K.P., on behalf of minor child I.M., v. Board of Education of the Township of Saddle Brook, Bergen County and Danielle Shanley, Superintendent, 9/5/19, (#232-19)

New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
K.P., on behalf of minor child, I.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Saddle Brook, Bergen County, and
Danielle Shanley, Superintendent,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner submitted a harassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB) complaint to the respondent Board
pursuant to the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 et seq., in which she alleged
that a student told her daughter that she was “ugly and [a] bad dancer.” When the Board failed to carry
out an investigation into the matter, petitioner filed the within appeal, asserting that her daughter had been
the victim of HIB and alleging that the Board failed to conduct the investigation required under the Act.
The Board contended that no investigation was conducted because the allegations, even if true, did not
constitute a violation of the Act. The Board filed a motion for summary judgement.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no genuine issues of material fact here, and the Board is entitled
to prevail as a matter of law because petitioner failed to allege a violation of the Act that would require an
investigation; 	under the Act, “harassment, intimidation, or bullying” means any gesture, any written,
verbal, or physical act, or any electronic communication that is reasonably perceived as motivated by any
actual or perceived distinguishing characteristic, such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,
gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or a mental, physical, or sensory disability, that
takes place on school property and substantially disrupts the orderly operation of the school; 	in the
instant case, petitioner has not asserted, let alone offered any proof, that the statement allegedly made to
her daughter by a fellow student – i.e., that I.M. is “ugly and [a] bad dancer” – was motivated by any
distinguishing characteristic, or that the alleged statement substantially disrupted or interfered with the
orderly operation of the school. The ALJ concluded that the respondent Board did not fail to investigate
this allegation of HIB in violation of the Act. 	Accordingly, the ALJ granted summary decision to the
Board as a matter of law and dismissed the petition.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ that the Board was not arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable in making a preliminary determination that the alleged conduct did not meet the statutory
definition of HIB, as – pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.7(a)(2)(ix)(1) – its HIB policy set forth a process
by which to make such a determination prior to launching a full HIB investigation, which process was
followed in this case. Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL was adopted as the final decision in
this matter, and the petition 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.
September 5, 2019
232-19

1
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 04624-19
Agency Dkt. No. 17-1/19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
K.P., on behalf of minor child, I.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Saddle Brook, Bergen County, and
Danielle Shanley, Superintendent,
Respondents.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions.
In this matter, petitioner submitted a harassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB)
complaint to the Board pursuant to the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-
13 et seq., in which she alleged that a student told her daughter that she was “ugly and [a] bad
dancer.” 	The Board did not conduct a HIB investigation, and instead determined that the
allegation, if true, did not constitute HIB. 	Petitioner challenged that determination and the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the alleged conduct did not meet the statutory definition
of HIB because petitioner did not allege that the comment about her daughter’s dancing was
motivated 	by 	an 	actual 	or 	perceived 	distinguishing 	characteristic, 	in 	accordance 	with
N.J.S.A. 18A: 37-14.
Upon review, the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that the Board was not
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in making a preliminary determination that the alleged

2
conduct did not meet the definition of HIB. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.7(a)(2)(ix)(1), a
Board’s HIB policy may include a “process prior to initiating an investigation by which the
principal, or his or her designee, in consultation with the anti-bullying specialist, makes a
preliminary determination as to whether the reported incident or complaint, assuming all facts
presented are true, is a report within the scope of N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.” In this matter, the Board
utilized this procedure and determined that, if true, the alleged conduct did not constitute HIB.
The Commissioner 	agrees 	with 	the ALJ 	that 	petitioner 	did 	not 	allege that 	I.M. 	had 	a
distinguishing characteristic, or that the comments regarding her dancing were in any way
motivated by a distinguishing characteristic. 	As such, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that
the alleged conduct meets the definition of HIB. 	N.J.S.A. 18A: 37-14.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL 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: 	September 5, 2019
Date of Mailing: 	September 9, 2019
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008,
c. 36 (N.J.S.A 18A:6-9.1).

1
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04624-19
AGENCY DKT. NO. 17-01/19
K.P. ON BEHALF OF I.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
SADDLE 	BROOK 	BOARD 	OF 	EDUCATION,
BERGEN 	COUNTY, 	AND 	DANIELLE
SHANLEY, SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondents.
______________________________________
K.P., petitioner, pro se
Jessika Kleen, Esq., for respondents (Machado Law Group, attorneys)
Record Closed: July 19, 2019 	Decided: July 24, 2019
BEFORE BARRY E. MOSCOWITZ, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner alleges that a student told her daughter that her daughter is an “ugly
and bad dancer” in violation of the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (ABRA), N.J.S.A.
18A:37-13 	et 	seq. 	Respondents, 	however, 	conducted 	no 	investigation. 	Did

2
respondents violate the ABRA? 	No. 	To violate the ABRA, the statement must be
motivated by any actual or perceived distinguishing characteristic—such as race, color,
religion, 	ancestry, 	national 	origin, 	gender, 	sexual 	orientation, 	gender 	identity 	and
expression, or a mental, physical, or sensory disability. See N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 15, 2018, petitioner notified respondents that a student had
allegedly told her daughter that her daughter is an “ugly and bad dancer” in violation of
the ABRA. 	Respondents, however, conducted no investigation. 	As a result, petitioner
filed an appeal with the Department of Education.
On 	January 	23, 	2019, 	petitioner 	filed 	her 	appeal 	with 	the 	Department 	of
Education, Bureau of Controversies and Disputes, alleging that respondents had failed
to conduct an investigation in violation of the ABRA. 	On March 12, 2019, respondents
filed their answer. 	Ostensibly, respondents assert that they conducted no investigation
because the allegations, even if true, do not constitute a violation of the ABRA.
On April 3, 2019, the Bureau of Controversies and Disputes transmitted this case
to the Office of Administrative Law as a contested case under the Administrative
Procedure 	Act, 	N.J.S.A. 	52:14B-1 	to 	-15, 	and 	the 	act 	establishing 	the 	Office 	of
Administrative 	Law, 	N.J.S.A. 	52:14F-1 	to 	-23, 	for 	a 	hearing 	under 	the 	Uniform
Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6.
On June 27, 2019, respondents filed a motion a motion for summary decision.
Under N.J.A.C. 	1:1-12.5(b), petitioner had until July 17, 2019, to file her response. 	On
July 18, 2019, petitioner emailed this tribunal claiming that she had never received
service of the motion. 	This claim, however, is rejected. 	On June 27, 2019, respondent
served petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by ordinary mail. Then,
on July 8, 2019, respondent served petitioner in person, placing the motion in her
mailbox. 	Since the ordinary mail was never returned, and the motion was later placed

3
in her mailbox, the service is deemed to be good service under N.J.A.C. 1:1-7.1. 	In
other words, these methods provided actual notice to petitioner. As a result, the date by
which petitioner had to submit her response will be enforced, not relaxed, and this
motion will remain unopposed, so as to achieve just results for all parties, which
includes respondents, given the merits of the motion, and to eliminate unjustifiable delay
under N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.3(a).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the documents submitted in support of and in opposition to the
motion for summary decision, I FIND the following as FACT:
On November 15, 2018, petitioner, K.P., sent an email to respondents stating,
among other things, that a student told her daughter, I.M., that her daughter is an “ugly
and bad dancer”:
Today an ignorant student J. (black kid) or whatever his
name is if I don’t spell it correctly had told my [I.] how ugly,
and bad dancer she is and all school feels the same. I don’t
know if this kid has a life or knows anything about dance.
Instead he will shut up his dirty mouth and will be charge
with HIB. He is lucky that my daughter didn’t say anything to
him but I will make sure he gets charge with HIB and shut up
his dirty mouth forever.
NOT APOLOGY IS ACCEPTABLE. 	ONLY HIB. 	This is the
only way and example for any ignorant and ugly like him and
many to STOP at least torch my baby girl.
[Ex. 	A 	to 	the 	Certification 	of 	Danielle 	Shanley,
Superintendent, dated July 2, 2019.]
Respondents 	conducted no 	investigation because 	they determined that the
allegation, even if true, did not constitute HIB.

4
Meanwhile, 	respondents 	were 	more 	concerned 	about 	K.P. 	because 	of 	the
demands she placed on staff through her daily emails, oftentimes more than several
emails a day, and the threats she made against staff in those emails. 	In particular,
respondents were concerned about K.P.’s description of the student whom she alleged
had told her daughter that she is a bad dancer, and K.P.’s threat that she would make
sure that student got “charge[d]” with HIB to “shut up his dirty mouth forever.” 	In fact,
respondents, to underscore the seriousness with which they take these threats, filed a
criminal complaint against K.P. for having made terroristic threats against staff.
The criminal complaint is pending.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A party may move for summary decision upon any or all substantive issues in a
contested case. 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a). 	The motion for summary decision shall be
served with briefs and may be served with supporting affidavits. 	Ibid. 	“The decision
sought may 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.” 	N.J.A.C.
1:1-12.5(b).
In this case, no genuine issue of any material fact exists and respondents are
entitled to prevail as a matter of law because petitioner has not alleged a violation of the
ABRA for respondents to investigate.
Under the ABRA, “harassment, intimidation, or bullying” means any gesture, any
written, verbal, or physical act, or any electronic communication that is reasonably
perceived as being motivated by any actual or perceived distinguishing characteristic,
such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity and expression, or a mental, physical, or sensory disability, that takes
place on school property. See N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14. It must also substantially disrupt or

5
interfere with, among other things, with the orderly operation of the school. 	Ibid.
Although the ABRA does not limit “distinguishing characteristic” to those specified in the
statute, it has consistently required such a perceived motivation. 	See K.L. v. Evesham
Twp. Bd. of Educ., 423 N.J. Super. 337, 351 (App. Div. 2011). 	“Thus, harmful or
demeaning conduct motivated only by another reason, for example, a dispute about
relationships 	or 	personal 	belongings, 	or 	aggressive 	conduct 	without 	identifiable
motivation, does not come within the statutory definition of bullying.” Ibid.
The definition of “harassment, intimidation, or bullying” is reproduced below in
full:
§ 	18A:37-14. 	Definitions 	relative 	to 	adoption 	of
harassment and bullying prevention policies
As used in this act:
“Electronic 	communication” 	means 	a 	communication
transmitted by means of an electronic device, including, but
not limited to, a telephone, cellular phone, computer, or
pager;
“Harassment, intimidation or bullying” means any 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

6
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.
In this case, petitioner has not even alleged, let alone offered any proof, that the
statement the student allegedly made to her daughter, that I.M. is an “ugly and bad
dancer,” was motivated by an actual or perceived distinguishing characteristic such as
race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity
and expression, or a mental, physical, or sensory disability. 	In addition, one cannot
reasonably argue that being an “ugly and bad dancer,” or expressing oneself as an
“ugly and bad dancer,” even if understood, and even if understood as true, constitutes
such a distinguishing characteristic. Likewise, petitioner has not even alleged, let alone
offered any proof, that the statement the student made to her daughter substantially
disrupted 	or 	interfered 	with 	the 	orderly 	operation 	of 	the 	school. 	Therefore, 	I
CONCLUDE that respondents did not fail to investigate this allegation of harassment,
intimidation, or bullying in violation of the ABRA, and that respondents are entitled to
summary decision as a matter of law.
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that this case be
DISMISSED.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.

7
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 case. 	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 under N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
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.
July 24, 2019
DATE 	BARRY E. MOSCOWITZ, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	July 24, 2019
Date Mailed to Parties:
dr