In Re the Revocation or the Suspension of the Provisional Accreditation of &/Or the Imposition of Probation on Eastwick College, 139 A.3d 1146

Background

Eastwick College obtained provisional accreditation (2009) for its LPN-to-RN Bridge Program; first graduates received degrees in 2011.
N.J.A.C. 13:37-1.3(c)(2) requires 75% of students from the program’s “first or second graduating class” who take the NCLEX-RN to pass on their first attempt for full accreditation; the regulation does not define "graduating class."
Aggregating all 2011 graduates who took the NCLEX in 2011 produced a 69.49% pass rate; Board required an action plan.
In 2012, 76.29% of students who graduated in 2012 and took the NCLEX in 2012 passed. The Board instead recalculated the “second graduating class” pass rate by including 24 students who graduated in 2011 but first tested in 2012, yielding 71.07%.
The Board issued a Final Order denying full accreditation and placing the program on probation; Appellate Division upheld. The Supreme Court granted certification.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
How to define “first or second graduating class” in N.J.A.C. 13:37-1.3(c)(2)	"Graduating class" means students who graduate in a given calendar year; only graduates of that year who take the NCLEX in that same year are included.	"Graduating class" should be defined by the year of first-time NCLEX testing: include all first-time test takers in a calendar year regardless of graduation year.	Regulation’s plain language supports grouping by graduation year; Board’s test-date-based method is plainly unreasonable.
Whether the Board’s interpretation is entitled to deference	Eastwick: Board’s post-hoc meeting-minute definition cannot override clear regulatory text and was not adopted via APA rulemaking.	Board: agency interpretation should be afforded deference as within its expertise and publicly stated in meeting minutes.	Court defers to agencies unless interpretation is plainly unreasonable; here Board’s interpretation is plainly unreasonable and inconsistent with the regulation’s text.
Whether the Board’s Final Order denying accreditation is supported by substantial credible evidence	Eastwick: under correct graduation-year method the second class had a >75% pass rate so denial lacked substantial evidence.	Board: using its method neither first nor second classes met 75% so denial was supported.	The Board’s calculation (including 2011 grads who first tested in 2012) was improper; record does not support the denial.
Whether the Court should decide rulemaking validity of Board minutes	Eastwick: minutes reflect improper informal rulemaking (Metromedia).	Board: minutes disclosed methodology and are persuasive.	Court decides on plain text and remands; does not decide whether minutes constituted improper rulemaking.

Key Cases Cited

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Hough, 210 N.J. 187 (agency interpretation is entitled to deference unless plainly unreasonable)
In re Election Law Enf’t Comm’n Advisory Op. No. 01-2008, 201 N.J. 254 (interpret regulation by ordinary meaning; consider extrinsic sources only if text ambiguous)
Bedford v. Riello, 195 N.J. 210 (use long-standing agency meaning only when regulation ambiguous)
Metromedia, Inc. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 97 N.J. 313 (discusses limits on agency rulemaking and need for formal rulemaking procedures)
In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644 (standards for appellate review of agency final decisions)
DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (interpretation stops when regulation language is clear)