared angry, and she raised her
voice and loudly questioned why her students were using the first-floor bathroom instead
of the second-floor bathroom. Mueller testified that after this incident, students
questioned Mueller about why petitioner was yelling at her. Mueller’s testimony as to the
incident lent credibility to Rosenberg’s testimony as to this incident. This is further
evidence of a harmful, significant deviation from mental health affecting a teacher’s ability
to teach, discipline, or associate with elementary school-aged students.
Respondent correctly pointed out that boards of education have an obligation to
ensure that staff are mentally and physically able to perform the functions that they are
hired to perform. See John Gish v. Board of Educ. of the Borough of Paramus, Bergen
Cnty., 145 N.J. Super. 96 (App. Div. 1976). It is a proper argument that under N.J.S.A.
18A:16-2, a board “may require individual psychiatric or physical examinations of any
employee, whenever, in the judgment of the board, an employee shows evidence of
deviation from normal, physical or mental health.” Respondent has proven at least ten
instances of deviations from normal mental health; these were not merely examples of
unusual or out-of-character behavior, but behaviors with a direct bearing on petitioner’s
ability to work as a teacher in an environment with fellow staff members and five-year-old
children.
Subsequent to Kochman, the Commissioner of the Department of Education has
held that the authority for these mental health examinations is given to the Board by
unambiguous statutory language. See Bd. of Educ. of Lyndhurst v. Blevis, Comm’r
Decision No. 29-1/07, decided December 5, 2007. In concluding in that case that there
was ample and credible testimony and evidence that the accused had acted in an

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03072-23
14
irrational and threatening manner toward fellow teachers and his supervisor, the
Commissioner in Blevis held that:
A board has the authority to direct an employee to undergo a
psychiatric evaluation if it perceives that the employee is
manifesting behavior that deviates from normal health. There
is no explicit mandate for the board to prove that the
employee's aberrant behavior has been specifically directed
toward students. The protection of students is an obvious
rationale for the statute. However, there is nothing in the
statute that prevents a board from determining that hostile and
abnormal behavior directed by one teacher towards several
others, and outbursts of temper displayed on multiple
occasions warrant a psychiatric evaluation, including an
assessment of the likelihood that respondent's control could
further deteriorate, and that his negative behavior could be
visited upon students.
[Blevis, at 9−10.]
More importantly, in Bd. of Educ. of Lyndhurst v. Blevis, No. A-6004-07T3, 2009
N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2524, at *16 (App. Div. Oct. 8, 2009), the court held that “[t]he
bar set by the statute is low, which comports with the overriding purpose in this and related
statutes that the health, safety and well-being of students is paramount.” Respondent
made a compelling argument that a board of education was not required to wait for a
harm to become manifest but rather was charged to perform an examination when there
was a legitimate possibility of harm. Gish, at 105.
Respondent cited case law holding that a board’s use of its authority “may not be
upset unless patently arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by improper motives.”
Kopera v. Bd. of Educ. of W. Orange, 60 N.J. Super. 288 (App. Div. 1960). In the within
matter, respondent set forth ten incidences of concern which led Principal Rosenberg to
require a FFD. They have established a rational basis for such a requirement, and
therefore, their requirement was in no way arbitrary. It must be further noted that Laura
Colvin, an experienced school guidance counselor and licensed mental health counsellor
at petitioner’s school, told Rosenberg that she had a discussion in 2021−22 with petitioner
in which petitioner reported anxiety resulting from her teaching job, and on or about
September 14, 2022, Colvin advised Rosenberg that petitioner needed immediate mental

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03072-23
15
health support. Rosenberg did not have a written statement from Colvin; however,
combined with the fact that Rosenberg spoke with petitioner after the sixth staff complaint
to discuss each of the complaints, and based on his own interactions with petitioner,
Rosenberg clearly did not act arbitrarily in requiring a FFD because he had a
recommendation from a licensed mental health counsellor that petitioner’s mental health
issues were connected to her employment and that she needed help.
For the foregoing reasons, I CONCLUDE that the respondent Board proved by a
preponderance of the competent, credible evidence that petitioner’s behavior was a
harmful, significant deviation from mental health affecting the teacher’s ability to teach,
discipline, or associate with children of the age of the children subject to the teacher’s
control in the school district, and further CONCLUDE that respondent acted properly in
compelling petitioner to undergo a psychiatric examination/FFD in order to keep her job
as a Trenton school teacher.
ORDER
I hereby ORDER that petitioner’s appeal be DISMISSED and that respondent’s
requirement that petitioner undergo a psychiatric examination/FFD in order to keep her
position as a Trenton school teacher be AFFIRMED.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the ACTING
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 03072-23
16
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Exceptions may be filed
by email to ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of
Controversies and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton,
New Jersey 08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the
other parties.
April 28, 2025
DATE JEFFREY N. RABIN, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
JNR/cab

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03072-23
17
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For petitioner
None
For respondent
Michael Rosenberg
Cherelle Tolor
Melissa Lewis
Susan Mueller
Exhibits
For petitioner
Post-hearing brief
For respondent
R-1 Rosenberg memorandum, dated September 16, 2022
R-2 Incident Reporting Form, dated September 21, 2022
R-3 Rosenberg letter, dated September 21, 2022
R-4 HR letter, dated September 22, 2022
R-5 FFD notice, dated January 19, 2023
R-6 Rolle letter, dated January 27, 2023
R-7 Dr. York letter, dated March 31, 2011
R-8 Dr. York letter, dated April 11, 2011
R-9 Board policy #3161
R-10 Petition of appeal
R-11 Respondent’s Answer
Post-hearing brief