G.W. and K.W., on behalf of minor child, M.W. v. Board of Education of the Borough of Ringwood, Passaic County, 9/6/2024, (#329-24R)

329-24R
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
G.W. and K.W., on behalf of minor child, M.W.,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Ringwood,
Passaic County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
In this case stemming from an appeal filed in September of 2020, petitioners sought to overturn the
Board’s determination that their child, M.W., was not the victim of harassment, intimidation, and
bullying (HIB). The petitioners contended that their child had been subjected to HIB by his sixth grade
teacher. Following a long and complicated procedural history, which included the withdrawal of counsel
representing petitioners, the Board filed a motion for summary decision in April 2024.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts at issue in this matter, and the case is ripe for
summary decision; 	petitioners failed to file a response to the motion for summary decision despite
multiple extensions of time to do so, and the motion was therefore unopposed; the record here was
devoid of evidence supporting any of the elements of a charge of HIB. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded
that the Board’s HIB determination should be affirmed.
Upon review, the Commissioner, inter alia, rejected the Initial Decision, finding that, given the unique
circumstances of this matter, wherein petitioner was no longer represented by counsel and lacked a
copy of the complete case file, petitioner was unable to respond to the motion for summary decision.
Accordingly, the Commissioner concluded that the matter should not have been considered unopposed
and must be remanded to the OAL to be properly litigated.
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.

329-24R+
OAL Dkt. No. 09628-20
Agency Dkt. No. 199-9/20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
G.W. and K.W., on behalf of M.W.,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Ringwood,
Passaic County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), the
exceptions filed by the petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the Ringwood Board of
Education’s (Board) reply thereto, have been reviewed and considered.
Petitioners filed an appeal of the Board’s determination that their child, M.W., was not the
victim of harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB). 	Petitioners were initially represented by
counsel, who was subsequently permitted to withdraw. M.W.’s father, G.W., took over handling the
case, but notified the OAL in February 2024 that M.W.’s mother, K.W., would be handling the case
going forward.
On April 3, 2024, the Board requested the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) approval to file a
motion to dismiss. On April 9, 2024, the ALJ denied the request but granted permission for the Board
to file a motion for summary decision. On April 17, 2024, K.W. sent two emails to the OAL to advise
that she did not have a copy of any filings in the case prior to April 8, 2022, and requested information

2
on how she could obtain a copy. The record does not contain any response from the OAL to K.W.’s
emails.
The Board filed its second motion for summary decision on April 30, 2024. On June 10, 2024,
K.W. again emailed the OAL, indicating that she did not have a copy of the motion or any of the case
filings, and requesting copies. The OAL responded to indicate that K.W.’s request should be made
directly to the Department of Education (DOE). Also on June 10, 2024, counsel for the Board emailed
the OAL to provide proof that she had sent the motion for summary decision to K.W. by both email
and mail. 	On June 14, 2024, the ALJ wrote to the parties stating that petitioners had prior legal
counsel who should have given the file to them, and that a request for the file should have been
directed to the former attorney. The ALJ set a deadline of June 20, 2024 for petitioners to respond
to the Board’s motion for summary decision.
When petitioners did not file a response to the motion for summary decision, the ALJ
considered the motion unopposed. The ALJ found that the record was devoid of evidence supporting
any of the elements of a charge of HIB.1 As such, the ALJ concluded that there were no unresolved
issues of material fact that would necessitate a plenary hearing, and that the Board’s HIB
determination should be affirmed.
In her exceptions, K.W. argues that she was denied access to the OAL case file and was
therefore unable to respond to the Board’s motion for summary decision. Petitioner requests that
1 The Board concedes that M.W. reasonably perceived that the alleged perpetrator’s conduct was motived
by an actual or perceived distinguishing characteristic. The Board also concedes that the conduct occurred
on school grounds. Respondent’s Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Decision, p. 6.

3
the Commissioner order the OAL to provide her with a copy of the case file, as well as the opportunity
to respond to the motion for summary decision after she receives the file.2
In response, the Board argues that its attorney sent the entirety of the discovery in this matter
to K.W. on April 18, 2024. The Board also notes that K.W. could have sought a copy of the file from
her former attorney, or from the DOE, as directed by the ALJ. 	As such, the Board urges the
Commissioner to reject K.W.’s argument that she did not have access to the case file. Finally, the
Board contends that there is no evidence that the incident at issue caused a substantial disruption to
M.W. or the orderly operations of the district, and therefore its finding that there was no act of HIB
should be affirmed.
Upon review, the Commissioner rejects the Initial Decision. Notwithstanding the fact that
K.W. was provided with a copy of the discovery and the second motion for summary decision by the
Board’s attorney, she did not have access to the complete case file. In particular, the petition, answer,
first motion for summary decision and briefs and exhibits related thereto, and the ALJ’s Order denying
that motion would have been critical to petitioner in responding to the second motion for summary
decision.
The OAL referred K.W. to the DOE for a copy of her case file. The DOE did not receive any
request from K.R, and although it would have provided all documents that it had in its possession in
response to such a request, as K.W. correctly points out in her exceptions, the DOE would not have
had access to the entire case file at that time. As of June 10, 2024, the DOE was only in possession of
the filings submitted prior to the transmittal of the case to the OAL. Notably, the DOE did not have,
2 K.W. also filed a document that she characterized as a motion seeking an Order that the DOE email her
a copy of the record.

4
and could not have provided to K.W., the pleadings related to the Board’s first motion for summary
decision, or the ALJ’s December 16, 2021 Order denying that motion.
The ALJ also indicated that K.W. could obtain a copy of the file from her former counsel. While
this may be true, even if she had requested a copy of the file in this way, her former counsel would
not have a complete copy of the file either, having withdrawn as counsel in 2022, well before K.W.
made her request.
Given the unique circumstances of this matter, the Commissioner accepts K.W.’s argument
that without a copy of the complete case file, she was unable to respond to the motion for summary
decision. Accordingly, the Commissioner disagrees with the ALJ that the motion should have been
considered unopposed and concludes that this matter must be remanded to the OAL so that the
motion may be properly litigated. The Commissioner notes that, on the same date that this decision
is mailed to the parties, the Office of Controversies and Disputes will provide a complete copy of the
record in this matter to K.W. If K.W. still fails to respond to the motion for summary decision within
20 days, or any extension of that due date that the ALJ may grant, the motion may then be considered
unopposed. If K.W. responds, the motion should be decided in the usual course.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is rejected. This matter is remanded to the OAL for further
proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	September 6, 2024
Date of Mailing: 	September 9, 2024

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 09628-20
G.W. AND K.W. ON BEHALF OF M.W.,
Petitioners,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
BOROUGH OF RINGWOOD,
PASSAIC COUNTY,
Respondent.
K.R., and G.W., parents of M.W., petitioner, pro se
Jessika Kleen, Esq., for respondent (Machado Law Group, attorneys)
Record Closed: June 20, 2024 	Decided: June 27, 2024
BEFORE: JOHN P. SCOLLO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioners, G.W. and K.W., parents of M.W., filed for a Fair Hearing following
the Ringwood Board of Education’s (a/k/a the District’s) determination that HIB charges

2
OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 09628-20
brought against Joan Bredin (“Bredin”), M.W.’s teacher, did not support a finding of HIB
conduct. In the Motion at bar, the Respondent seeks Summary Decision ordering the
dismissal of the Petitioner’s appeal.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or about December 6, 2019, Joan Bredin provided a reading assignment, a
three-page story titled “An Engine Without Brakes” to M.W., then a sixth grade special
education student, who had been diagnosed as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
(“ADHD”).
On December 13, 2019, G.W. and K.W. (a/k/a K.R.), M/W.’s parents, learned
about the assignment and made an HIB complaint. Anti-Bullying Specialist, Eric R.
Erler (the “Investigator”) investigated the allegations of the complaint by interviewing
Bredin and a paraprofessional (a teacher’s aide) who worked in the same classroom
with M.W. 	G.W. and K.W. did not give consent for M.W. to be interviewed and so he
was not interviewed. On January 8, 2020, Erler filed his HIB Investigation Narrative in
which 	he 	concluded 	that 	the 	incident 	(i.e., 	the 	circumstances 	surrounding 	the
assignment of the story to M.W. by Bredin) did not meet the criteria for HIB. 	On
February 24, 2020, the Ringwood Board of Education voted to adopt the Investigator’s
conclusion. 	On May 14, 2020, counsel for G.W. and K.W. sent a letter in lieu of the
appearance 	of 	G.W. 	and 	K.W. 	in 	furtherance 	of 	their 	appeal 	of 	the 	District’s
determination. On May 27, 2020, the HIB/Discipline Appeal Committee met. 	On June
1, 2020, the Board of Education voted to take no further action, thus affirming its
February 24, 2020 decision to adopt the Investigator’s conclusion that the criteria for
HIB had not been met. 	On September 14, 2020, G.W. and K.W. filed a Petition of
Appeal from the Board of Education’s June 1, 2020 decision with the Commissioner of
Education. 	On September 21, 2020, the Board of Education filed its Answer to the
Appeal. 	A hearing was scheduled for April 28 and 30, 2021. In March, 2021 the two
sides filed their respective motions for summary decision. 	Settlement discussions
ensued without resolution of the matter. 	Subsequently, Opposition papers, Replies,
and various supporting papers were submitted. 	On December 16, 2021 both motions

3
OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 09628-20
were denied. 	On June 7, 2022, the Honorable JoAnn Candido, ALJ entered an Order
Granting the motion of Robert Thurston, Esq. to be relieved as counsel for Petitioners.
Subsequently, in light of related civil litigation pending in Federal District Court, the
matter was held in abeyance. In September, 2023 counsel for Respondent inquired of
Judge Scollo about the status of this matter and whether this matter would be given a
trial date. 	In response, Judge Scollo requested a status report from the parties
regarding the state of the related civil litigation. 	On February 22, 2024, Respondent’s
counsel supplied a status report and requested leave to file a Motion to Dismiss EDU
09628-20. 	Judge Scollo denied leave to file a Motion to Dismiss but granted leave for
Respondent to file a Motion for Summary Decision. 	Counsel for Respondent filed a
Motion for Summary Decision on April 30, 2024 chiefly citing as its bases the failure of
the Petitioners to set forth evidence that the student (M.W.) was harmed, or that the
alleged incident substantially disrupted or interfered with the orderly operation of the
school or the rights of the allegedly targeted student or of other students.
On April 8, 2024, the Tribunal sent correspondence to both sides granting leave
to the Respondent, Ringwood BOE to file a Motion for Summary Decision and stating
that UAPR 1:1-12.5 required the party opposing a Motion for Summary Decision to
submit Opposition papers within twenty (20) days. 	As noted above, Respondent
Ringwood BOE filed its motion for summary decision on April 30, 2024. 	Therefore,
Petitioners’ Opposition papers were due on May 20, 2024. 	On June 10, 2024, K.R.
(the mother of M.W. and formerly known as “K.W.”) inquired with Judge Scollo’s
secretary, Diana Batista, about how to obtain papers from her file. 	K.R. claimed that
she did not have a copy of Ringwood BOE’s Summary Decision Motion; that she did
not have her case filings; and that she wanted leave from the Tribunal to allow her
fourteen (14) days from the date of her receipt of the Motion to file Opposition papers.
Ms. Batista directed K.R. to contact the Department of Education for copies of her
papers. 	On June 10, 2024, Attorney Kleen (counsel for the Ringwood BOE) sent
emails enclosing proof that she served the Motion for Summary Decision upon the
petitioners on April 30, 2024, including a copy of the envelope in which the Motion was
contained. 	On June 14, 2024, in response to K.R.’s June 10, 2024 correspondence,
Judge Scollo wrote to the parties stating that the Petitioners had prior legal counsel

4
OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 09628-20
who should have given the file to the Petitioners when his representation of the
Petitioners 	concluded 	and 	from 	whom 	a copy 	of 	the 	file 	should 	be 	obtainable.
Referencing his April 8, 2024 letter, Judge Scollo noted that the Opposition papers
were due on May 20 th and were now twenty-five (25) days overdue. 	Nonetheless,
Judge Scollo granted the Petitioners until Thursday, June 20, 2024 at 12:30 p.m. to
submit their Opposition papers. The Petitioners did not submit their Opposition papers
by the 12:30 p.m. deadline on Thursday, June 20, 2024 and said Opposition papers
were not submitted by the Tribunal’s close of business at 4:30 p.m. on June 20, 2024.
Therefore, the Motion was deemed to be unopposed.
ANALYSIS OF LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUES
Analysis of the Parties’ Respective Positions
The Petitioners’ claim has been that the assigning of the story to M.W. was
inherently outrageous and the evidence of its outrageous nature is so one-sided that
only possible conclusion is that it constitutes bullying. Therefore, argue the Petitioners,
the School District’s determination that Ms. Bredin’s action was not an act of HIB
(bullying) is erroneous. The Tribunal notes that Petitioners’ accusation is not rooted in
established facts.
The Ringwood BOE’s position is that the investigation team found that Ms.
Bredin’s rationale for assigning the story to M.W. was free from any kind of improper
motive and, applying all HIB criteria, concluded that Ms. Bredin’s actions did not
constitute an act of HIB. The BOE maintains that the HIB investigation and the
conclusion reached by the Anti-Bullying Specialist and the subsequent February 24,
2020 BOE vote adopting the conclusion of the Anti-Bullying Specialist were conducted
in accordance with the procedures set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14, commonly referred
to as “The Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act” and were therefore conducted properly. The
Ringwood BOE’s Motion is supported by Certifications and attachments.

5
OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 09628-20
Findings of Fact
Ringwood BOE’s Motion for Summary Decision was filed on April 30, 2024.
Under UAPR 1:1-12.5 a party has twenty days to file Opposition papers to his
adversary’s Motion for Summary Decision. 	I FIND that the Motion for Summary
Decision was duly served by the Machado Law Firm upon the Petitioners as evidenced
by Attorney Kleen’s statement and by her submission of a copy of the envelope
bearing the postmark of April 30, 2024. 	I FIND that the Petitioners did not file
Opposition papers within the twenty-day period allowed for the filing of Opposition
papers under UAPR 1:1-12.5. Although the Tribunal granted the Petitioners additional
time (to Thursday, June 20, 20024 by 12:30 p.m.) to submit their Opposition papers, I
FIND that no such papers were received by the Tribunal by 12:30 p.m. or even by the
close of business at 4:30 p.m. on June 30, 2024.
I FIND that G.W. and K.W. did not allow the HIB investigators to interview M.W.
I FIND that had M.W. been interviewed by the HIB investigators, then the investigators,
the parents and this Tribunal would likely have obtained essential factual evidence
regarding whether M.W. reasonably perceived that Ms. Bredin’s assigning of the article
to him was motivated by an actual or perceived characteristic or by a distinguishing
characteristic of M.W. I FIND that had the HIB investigators been allowed to interview
M.W., it would have enabled the investigators to explore whether or not M.W. was
adversely 	affected 	by 	the 	assignment 	of 	the 	article, 	whether 	the 	assignment
substantially disrupted or interfered with the orderly operation of the school, and
whether the assignment adversely affected the rights of other students. I FIND that the
parties were afforded sufficient time to conduct discovery. 	I FIND that the record
before me is devoid of the types of factual evidence that is necessary to support any of
the elements of a charge of HIB.

6
OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 09628-20
APPLICABLE LAW
The Standard for Summary Decision
A Motion for Summary Decision may be granted if the papers and discovery
presented, as well as, any affidavits which may have been filed with the application,
show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and 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). 	See Judson v. Peoples Bank and Trust Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67, 74
(1954) and Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995).
The HIB Statute
N.J.S.A. 	18A:37-14 	defines 	“Harassment, 	intimidation 	or 	bullying” 	as, 	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:
[1] 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,
[2] 	that 	takes 	place 	on 	school 	property, 	at 	any 	school-
sponsored function, on a school bus, or takes place off
school grounds as provided for in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15.3, [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

7
OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 09628-20
emotionally harming a student or damaging a student’s
property, 	or 	placing 	a 	student 	in 	reasonable 	fear 	of
physical or emotional harm to his person or damage to
his property; or
b. 	Has the effect of insulting or demeaning any student or
group 	of 	students; 	or 	creates 	a 	hostile 	educational
environment for the student by interfering with a student’s
education or be severely or pervasively causing physical
or emotional harm to the student.”
Board of Education’s HIB Decisions Are Afforded Presumption of Validity
The decision of a local board of education should not be disturbed absent a
finding that the action below was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 	T.B.M. v.
Moorestown Bd. of Educ., EDU 2780-07, Initial Decision (February 6, 2008), (citing
Thomas Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965), aff’d, 46
N.J. 	581 	(1966)). 	In 	an appeal 	of a 	District’s 	finding, with 	respect to an 	HIB
investigation, 	the 	burden 	of 	proving 	“unreasonableness” 	of 	Board 	action 	is 	on
Petitioners. 	G.M. v. Roselle Park Borough Bd. of Educ., 95 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 107,
109. 	Courts have held that “[w]here there is room for two opinions, action is not
arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even
though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached.” Bayshore
Sewage Co. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199-200 (Ch. Div. 1973),
aff’d, 131 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1974). “Thus in order to prevail, the petitioner must
demonstrate 	that 	the 	Board 	acted 	in 	bad 	faith, 	or 	in 	utter 	disregard 	of 	the
circumstances before it.” T.B.M., see also, W.C.L. and A.L. ex rel L.L. v. Tenafly Bd. of
Educ., OAL Dkt. No. EDU 3223-12 (2013).
Motion Practice Before the Tribunal
Under the OAL’s Uniform Administrative Rules of Procedure (UAPR), a party
wishing to oppose his adversary’s Motion for Summary Decision must file written
Opposition papers within twenty days of the filing of the Motion. UAPR 1:1-12.5.

8
OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 09628-20
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Having found that the Petitioners did not submit Opposition papers to the
Ringwood BOE’s Motion for Summary Decision, I CONCLUDE that said Motion for
Summary Decision is unopposed.
Having found that there is no evidence before me that would tend to support
any of the elements of a charge of HIB, I CONCLUDE that the Petitioners have failed
to raise any unresolved issues of material fact that would necessitate a plenary
hearing.
I CONCLUDE that the Petitioners have failed to overcome their burden of
demonstrating that the decision of the BOE in regard to the HIB charges against Ms.
Bredin was tainted by bad faith or that the decision of the BOE was made in utter
disregard of the circumstances before it. 	I further CONCLUDE that the determination
of the BOE that Ms. Bredin did not commit an act of HIB should be and hereby is
AFFIRMED.
CONCLUSION
For all of the above reasons, I CONCLUDE that Respondent Ringwood BOE’s
Motion for Summary decision should be and hereby is GRANTED.
ORDER
This 	matter 	having 	been 	brought 	before 	the 	Tribunal 	by 	counsel 	for 	the
Respondent Ringwood BOE seeking Summary Decision, and the Tribunal having
considered the submissions, and for good cause:
It is on this twenty-first (27 h) day of June, 2024,

9
OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 09628-20
ORDERED that the Respondent Ringwood BOE’s Motion for Summary Decision
is hereby GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Tribunal’s Order Granting Summary Decision in favor of the
Ringwood BOE shall be immediately sent to the parties and / or their counsel by email;
and it is further
ORDERED 	that 	both 	sides 	shall 	immediately 	acknowledge 	receipt 	of 	this
ORDER by email.
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 Acting 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.

10
OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 09628-20
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.
June 27, 2024
DATE 	JOHN P. SCOLLO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
db

11
OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 09628-20
LIST OF MOVING PAPERS
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision
Copy of April 30, 2024 Envelope from Attorney Kleen to Petitioners