Casey Zimmer and Louis Gaudious v. Board of Education of the Township of Ocean, Monmouth County, 10/10/25 (#481-25E)

481-25E
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 15305-25
Agency Dkt. No. 294-9/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Order on Emergent Relief
Casey Zimmer and Louis Gaudious,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Ocean,
Ocean County,
Respondent.
The record of this emergent matter, the sound recording of the hearing held at the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL), and the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) have been
reviewed and considered.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioners have failed to demonstrate
entitlement to emergent relief pursuant to the standards enunciated in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126,
132-34 (1982), and codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6.
Accordingly, the recommended Order denying petitioners’ application for emergent relief is
adopted for the reasons stated therein. This matter shall continue at the OAL with such proceedings as
the parties and the ALJ deem necessary to bring it to closure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	October 10, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	October 10, 2025

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
ORDER DENYING
EMERGENT RELIEF
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15305-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 294-9/25
CASEY ZIMMER & LOUIS GAUDIOUS,
Petitioners,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF OCEAN,
Respondent.
Casey Zimmer and Louis Gaudious, petitioners, pro se
Athina L. Cornell, Esq., for respondents (Methfessel & Werbel, PC, attorneys)
BEFORE WILLIAM T. COOPER III, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Casey Zimmer and Louis Gaudious (petitioners) bring an action for emergent relief
against the Board of Education of the Township of Ocean (district or respondent)
challenging the July 31, 2025, decision of the district affirming the superintendent’s July
14, 2025, directive barring them from all district property unless prior written authorization
were granted. Petitioners seek a stay of the directive pending a plenary hearing.
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15305-25
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 14, 2025, the superintendent issued a directive to petitioners, based upon
respondent’s policies 9202, Civility, and 9160, Attendance at School Events, barring
petitioners from all district property unless prior written authorization were granted.
Petitioners appealed to the respondent on July 24, 2025. On July 31, 2025, respondent
affirmed the directive as issued.
On August 7, 2025, respondent provided petitioners with limited access to school
property for the purposes of medical emergencies, pick-up and drop-off, parent-teacher
conferences, and meetings with the guidance counselor. On August 26, 2025, petitioners
appeared at respondent’s regularly scheduled public meeting seeking to have respondent
reconsider its affirmation of the directive. On September 2, 2025, respondent’s legal
counsel advised petitioners that their request for reconsideration was denied.
On September 2, 2025, petitioners submitted an emergent appeal to the
Department of Education, Office of Controversies and Disputes, challenging respondent’s
decision. The matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where
on September 2, 2025, it was filed as a contested case seeking emergent relief. N.J.S.A.
52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
Oral arguments regarding the application for emergent relief were conducted on
September 12, 2025.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioners are the parents of students J.G. and S.G. (students), who both attend
Ocean Township High School (High School). The students also are players on the High
School football team. Petitioners requested and were granted a meeting with the head
coach to discuss the students’ roles on the football team. Respondent alleges that the
discussion on July 10, 2025, digressed into yelling and shouting, and Louis Gaudious
threatening the head coach. Respondent further alleged that the meeting was terminated,
and as school personnel were exiting the room Casey Zimmer pushed the High School

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15305-25
3
principal from behind. The Ocean Township Police were called to the scene, and then
the involved parties were directed to police headquarters so that statements could be
taken. Petitioners deny that the meeting digressed into a yelling and shouting match, that
any threats were made, and that school personnel were pushed.
On July 14, 2025, the superintendent issued a directive to petitioners, based upon
respondent’s policies 9202, Civility, and 9160, Attendance at School Events, barring
petitioners from all district property unless prior written authorization were granted.
Petitioners appealed to the respondent on July 24, 2025. On July 31, 2025, respondents
affirmed the directive as issued.
On August 7, 2025, the superintendent provided petitioners with limited access to
school property for the purposes of medical emergencies, pick-up and drop-off, parent-
teacher conferences, and meetings with the guidance counselor. On August 26, 2025,
petitioners appeared at respondent’s regularly scheduled public meeting seeking to have
respondent reconsider its affirmation of the directive. On September 2, 2025,
respondent’s legal counsel advised petitioners that their request for reconsideration was
denied.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners
Petitioners argue that their entire family will suffer irreparable harm because:
1. The directive banning them from respondent’s property
prevents them from attending the students’ football games.
The students do not have their parents present to cheer them
on and celebrate their achievements on the field;
2. Petitioners’ son S.G. has a serious heart condition and it is
unfair that his parents will be excluded from games and not
immediately available if there is a medical emergency;
3. The students both desire to continue their football careers in
college and petitioners’ film all of their football games. The
directive prevents petitioners from filming the games, thus

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15305-25
4
depriving the students of film footage essential for recruiting
purposes;
4. Petitioners operate a non-profit youth football program and
the ban from respondent’s property punishes the children in
the program;
5. The students have three younger brothers who look up to their
brothers, and because of the ban they are also unable to
attend the games.
Petitioners request emergent relief in the form of an order permitting them to attend
Ocean Township High School football home games, pending the outcome of a plenary
hearing on the underlying issue concerning the directive banning them from district
property.
Respondent
Respondent maintains that petitioners’ actions on July 10, 2025, specifically,
inappropriate verbal attacks and physical aggression against staff members, were
inappropriate and fell significantly short of the conduct expected of all visitors to school
property. Respondent argues that petitioners’ actions were in violation of Board of
Education policies 9160, Public Attendance at School Events, and 9202, Civility, and that
the decision to ban petitioners from district property is necessary to maintain peace and
good order within district facilities and during public events.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The standards for emergent relief are set forth in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126
(1982), and codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b):
1. The petitioner will suffer irreparable harm if the requested
relief is not granted;
2. The legal right underlying petitioner’s claim is settled;
3. The petitioner has a likelihood of prevailing on the merits
of the underlying claim; and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15305-25
5
4. When the equities and interests of the parties are
balanced, the petitioner will suffer greater harm than the
respondent will suffer if the requested relief is not granted.
Petitioners bear the burden of satisfying all four prongs of this test. Crowe v.
DeGioia, 90 N.J. at 132–34.
The first consideration is whether petitioners will suffer irreparable harm if the
requested relief is not granted. “Irreparable harm is shown when money damages cannot
adequately compensate plaintiff’s injuries.” Hornstine v. Twp. of Moorestown, 263
F. Supp. 2d 887, 911 (D.N.J. 2003) (citing Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974)).
“More than a risk of irreparable harm must be demonstrated.” Cont’l Grp., Inc. v. Amoco
Chems. Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980). “The requisite for injunctive relief has
been characterized as a ‘clear showing of immediate irreparable injury’ or a ‘presently
existing actual threat’; [an injunction] may not be used simply to eliminate a possibility of
a remote future injury, or a future invasion of rights, be those rights protected by statute
or by the common law.” Ibid. (citations omitted). This was further explained by the New
Jersey District Court:
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must make a clear
showing of immediate irreparable injury. Establishing a risk
of irreparable harm is not enough. A plaintiff has the burden
of proving a clear showing of immediate irreparable injury.
Mere speculation as to an injury that will result in the absence
of any facts supporting such a claim, is insufficient to
demonstrate irreparable harm.
[Spacemax Int’l LLC v. Core Health & Fitness, LLC, 2013 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 154638 at 2 (D.N.J. Oct. 28, 2013) (internal
citations and quotations omitted).]
Here, irreparable harm has not been established by petitioners. Petitioners offer
only speculative examples of harm which are unfounded. Further, petitioners have been
granted access for medical emergencies. As such, concerns about the potential medical
needs of S.G. as a result of his heart condition have been addressed. Second, petitioners
are not precluded from obtaining game films featuring both students and continuing any
recruiting efforts on their behalf. Finally, the limitations placed on petitioners are the result

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15305-25
6
of their alleged conduct on July 10, 2025, conduct that if sustained would justify the
issuance of the superintendent’s July 10, 2025, directive.
I CONCLUDE that petitioners have not met their burden of establishing irreparable
harm.
The second consideration is whether petitioners have shown their claim to be
well settled. Petitioners challenge the basis for the issuance of the July 10, 2025, directive
and claim that respondent’s action affirming same was arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.
Local boards of education enjoy broad discretionary authority over school property
and the daily functioning of public schools pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1. See also
N.J.S.A. 18A:20-20 (affords the board control over its lands and buildings). Indeed, local
boards are required to provide for the health and safety of the students under their
direction and charge pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:40–1 et seq. and N.J.A.C. 6:29–1.1 et seq.
The board’s action in barring these parents from attendance at athletics events was
deemed a valid exercise of its authority and one which will not be disturbed in the absence
of an affirmative showing that same was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. E.g.
Smith et al. v. Bd. of Educ. of Caldwell-West Caldwell, 1972 S.L.D. 232, 239 (when a
board exercises its discretion in a fair and equitable manner, the Commissioner will not
interpose his own judgment, even if it may differ on some occasions”); Kenny v. Bd. of
Educ. of Montclair, 1938 S.L.D. 647, aff’d, State Board, 649, 653 (boards of education are
vested with management of the public schools and “unless they violate the law or act in
bad faith, the exercise of their discretion in the performance of duties imposed upon them
is not subject to interference or reversal”).
Based upon the limited record at this stage of the proceedings, I cannot conclude
that the directive imposing the ban on district property was arbitrary, capricious, without
a rational basis, or induced by improper motives. Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that
petitioners have not shown that the discipline imposed was arbitrary, capricious, without
a rational basis, or induced by improper motives.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15305-25
7
The third consideration is whether petitioners have a likelihood of prevailing on
the merits. It is well settled that the decisions of local boards of education are to stand
undisturbed unless shown to be patently “arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by
improper motives.” J.M. by his Guardian D.M. v. Hunterdon Cent. Reg’l High Sch. Dist.,
96 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) at 419 (citing Kopera v. W. Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288
(App. Div. 1960)).
I CONCLUDE that petitioners have not shown a likelihood of prevailing on the
merits at this point in the proceedings.
The fourth consideration entails a balance of interests between the parties.
Petitioners argue that the ban from district property is excessive and will have a
detrimental impact on their family. However, respondent has an obligation to all the
students, parents, and visitors to their facilities. Petitioners’ arguments fail to recognize
this obligation.
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that the equities weigh in favor of respondent.
Having considered the parties’ arguments and submissions, I CONCLUDE that
petitioners have not met all four prongs of the standard for entitlement to emergency relief.
For the foregoing reasons, I CONCLUDE that the request for emergent relief must be
denied.
It is ORDERED that petitioners’ motion for emergent relief is DENIED.
A telephone pre-hearing conference has been scheduled for September 29, 2025,
at 3:00 p.m. A notice will be sent separately.
This order on application for emergency relief may be adopted, modified or
rejected by COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is
authorized to make a final decision in this matter. The final decision shall be issued
without undue delay, but no later than forty-five days following the entry of this order. If

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15305-25
8
Commissioner of the Department of Education does not adopt, modify or reject this order
within forty-five days, this recommended order shall become a final decision on the issue
of emergent relief in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
September 15, 2025
DATE WILLIAM T. COOPER III, ALJ
Date Received at Agency
Date Mailed to Parties:
WTC/am/gd

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15305-25
9
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For petitioners
None
For respondent
None
Exhibits
For petitioners
P-1 Document outlining alleged irreparable harms
For respondent
R-1 Response to emergent relief request, legal memorandum, appendix, and
certification of Kelly Weldon