G.W. and K.W., on behalf of minor child, M.W. v. Board of Education of the Borough of Ringwood, Passaic County, 12/19/2024, (#457-24)

457-24
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 on remand – which stems 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
stemming from an assignment 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. In an Initial Decision issued June 27, 2024, the ALJ – finding, inter alia,
that petitioners failed to file opposition papers – granted the Board’s motion for summary decision.
Subsequently, the Commissioner rejected the Initial Decision and remanded the matter to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) to be properly litigated, finding that, given the unique circumstances of the
matter, petitioners had been unable to respond to the motion for summary decision and that the matter
should therefore not have been considered unopposed. The Commissioner ordered that the petitioners
be given a 20-day time limit on remand for filing opposition to the Board’s motion for summary decision.
On remand, 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 did not submit any opposition papers within the 20 day
time limit set by the Commissioner and did not request an extension of time to submit same; it is
undisputed that G.W. and K.W. did not allow the District’s HIB investigators to interview M.W. about the
alleged HIB; nothing in the record indicates that M.W. was adversely affected by the assignment that
was the topic of the HIB complaint; nothing in the record indicates that any other student was adversely
affected by the alleged HIB, nor was the orderly operation of the school; in fact, the record was entirely
devoid of evidence supporting any of the elements of a charge of HIB. Accordingly, the ALJ granted the
Board’s motion for summary decision.
Upon review, the Commissioner, inter alia, concurred with the findings and conclusions of the ALJ on
remand. 	Accordingly, the October 4, 2024, Initial Decision was adopted as the final decision in this
matter, and the petition of appeal 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.

457-24
OAL Dkt. No. 12842-24 (09628-20 on remand)
Agency Dkt. No. 199-9/20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
G.W. and K.W., on behalf of minor child, M.W.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Ringwood,
Passaic County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on
remand have been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Petitioners filed an appeal of respondent’s (Board) 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 managing
the case, but notified the OAL in February 2024 that M.W.’s mother, K.W., would be handling the
case going forward.
In an Initial Decision issued June 27, 2024, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the
Board’s second motion for summary decision. Specifically, the ALJ deemed the motion unopposed
because petitioners had not filed opposition papers. 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
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.

2
were no unresolved issues of material fact that would necessitate a plenary hearing, and that the
Board’s HIB determination should be affirmed.
On September 6, 2024, the Commissioner rejected the Initial Decision, finding that given the
unique circumstances of this matter, in which 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. The Commissioner remanded this matter to the OAL to be properly litigated and directed
the Office of Controversies and Disputes to provide a complete copy of the record to petitioner.
Additionally, the Commissioner set a 20-day time limit for petitioners to file opposition to the Board’s
motion.
On remand, when petitioner failed to respond to the motion within 20 days, the ALJ
considered the motion unopposed. The ALJ concluded that a required element of HIB – that the
conduct substantially disrupt or interfere with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of
other students – had not been established, thereby precluding a finding of HIB. 	The ALJ further
concluded that there were no unresolved issues of material fact that would warrant a plenary hearing
and granted the Board’s motion for Summary Decision.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the findings and conclusions of the ALJ on
remand. Accordingly, the October 4, 2024, Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this
matter, and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	December 19, 2024
Date of Mailing: 	December 20, 2024
2 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.

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 12842-24
G.W. AND K.W. ON BEHALF OF
MINOR CHILD M.W., 	REMAND OF
OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 09628-20
Petitioners,
v.
BOROUGH OF RINGWOOD,
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
PASSAIC COUNTY,
Respondent.
____________________________________
K.R. formerly known as K.W., on behalf of M.W., petitioners, pro se
Jessika Kleen, Esq., for respondent (Machado Law Group, attorneys)
BEFORE: JOHN P. SCOLLO, ALJ:
Record Closed: September 30, 2024 	Decided: October 4, 2024

OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 12842-24
2
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) determination that HIB charges
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 their son, 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

OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 12842-24
3
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 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

OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 12842-24
4
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 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.
The Acting Commissioner of Education issued his Final Decision on September
6, 2024 (mailed on September 9, 2024); in that Decision the Acting Commissioner set a
twenty-day time limit for the Petitioners to submit their Opposition to the Respondent’s
Summary Decision Motion. 	The Petitioners did not submit any Opposition papers by
Monday, September 30, 2024 and the Petitioners did not ask the Tribunal for additional
time to submit same. The Record closed on September 30, 2024.
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 the
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,

OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 12842-24
5
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.
Findings of Undisputed Facts
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, 2024 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 20, 2024.
The Acting Commissioner of Education issued his Final Decision on September 6,
2024 	(mailed on September 9, 2024); in that 	Decision 	the Acting 	Commissioner
remanded the matter and set a twenty-day time limit for the Petitioners to submit their
Opposition to the Respondent’s Summary Decision Motion. 	The Petitioners did not
submit any Opposition papers by Monday, September 30, 2024 and the Petitioners did
not ask the Tribunal for additional time to submit same. I FIND that the time limit set by
the Assistant Commissioner has been exceeded.
It is undisputed and 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, 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

OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 12842-24
6
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 there was nothing in the
record that indicates that M.W. was adversely affected by the assignment of the article.
I FIND that there was nothing in the record that indicates that any other student
was adversely affected by Bredin’s assignment of the article to M.W. I FIND that there is
nothing in the record that indicates that the orderly operation of the school was adversely
affected by Bredin’s assignment of the article to M.W.
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

OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 12842-24
7
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 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
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.”
Thus, to constitute HIB the gesture or action must contain all three primary (i.e.,
numerically-listed) elements plus at least one of the three alphabetized (“a”, “b” or “c”)
elements.
Board of Education’s HIB Decisions Are Afforded a 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

OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 12842-24
8
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 Procedure Rules (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.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Having found that the time limit set by the Acting Commissioner for Petitioners to
submit their Opposition papers has been exceeded, I CONCLUDE that the Respondent’s
Motion is unopposed.
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 	carry 	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.
Having found that there is nothing in the record that would indicate that the
assigning of the article to M.W. adversely affected M.W. or another student and that the
assigning of the article to M.W. adversely affected the operation of the school, I
CONCLUDE that an essential element of HIB (the third element of the primary, or
numerically-listed elements) has not been established and I CONCLUDE that without said

OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 12842-24
9
element there can be not finding of an act of HIB. 	I therefore CONCLUDE that the
Ringwood BOE’s determination that Ms. Bredin did not commit an act of HIB must be and
hereby is AFFIRMED.
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 third (4th) day of October, 2024,
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

OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 12842-24
10
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 	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.
October 4, 2024 	_______________________
DATE 	JOHN P. SCOLLO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	_______________________
Date Mailed to Parties: 	________________ _______
db

OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 12842-24
11
LIST OF MOVING PAPERS
Respondent Ringwood BOE’s Motion for Summary Decision