JENNIFER JORDAN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE NORTH HUNTERDON-VOORHEES REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT(COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION)
A-4420-14T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 21, 2017Background
- Jennifer Jordan was hired as a non-tenured guidance counselor at North Hunterdon-Voorhees Regional High School in Jan. 2011 and became eligible for tenure after the 2013–14 school year.
- On May 8, 2014, Human Resources sent a letter stating the Superintendent would recommend non-renewal at the May 13 Board meeting and that Jordan’s employment would terminate June 30, 2014.
- Jordan and counsel appeared at the May 13 Board meeting; the Board approved a personnel agenda that omitted renewal of Jordan’s contract.
- Jordan filed a petition with the Commissioner of Education on Aug. 11, 2014 challenging the non-renewal (due process, manufactured reasons, policy violations, defective notice).
- The ALJ and Commissioner dismissed the petition as untimely under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i) because Jordan filed more than 90 days after receipt of the May 8 notice.
- Jordan appealed to the Appellate Division arguing the May 8 letter was not a final action, the Commissioner abused discretion, and she should receive tenure or a remand for hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the May 8 letter was a "final order, ruling or other action" triggering the 90‑day limitation under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i) | The letter only said the Superintendent would recommend non‑renewal; it was not final and thus did not start the 90‑day clock | The letter clearly notified Jordan she would not be offered employment and was a final action that starts the 90‑day period | Court held the May 8 letter was a final notice triggering the 90‑day filing period; petition was untimely |
| Whether Commissioner abused discretion by adopting ALJ dismissal as time‑barred | Jordan argued the Commissioner’s interpretation contravened legislative intent and deprived her of a hearing | Commissioner relied on regulatory text and precedent emphasizing prompt challenges to budgeting and tenure decisions | Court found no abuse of discretion; deference to agency interpretation appropriate |
| Whether Board violated its own Policy 3142 (notice by April 24) and thus Jordan had already obtained tenure | Jordan claimed missing April notice meant she became tenured before May 8 | Board noted compliance with statute (notice by May 15) and contested that Jordan met statutory tenure service requirements | Court held Board’s later notice complied with statute; Jordan had not met statutory tenure length and was not automatically tenured |
| Whether Board’s non‑renewal was arbitrary or capricious and merits review on the merits | Jordan pointed to alleged manufactured reasons and policy failures | Board relied on documented concerns (parent requests, absences, responsiveness to criticism) and statutory discretion in tenure decisions | Court found Board’s action not shown arbitrary or capricious; no merit to overturn |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaprow v. Bd. of Educ. of Berkeley Twp., 131 N.J. 572 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (explaining importance of 90‑day limitation for school budget certainty)
- Nissman v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. of Long Beach Island, 272 N.J. Super. 373 (App. Div. 1994) (notice test: when employee knew or should have known nonrenewal was forthcoming)
- Donaldson v. Bd. of Educ. of N. Wildwood, 65 N.J. 236 (Sup. Ct. 1974) (board has broad discretion in granting tenure; nonrenewal need not reflect unsatisfactory performance)
- Stallworth v. State (In re Stallworth), 208 N.J. 182 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (standard of appellate review of agency decisions; deference to agency unless arbitrary or unsupported)