New Jersey teacher lawyers

Published on: July 12, 2024

New Jersey Employment Law Decision Examines Suspension and Revocation of Teaching Certificates

New Jersey employment law requires teachers and other public education employees to hold teaching certificates, or other certificates as appropriate to the position, as a prerequisite to holding their job. A New Jersey appeals court recently examined the legal principles involved when the New Jersey State Board of Examiners determines whether to suspend or revoke a teacher’s teaching national-gallery-of-art-1380105-m-300x248 certificates in the case of In the Matter of the Certificates of Rita O’Malley by the State Board of Examiners.

Background

Rita O’Malley was a special education teacher. She held several teaching certificates. She was employed by the Woodbridge Township School District as a Learning Disabilities Teacher Consultant (“LDTC”), for which she was licensed,. She tested students, diagnosed learning disabilities, developed individualized education plans (or “IEPs”), and provided guidance to parents and educators on the best programs for those students.

Published on: January 1, 2024

New Jersey Employment Law Decision Explains that Teacher Cannot Wait Until After Conclusion of Certificate Revocation Proceedings to Seek Reimbursement from Board of Education

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

One of the most difficult New Jersey employment law issues confronted by government employees is that they are sometimes drawn into legal action because of actions taken in the course of their employment. Defending such charges can cause significant expense and supreme-administrative-court-3565618_960_720-300x200 hardship to government employees. For teachers, administrators and other public education employees, however, there are two laws which provide for payment of the employee’s attorneys fees and litigation expenses by their board of education in certain criminal, quasi-criminal, administrative and civil legal actions. The Appellate Division examined the question of when an employee must notify their employer and request payment under the two different statutes in a case where the New Jersey State Board of Examiners sought to revoke an employee’s teaching certificate in the case of Maria Azzaro v. the Board of Education of the City of Trenton.

Background: The Order to Show Cause and Administrative Litigation

Maria Azzaro worked for the Trenton Board of Education. The New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance alleged that while Azzaro was a vice-principal at Trenton Central High School improper practices occurred including misassignment of students, giving students credits for classes they did not attend or attended only sporadically, that certain classes did not meet Department requirements, and that transcripts were falsified so that students could matriculate. As a result, in 2007, the New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners served Azzaro with an Order to Show Cause seeking revocation or suspension of her teaching certificate because she allegedly knew of or participated in these practices.

Published on: October 21, 2021

New Jersey Employment Law Decision Rules on Limitation Period to File Tenure Appeals

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

In an important New Jersey employment law decision, the Appellate Division of the State Superior Court examined exceptions to the 90 day limit for challenging a board of education’s decision regarding a teacher’s tenure status. In that case, Frayne v. Board of Education of the Borough of Highland Park, the Appellate Division demonstrated that the limitation period is a “hard” deadline, and missing it will likely columns-round-300x201 mean the teacher’s appeal will be rejected.

Background

Deana Frayne was a non-tenure track maternity leave replacement teacher for the Highland Park Board of Education from the 2008-2009 though 2011-2012 school years; thereafter she was employed as a full-time, tenure track teacher. She signed her fourth contract as a tenure track first grade teacher for the 2015-2016 school year on May 15, 2015. However, on June 25, 2015, she was served with a letter advising that the Board believed that she did not have tenure and that her employment would be terminated effective August 23, 2015 based on performance, behavior and attendance. The Board offered her an agreement ending her tenure track employment, giving her sixty days health benefits and salary in exchange for a release. She did not sign. She then received a Rice Notice, and on August 23, 2015, the Board voted unanimously to terminate Frayne’s employment.