In the Matter of the Suspension of the Certificates of Erin Davidove, Board of Education of the Township of Long Hill, Morris County, 10/9/2020, (#230-20)

230-20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of the Suspension of the
Teaching Certificates of Erin Davidove,
Board of Education of the Township of
Long Hill, Morris County.
Synopsis
The petitioning Board sought the suspension of the teaching certificates of the respondent – a tenured
special education teacher – after she submitted a letter of resignation on November 25, 2019 in which she
stated that her last day on the job would be December 6, 2019. Subsequently, the superintendent met with
respondent to clarify that sixty days’ notice of resignation was required. The superintendent also
cautioned respondent that terminating her duties without the required notice would result in legal action to
suspend her teaching certificates. Nonetheless, respondent did terminate her duties on December 6, 2019.
Upon receipt of an Order to Show Cause from the Commissioner in January 2020 – requiring respondent
to show cause why an order should not be entered suspending her teaching certificates for unprofessional
conduct pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10 for resigning her position without giving the notice required by
her contract – the respondent submitted an undated letter stating that her resignation had been for personal
reasons related to a difficult work environment and its effect on her health and wellbeing. The matter was
subsequently transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing. The Board filed a motion for
summary decision.
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; the respondent’s certificates should be suspended pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:28-8 because she resigned without providing the Board with the requisite statutory notice; 	a one-
year suspension of the respondent’s certificates is the appropriate penalty for such unprofessional
conduct; 	and respondent’s efforts to assist in the transition during her two week notice period do not
constitute mitigating circumstances. Accordingly, the ALJ ordered that respondent’s certificates should
be suspended for a period of one year.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusion, and adopted the
Initial Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this matter. Respondent’s certificates were suspended
for one year from the filing date of this decision, a copy of which has been forwarded to the State Board
of Examiners for implementation of the suspension.
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.
October 9, 2020

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 01563-20
Agency Dkt. No. 20-1/20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of the Suspension of the
Teaching Certificates of Erin Davidove,
Board of Education of the Township of
Long Hill, Morris County.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions to the Initial Decision.
Upon such review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
– for the reasons outlined in the Initial Decision – that the respondent’s certificates should be suspended
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:28-8 because she resigned without providing the Board with the requisite
statutory notice. 	The Commissioner is also in accord with the ALJ’s determination that a one-year
suspension of the respondent’s certificates is the appropriate penalty.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter. The
respondent’s teaching certificates are suspended for a period of one year from the filing date of this
decision, a copy of which shall be forwarded to the State Board of Examiners for implementation of the
suspension.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
INTERIM COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: October 9, 2020
Date of Mailing: 	October 9, 2020
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).

State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01563-20
AGENCY DKT. NO. 20-1/20
IN THE MATTER OF THE SUSPENSION
OF THE TEACHING CERTIFICATES OF
ERIN DAVIDOVE, BOARD OF EDUCATION
OF THE TOWNSHIP OF LONG HILL,
MORRIS COUNTY.
__________________________________
Nicholas Celso, Esq., for petitioner (The Busch Law Group, LLC, attorneys)
Erin Davidove, respondent, pro se
Record Closed: July 17, 2020 	Decided: August 31, 2020
BEFORE LESLIE Z. CELENTANO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner, Long Hill Township Board of Education, seeks the suspension of the
teaching 	certificates 	of 	Erin 	Davidove, 	for 	failure 	to 	provide 	a 	60-day 	notice 	of
resignation to the District. 	Respondent contends there were mitigating circumstances
and that she was compelled to resign due to the difficult work environment and the
impact on her health and well-being. The State Board of Examiners (Board), issued an

2
Order to Show Cause (OTSC) as to why the teaching certificates of respondent Erin
Davidove (Davidove or respondent) should not be suspended, contending that she
resigned from her teaching position with inadequate notice. 	The OTSC was issued on
January 15, 2020, and mailed to respondent on January 22, 2020, and respondent filed
a letter reply to the OTSC which was received by the Department on January 30, 2020.
The Commissioner transmitted the case to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for
hearing, where it was filed on February 3, 2020. A hearing was scheduled for June 15,
2020, and adjourned due to the COVID-19 office closure. The District filed a Motion for
Summary Decision. 	Respondent submitted a letter reply, and thereafter submitted an
additional letter reply.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The underlying facts are largely uncontroverted. 	Davidove commenced her
employment on approximately September 1, 2014, as a special-education teacher. 	In
due course, she acquired tenure.
On November 25, 2019, respondent submitted her resignation letter indicating
she wished “to explore different career opportunities outside of education.” 	The letter
also noted respondent’s final date of employment would be December 6, 2019. 	On
November 26, 2019, Dr. Edwin Acevedo, the superintendent of schools for the Long Hill
Township Board of Education, met with respondent to clarify that sixty days’ notice of
resignation was required. 	He explained that her continued services were necessary to
minimize the disruption of a mid-year departure while a replacement was secured.
Moreover, he cautioned that terminating her duties without such adequate notice or
consent by the Board of Education would result in legal action to suspend her teaching
certificates. 	On December 5, 2019, Dr. Acevedo sent a letter to respondent confirming
their previous conversation. 	On December 6, 2019, respondent followed up and stated
that despite her acknowledgment of the correspondence, her final date of employment
with the Board would remain December 6, 2019.

3
With 	Dr. 	Acevedo’s 	recommendation, 	petitioner 	approved 	and 	accepted
respondent’s resignation, effective January 24, 2020; this was the sixtieth day from her
initial notice of resignation.
Petitioner moved before the Commissioner of Education for an Order to Show
Cause, which was entered on January 15, 2020. 	The Order directed that Davidove
show cause before the Commissioner why an Order should not be entered suspending
her teaching certificates for unprofessional conduct pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:28-8.
Respondent replied by (undated) letter to Dr. Lamont Repollet, the Commissioner of
Education, which was received on January 30, 2020. 	Her letter indicated that her
resignation was “due to personal reasons regarding the difficult work environment and
impact on [her] health and well-being.”
On February 24, 2020, respondent moved to withdraw from the case; however,
as the matter had been transmitted by the Commissioner for hearing following the entry
of an Order to Show Cause, respondent did not have the ability to withdraw.
On 	April 	16, 	2020, 	petitioner 	moved 	for 	summary 	decision 	to 	suspend
respondent’s certificates for one year. 	On April 28, 2020, nearly five months after she
left her position, respondent submitted correspondence wherein she indicated that she
had learned that her position (from which she resigned) had been eliminated, and that
she likely would have been laid off regardless.
LEGAL DISCUSSION
The first issue is whether respondent may simply withdraw from the case.
N.J.A.C. 1:1-19.2(a) states:
A party may withdraw a request for a hearing or a defense
raised by notifying the judge and all parties. Upon receipt of
such notification, the judge shall discontinue all proceedings
and return the case file to the Clerk. 	If the judge deems it

4
advisable to state the circumstances of the withdrawal on the
record, the judge may enter an initial decision memorializing
the withdrawal and returning the matter to the transmitting
agency for appropriate disposition.
Although respondent attempts to withdraw, the matter was transferred to the OAL
for hearing by the Commission of Education following issuance of the Order to Show
Cause. 	That is, it was not the respondent who requested a hearing. 	When the
Commissioner becomes aware of violations of school laws in school districts, he may
allow any party subject to his jurisdiction an opportunity to present its views before
imposing any sanction by issuing an order directing the party to show cause why the
sanction should not be imposed. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:3-3.1(a). 	In fact, “This procedure shall
not be deemed to be in lieu of a contested case hearing, and the right to a contested
case hearing is independent of, and in addition to, this step.” 	Ibid. 	This explicitly
includes a circumstance suspending a teacher’s certificates for wrongful cessation of
duties. N.J.A.C. 6A:3-3.1(a)(4).
Since respondent may not withdraw from a matter that arises from an Order to
Show Cause, the matter continued as an uncontested case.
I. 	Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Decision
a. 	Summary-Decision Standard
A motion for summary decision may be granted if the papers and discovery
presented, as well as any affidavits that may have been filed with the application, show
that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
prevail as a matter of law. 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). 	If the motion is sufficiently supported,
the non-moving party must demonstrate by affidavit that there is a genuine issue of fact
which can only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding, in order to prevail in such
an application. 	Ibid. 	These provisions mirror the summary-judgment language of R.
4:46-2(c) of the New Jersey Court Rules.

5
The motion judge must “consider whether the competent evidential materials
presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party . . . , are
sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of
the non-moving party.” 	Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995).
Even if the non-moving party comes forward with some evidence, summary decision
must be granted if the evidence is “so one-sided that [the moving party] must prevail as
a matter of law.” 	Id. at 536 (citation omitted). 	The opposing party “who offers no
substantial or material facts in opposition to the motion cannot complain if the court
takes as true the uncontradicted facts in the movant’s papers.” 	Burlington Cty. Welfare
Bd. v. Stanley, 214 N.J. Super. 615, 622 (App. Div. 1987).
The issue presented here is whether respondent’s teaching certificates should be
suspended for up to one year for failure to perform her duties prior to the expiration of
the employment period, in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10, which provides in
pertinent part that
[a]ny 	teaching 	staff 	member 	employed 	by 	a 	board 	of
education . . . who shall, without the consent of the board
. . . , cease to perform his duties before the expiration of the
term 	of 	his 	employment, 	shall 	be 	deemed 	guilty 	of
unprofessional conduct, and the commissioner may, upon
receiving notice thereof, suspend his certificate for a period
not exceeding one year.
The procedure by which a teaching staff member must provide notice of
resignation is set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:28-8, as follows:
Any teaching staff member, under tenure of service, desiring
to relinquish his position shall give the employing board of
education at least 60 days written notice of his intention,
unless the board shall approve of a release on shorter notice
and if he fails to give such notice he shall be deemed guilty
of 	unprofessional 	conduct 	and 	the 	commissioner 	may
suspend his certificate for not more than one year.

6
By using the term “may” and not “shall,” the Legislature did not intend for there to be an
automatic suspension, rather, it determined to invest the Commissioner with discretion
predicated 	on 	the 	facts 	and 	circumstances 	individual 	to 	the 	case. 	Thus, 	the
Commissioner may suspend, in his or her discretion.
The purpose of these statutes is “to provide notice to the school so that a suitable
replacement can be hired without adversely impacting students,” and thereby protect
students. 	Penns Grove-Carneys Point Bd. of Educ. v. Leinen, 94 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU)
405, 407. 	The decision as to whether to suspend a teaching staff member’s certificate
is 	a 	discretionary 	determination 	vested 	in 	the 	Commissioner, 	and 	historically 	all
attendant circumstances specific to each case have been evaluated. 	Generally, this
evaluation results in suspension of certificates for the maximum one-year period,
especially when the facts demonstrate that “individuals violated the sixty day notice
requirement for strictly personal reasons, putting their own self interest above the
interests of students and their professional obligation to provide adequate notice to the
Board.” In re Suspension of the Teaching Certificate of Capshaw, EDU 12318-06, Initial
Decision 	(April 	30, 	2007), 	modified, 	Comm’r 	(June 	12, 	2007),
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/; see also Bd. of Educ. of Alpine v. Yuz, EDU
1116-06, Initial Decision (July 17, 2008), adopted, Comm’r (September 23, 2008),
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/, 	stating 	that, 	generally, 	a 	full 	one-year
suspension of a teaching certificate for leaving a district without adequate notice is
imposed, with the rare exception of compelling reasons.
The Commissioner imposed a three-month suspension in In re Suspension of the
Teaching Certificate of Rogers, 1989 S.L.D. 1962 (May 16, 1989), adopted, 1989 S.L.D.
1968 (June 21, 1989), where a non-tenured teacher of the handicapped resigned to
take a position in a State facility, switching employment for more “noble” reasons, to
work with more severely handicapped children. 	Another matter in which less than a
one-year suspension was imposed is In re the Suspension of the Teaching Certificate of
Borden, School District of Edison, Middlesex County, Commissioner Decision 247-16,
where a non-tenured teacher resigned following a debilitating injury that left her unable

7
to drive or climb stairs. The Commissioner determined that while Borden’s conduct was
unprofessional within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10, her resignation was motivated
by a medical crisis, supported by medical records, and not personal gain, and imposed
a three-month suspension.
In In re the Teaching Certificate of Burgess, 1983 S.L.D. 183, adopted, 1983
S.L.D. 195, the board accepted a two-week resignation predicated on its plan to find a
replacement by Burgess’s termination date. 	The board failed to follow through on its
promise, and so the Commissioner declined to impose a suspension.
In Board of Education of Black Horse Pike Regional School District v. Mooney,
1984 S.L.D. 810, adopted, 1984 S.L.D. 821, a teacher made considerable efforts to
assist the board with a smooth transition; developed a program through the end of the
year; met with her successor to put the program in place; and left final grades. 	The
Commissioner determined to impose no suspension.
In the matter In re Suspension of the Teaching Certificate of Savino, EDU 11688-
04, Initial Decision (July 28, 2005), modified, Comm’r (August 30, 2005), affirmed, State
Bd. (February 3, 2006), https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/, Savino asserted that
she was uncomfortable being reassigned from elementary school to middle school, and
felt “unfit” to teach middle school even though she was fully certified to do so. 	The
superintendent had warned her that the process for suspension would be commenced,
as here, should she not comply with the advance-notice requirement. 	While the ALJ
concluded that Savino’s fear of unfitness constituted a mitigating factor warranting a
shorter suspension, the Commissioner disagreed, and reversed the proposed sixty-day
suspension in favor of a one-year suspension. 	No mitigation was found, nor were
compelling reasons, unlike in Mooney and Rogers. 	Indeed, the compelling reasons
found in Rogers nevertheless resulted in the imposition of a three-month suspension.
The Board submits that there are no material facts in dispute and that the Board
is entitled to summary decision pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10 and N.J.S.A. 18A:28-8.

8
Respondent has not denied the allegations, and contends that she did not provide the
required notice because of the “difficult work environment and impact on [her] health
and well-being.” 	Thus, respondent’s desire for early release from her professional
obligations was based upon personal motives and convenience. 	She asserts that she
provided other teachers with materials she had created and used, and also made
students 	aware 	of 	her 	impending 	departure. 	She 	also 	offers 	as 	mitigating
circumstances the fact that another teacher replaced her when she left, and that some
months later, certain classes were combined, and that she “likely would have been laid
off regardless.”
In the instant case, no genuine issues of material fact exist. 	Respondent agrees
to the facts outlined by petitioner, including in her response to the Commissioner’s
Order to Show Cause and her answers, dated March 6, 2020, to the Board’s Request
for Admissions. 	Respondent also does not raise objections to any assertions put forth
by petitioner. Thus, the matter is ripe for summary decision.
It is clear and undisputed that respondent fell short of providing the requisite sixty
days’ notice prior to resigning, and, as such, is guilty of unprofessional conduct as
defined in N.J.S.A. 18A:28-8. 	She was reminded of the sixty-day-notice requirement
both in a meeting with Superintendent Acevedo on November 26, 2019, and by follow-
up letter on December 5, 2019, and of the possible consequences if she did not honor
her professional obligations. 	The issue, therefore, is what constitutes an appropriate
term for the suspension of respondent’s certificates. 	The penalty assessed in many
similar matters is a one-year suspension. There have been situations where less than a
one-year 	suspension 	was 	deemed 	appropriate 	due 	to 	mitigating 	circumstances.
Respondent did not resign her position for what were determined to be noble reasons,
as in Rogers. 	Rather, respondent resigned to pursue a career outside of education,
alleging that “[her] mental and emotional states were being compromised by the
severely troubled students [she] was challenged with this year and the lack of support
provided by the Administration despite numerous attempts to bring this to their attention
and requests for assistance.” 	Although respondent does make mental-health claims,

9
she does not provide medical records to support the posture (as distinguished from
Borden, where the teacher had a significant, physical medical crisis that was supported
by medical documentation).
Respondent did make efforts to ensure a smooth transition. 	Unlike in Rogers,
however, no “noble” reason existed for leaving her position prematurely. 	Respondent
left to pursue different work because she found the work environment difficult, and
impacting her health and well-being. There was no well-founded reason why she could
not continue performing her duties a while longer, until the required termination date,
other than her desire to be elsewhere. 	She was on notice that the Board had not
approved her early departure and that it would move to suspend her certificates should
she choose to leave as indicated, which she did ultimately do.
CONCLUSION
There is no dispute that respondent failed to provide the requisite timely notice of
resignation, did not continue to report for work even though directed to do so, and is
guilty of unbecoming conduct as defined in N.J.S.A. 18A:28-8. The assertions that she
behaved 	professionally 	during 	the 	two 	weeks 	between 	her 	resignation 	letter 	of
November 25, 2019, and her departure on December 6, 2019, and that she helped
where she could, do not constitute mitigating circumstances. I CONCLUDE that a one-
year suspension is appropriate.
ORDER
It is therefore ORDERED that respondent’s teaching certificates be and hereby
are suspended for a period of one year commencing August 31, 2020 and ending on
August 30, 2021.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.

10
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.
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.
August 31, 2020
DATE 	LESLIE Z. CELENTANO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	August 31, 2020
Date Mailed to Parties: 	August 31, 2020
dr