Jayanthi Ramaswamy v. Board of Education of the City of Englewood, Bergen County, 5/30/2024, (#210-24)

210-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Jayanthi Ramaswamy,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Englewood,
Bergen County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner, a non-tenured chemistry teacher employed by the respondent Board from the 2019-2020
through 2022-2023 school years, did not receive a renewal contract at the end of her third year of
teaching with the school district. Petitioner contended that she had positive performance evaluations
and had been recommended for renewal by the school principal and the Acting Superintendent. The
Board filed a motion for summary decision, arguing that: petitioner was non-renewed because of lack of
engagement with the students she taught; that she had received proper notice that she was not going to
be renewed at the end of the 2022-2023 school year and failed to request public discussion of her
employment at a board meeting; petitioner also failed to request a Donaldson hearing after the Board’s
unanimous vote to non-renew her contract. The Board filed a motion for summary decision.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts at issue in this case, and the matter is ripe for
summary decision; boards of education have great latitude in making determinations regarding the
renewal of a non-tenured teacher’s contract; the Board in this matter complied with the statutory notice
requirements for non-renewals; petitioner’s personnel records supported the Board’s stated reason for
petitioner’s non-renewal; petitioner failed to prove discrimination on the part of the Board; and further
failed to prove that the Board’s actions were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Accordingly, the ALJ
granted the Board’s motion for summary decision and dismissed the petition.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusion, and adopted the
Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law as the final decision in this matter. 	The Board’s
motion for summary decision was granted, 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.

210-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 08534-23
Agency Dkt. No. 215-8/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Jayanthi Ramaswamy,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Englewood,
Bergen County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), and
the exceptions filed by petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4 have been reviewed and considered.
Petitioner, a non-tenured chemistry teacher, challenges the decision of the Englewood
Board of Education (Board) not to renew her contract. Following the Board’s motion for summary
decision, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that petitioner received Rice1 notices on April 27
and May 3, 2023, informing her that her employment would be discussed by the Board at an
upcoming meeting. The Board voted unanimously not to renew petitioner’s employment on
1 An employee is entitled to advance notice when a board of education intends to discuss in closed session a
personnel matter that could adversely affect the employee. Rice v. Union County Reg’l High Sch. Bd. of Educ., 155
N.J. Super. 64, 73 (App. Div. 1977).
2 A Donaldson hearing is the colloquial name for the informal appearance before the Board in which a teaching
staff member may discuss the statement of reasons for non-renewal and attempt to persuade the Board to renew
the staff member’s contract. Donaldson v. Bd. of Educ. of N. Wildwood, 65 N.J. 236 (1974).

2
with a Statement of Reasons on May 26, 2023, indicating that the reason for her non-renewal was
lack of communication3 with students.
The ALJ denied petitioner’s motion to compel discovery, noting: 1) that petitioner did not
formally request discovery from the Board; 2) the Board provided its executive session minutes in
response to petitioner’s Open Public Records Act request for them; and 3) while petitioner also
requested notes from the executive session, no such notes existed. The ALJ found that petitioner
did not prove that any discrimination occurred or identify how the Board’s actions were arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable. The ALJ further found that petitioner’s personnel records supported
the Board’s stated reason for petitioner’s non-renewal. Accordingly, the ALJ granted the Board’s
motion for summary decision.
In her exceptions, petitioner argues that she was not required to make a formal discovery
request. Petitioner argues that she repeatedly requested the reason for her non-renewal and
received nothing from the Board; she indicates that the minutes of the Board meeting do not
include the reason for the non-renewal, and the Board has not produced any documents stating the
justification for its decision. Petitioner contends that she cannot effectively challenge the non-
renewal without knowing the reasons for it.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that the Board is entitled to summary
decision. A board of education’s non-renewal decision is afforded discretion and will only be
overturned if it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or if it violates constitutional or legislatively
conferred rights. N.J.S.A. 18A:27-4.1; Dore v. Bedminster Twp. Bd. of Educ., 185 N.J. Super.447, 456
(App. Div. 1982). Despite petitioner’s exceptions to the contrary, the Board provided a justification
3 The term used in the Statement of Reasons is “engagement,” rather than communication.
May 11, 2023, but petitioner did not request a Donaldson hearing.2 The Board provided petitioner

3
obligations under N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.2. The Board further explained its position in subsequent
correspondence to petitioner, indicating that “her particular area of weakness, despite overall
positive evaluations, was at odds with the Board’s goals in improving the educational quality within
the district.” June 7, 2023 letter, attached as Exhibit D to the petition of appeal. Petitioner’s
dispute appears to arise from the fact that she received positive performance evaluations, was
recommended for renewal by the Acting Superintendent, and was allegedly never told that she
needed to improve her student engagement skills. However, the fact that the Board made a
different decision than the district’s administration does not make its decision arbitrary, capricious,
or unreasonable.
The Commissioner further concludes that the ALJ properly denied petitioner’s motion to
compel discovery. The record is clear that the Board has provided the minutes from its executive
session and that notes from the executive session do not exist.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter. The Board’s
motion for summary decision is granted, and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.4
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: May 30, 2024
Date of Mailing: May 31, 2024
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.
for petitioner’s non-renewal in its May 26, 2023 Statement of Reasons, consistent with its

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08534-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 215-8/23
JAYANTHI RAMASWAMY,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,
BERGEN COUNTY,
Respondent.
_______________________________
Evan L. Goldman, Esq., and Kelly A. Smith, Esq., appearing for petitioner
(Goldman, Davis, Krumholz, and Dillon, attorneys)
R. Scott Eveland, Esq., appearing for respondent (Inglesino Taylor, attorneys)
Record closed: January 16, 2024 	Decided: April 22, 2024
BEFORE JOSEPH A. ASCIONE, ALJ (Ret., on recall):
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The respondent, Englewood City Board of Education (Englewood), hired the
petitioner, Jayanthi Ramaswamy, for the 2019–2020 school year as a teacher of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08534-23
2
chemistry. 	She continued in the employ of Englewood from year to year through the
2022–2023 school year. Petitioner received Rice1 notices on April 27, and May 3, 2023,
informing her that her contract would be considered by the respondent. 	Petitioner did
not avail herself of her rights under the Rice notice. 	On May 11, 2023, her annual
contract was not renewed. Petitioner did not request a Donaldson2 hearing subsequent
to learning of the failure to renew the contract. 	On or about May 19, 2023, counsel for
petitioner requested a Statement of Reasons. 	On or about May 26, 2023, counsel for
respondent responded to that request. 	On August 4, 2023, the petition in this matter
was filed with the Commissioner of Education. 	On August 30, 2023, the New Jersey
State Department of Education, Bureau of Controversies and Disputes, transmitted the
matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15;
N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13; N.J.A.C. 1:1-8.2. 	On November 2, 2023, the respondent
moved for summary decision dismissing the petition. 	The petitioner opposed said
motion after obtaining consent to extend her time to respond to December 19, 2023.
Petitioner also moved for discovery seeking the “executive session notes” of the May
11, 	2023, 	executive 	session. 	The 	executive-session 	minutes 	had 	already 	been
requested by an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request and supplied on July 25,
2023. 	No discovery request was formally made, nor included with the application for
discovery. 	Counsel for respondent represents that no such “executive session notes”
exist. 	The record on the application for summary disposition closed on January 16,
2024.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
Petitioner, an untenured teacher, did not receive a renewal contract after her
fourth year of service to Englewood. 	The Board of Education provided petitioner with a
Rice notice prior to the agenda and regular meeting on May 11, 2023. Ramaswamy did
not request a public discussion. 	The determination not to renew was made by
unanimous vote, in executive session, at the May 11 meeting. 	Ramaswamy did not
request a Donaldson hearing after the adverse vote. 	Counsel for Englewood provided
1 Rice v. Union Cnty. Reg’l High Sch. Bd. of Educ., 155 N.J. Super. 64 (1977), certif. denied, 76 N.J. 238
(1978).
2 Donaldson v. Bd. of Educ. of N. Wildwood, 65 N.J. 236 (1974).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08534-23
3
the reason for non-renewal in a timely fashion, on request of counsel for Ramaswamy.
The reason, lack of communication with students. 	An OPRA request was made for the
minutes of the executive session, which were provided. 	Counsel for Ramaswamy
requested executive-session notes, but the existence of such notes has been denied by
counsel for Englewood. 	Englewood also maintains that if any notes existed, they are
part of the deliberative process and are exempt from any discovery. 	Ramaswamy’s
petition does not allege any denial of a constitutional right. 	Englewood acknowledges
that the principal and superintendent submitted Ramaswamy for renewal of contract.
Ramaswamy’s relief sought is an appeal of her denial of tenure/renewal, and a hearing
to determine the validity of the Board’s decision to deny her tenure.
LEGAL DISCUSSION
Summary decision, or as it is known in judicial matters, summary judgment, is a
well-recognized procedure for resolving cases in which the facts that are crucial to the
determination of the matters at issue are not actually in dispute and the application to
that set of material facts of the applicable law and standard of proof lead to a
determination of the case without the necessity of a hearing at which evidence and
testimony need be taken. The procedure is equally applicable in judicial and executive-
branch administrative cases. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5. The standards for deciding motions for
summary decision are contained in Judson v. People’s Bank and Trust Co. of Westfield,
17 N.J. 67, 74–75 (1954). 	The Supreme Court later elaborated on the motion and its
standard in Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 142 N.J. 520 (1995). Under
the Brill standard, as in Judson, a motion for summary decision may only be granted
where there is no “genuine issue” of “material fact.” 	The determination as to whether
genuine issues of material fact exist is made after a “discriminating search” of the
record, consisting as it may of affidavits, certifications, documentary exhibits, and any
other evidence filed by the movant and any such evidence filed in response to the
motion, with all reasonable inferences arising from the evidence being accorded to the
opponent of the motion. 	In order to defeat the motion, the opposing party must
establish the existence of “genuine” issues of material fact. 	The facts upon which the
party opposing the motion relies to defeat the motion must be something more than
“facts which are immaterial or of an insubstantial nature, a mere scintilla, ‘fanciful,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08534-23
4
frivolous, gauzy or merely suspicious’ . . . .” 	Judson, 17 N.J. at 75 (citations omitted).
The Brill decision focuses on the analytical procedure for determining whether a
purported issue of material fact is “genuine” or is of an “insubstantial nature.” 	Brill, 142
N.J. at 530. Brill concludes that the same analytical process used to decide motions for
a directed verdict is used to resolve summary-decision motions. 	“[T]he essence of the
inquiry in each is the same: 	‘whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement
to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail
as a matter of law.’” 	Id. at 536 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
251–52 (1986)). 	In searching the proffered evidence to decide the motion, the judge
must be guided by the applicable substantive evidentiary standard of proof, that is, the
“burden of persuasion” that would apply at trial on the merits, whether that is the
preponderance-of-the-evidence 	standard 	or 	the 	clear-and-convincing-evidence
standard. 	If a careful review under this standard establishes that no reasonable fact
finder could resolve the disputed facts in favor of the party opposing the motion, then
the uncontradicted facts thus established can be examined in the light of the applicable
substantive law to determine whether or not the movant is clearly entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. 	However, where the proofs in the record are such that “reasonable
minds could differ” as to the material facts, then the motion must be denied, and a full
evidentiary hearing held. Id. at 535.
In this case, Ramaswamy disputes the validity of the Board’s decision to deny
her tenure. 	The challenging party bears the burden of proving that the agency action
was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable by the preponderance of the credible
evidence. 	J.P. & M.P. v. Bd. of Educ. of S. Brunswick, Middlesex Cnty., 2002 N.J.
AGEN LEXIS 952 at *10-12 (Dec. 17, 2002); New Jersey Soc’y for Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals v. New Jersey Dep’t of Agric., 196 N.J. 366, 385 (2008); In re Freshwater
Wetlands Prot. Act Rules, 180 N.J. 415, 432 (2004); New Jersey State League of
Municipalities v. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs, 158 N.J. 211, 222 (1999); In re the 1999–2000
Abbott v. Burke Implementing Regulations, 348 N.J. Super. 382, 395 (App. Div. 2002).
An action is determined to be arbitrary and capricious based on four inquiries: 	1) was
the action in violation of the State or Federal Constitution; 2) did it violate any express or
implied legislative policies; 3) does the record contain substantial evidence to support
the findings on which the agency based its action; and, 4) when applying the legislative

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08534-23
5
policies to the facts, did the agency clearly err in reaching a conclusion that couldn’t
reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors? 	Brady v. Bd. of
Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210–11 (1997); see also In re Proposed Quest Acad. Charter
Sch. of Montclair Founders Grp., 216 N.J. 370, 385–86 (2013).
Here, Ramaswamy did not take advantage of a Rice or Donaldson hearing,
allegedly relying on the recommendation of the principal and superintendent. 	Rice and
Donaldson hearings are intended to afford the teacher the opportunity to present her
position as to why she should be renewed. 	Instead, petitioner comes to this tribunal
with a petition limited to the review of the actions of the Board, with no presentation of
any claim of discrimination or violations of constitutional or legislative policy. 	The
petition is not even verified by Ramaswamy. 	Ramaswamy’s counsel claimed at the
initial conference that the minutes of the meeting were not provided, when in fact they
had been. 	Counsel was unsatisfied with the pro-forma minutes. 	Apparently, he was
seeking further explanation of the determination, which was provided, but was still not
acceptable to counsel. 	Counsel was fishing for something to provide him with a case,
but did not zealously represent his client by formally requesting the limited discovery
provided in this tribunal. 	Instead, he requested additional time to respond to the
summary-decision 	motion 	and 	cross-moved 	seeking 	discovery, 	which 	was 	never
specifically demanded, and refused to accept Englewood’s counsel’s representation
that such additional documentation did not exist.
Englewood’s counsel, on the other hand, relied on Dore v. Board of Education of
Bedminster, Somerset County, 185 N.J. Super. 447 (App. Div. 1982), a case that
predates the 1995 legislation, N.J.S.A. 18A:27-4.1(b), which provides,
A board of education shall renew the employment contract of
a certificated or non-certificated officer or employee only
upon the recommendation of the chief school administrator
and 	by 	a 	recorded 	roll 	call 	majority 	vote 	of 	the 	full
membership of the board. 	The board shall not withhold its
approval for arbitrary and capricious reasons. 	A nontenured
officer or employee who is not recommended for renewal by
the chief school administrator shall be deemed nonrenewed.
Prior to notifying the officer or employee of the nonrenewal,
the chief school administrator shall notify the board of the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08534-23
6
recommendation not to renew the officer’s or employee’s
contract and the reasons for the recommendation. An officer
or employee whose employment contract is not renewed
shall have the right to a written statement of reasons for
nonrenewal 	pursuant 	to 	section 	2 	of 	P.L.1975, 	c.132
(C.18A:27-3.2) and to an informal appearance before the
board. The purpose of the appearance shall be to permit the
staff member to convince the members of the board to offer
reemployment. 	The chief school administrator shall notify
the officer or employee of the nonrenewal pursuant, where
applicable, to the provisions of section 1 of P.L.1971, c.436
(C.18A:27-10).
Englewood’s counsel also relies on Truncellito v. Board of Education of Lyndhurst,
Bergen County, 2019 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 643 (Sept. 18, 2019), rev’d, 2019 N.J. AGEN
LEXIS 1093 (Dec. 3, 2019), rev’d and remanded, 2022 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 92
(App. Div. Jan. 24, 2022). 	Accordingly, the reversal does not support the position of
Englewood.
This tribunal recognizes that the Department of Education’s position is that there
is great latitude in a board’s determination regarding the renewal of a teacher’s contract.
This tribunal relies on the positions stated by the Department of Education in the
Truncellito matter, despite the reversal by the Appellate Division. 	This tribunal also
relies on Hubbard v. Springfield Board of Education, 80 Fed. Appx. 757 (3d Cir. 2003).
The Hubbard case deals with a claim of discrimination. It places the burden of proof on
the party claiming the discrimination. Here, Ramaswamy has not satisfied the burden of
proof that any discrimination occurred. 	Nor has Ramaswamy identified where the
actions of Englewood are arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 	Englewood provided
the reasons for the non-renewal. 	The personnel records appearing in the District’s
papers, 	support 	the 	deficiency 	Englewood 	relied 	upon. 	There 	are 	areas 	of
Ramaswamy’s performance where there was only partial competency. 	Ramaswamy’s
principal’s 	own 	recommendation 	acknowledged 	the 	deficiency. 	One 	would 	think
Ramaswamy would have appeared to present why the deficiencies should not result in
denial of her renewal.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08534-23
7
CONCLUSIONS
After reviewing the papers and arguments of petitioner and respondent and
considering the documents and certifications submitted,
I CONCLUDE that petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that the Department has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously in the denial of
the renewal of Ramaswamy’s contract for school year 2023–2024.
I further CONCLUDE that the petitioner’s motion to compel discovery was never
formally made, and it appears the requested discovery is non existent.
I 	further 	CONCLUDE 	that 	the 	Board 	of 	Education 	has 	shown 	by 	a
preponderance of the evidence that the Board is entitled to prevail in its application for
summary decision.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that petitioner’s request for a review of the actions of
Englewood is DENIED.
It is further hereby ORDERED, that petitioner’s undocumented motion to compel
discovery is DENIED.
It is further hereby ORDERED that respondent’s motion for summary decision is
GRANTED.
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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08534-23
8
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. 	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 22, 2024
DATE 	JOSEPH A. ASCIONE, ALJ (Ret., on recall)
Date Received at Agency: 	April 22, 2024
Date Mailed to Parties: 	April 22, 2024

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08534-23
9
APPENDIX
LIST OF EXHIBITS
For Petitioner:
P-1 Answering and Moving papers on Cross motion 5 pages double sided
P-2 Reply papers – 4 pages
For Respondent:
R-1 Moving papers – 17 pages plus exhibits A-J
R-2 Reply papers – 13 pages plus exhibits A-D
R-3 Correspondence of January 3, 2024