*1 LUKAS, PIERCE, BARBARA GAISS, ALFRED HERBERT AUDREY SITUATED, WILLIAMS AND OTHERS SIMILARLY RESPON DENTS, JERSEY, v. STATE OF NEW DEPARTMENT OF HU SERVICES, MAN SCHOOL, NEW LISBON STATE WOOD SCHOOL, BRIDGE STATE MARLBORO PSYCHIATRIC HOSPI TAL AND HOSPITAL, GREYSTONE PARK PSYCHIATRIC PE TITIONERS. Argued October 1 985 Decided March1986. Gen., (Irwin Regina Murray, Deputy Atty. appellant A. *2 Kimmelman, Atty. Jersey, atty.; I. Gen. of New Deborah T. Poritz, Gen., counsel). Deputy Atty. {Reitman, Parsonnet, Zurofsky, respondents
Bennet D. for attorneys; Duggan, Zurofsky Maisel & Bennet and Sidney D. Reitman, brief). on opinion
The of the Court was delivered GARIBALDI, J.
At issue is whether State non-correctional human- eligible acquire services facilities are tenure under N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-11 of the State Facilities Education Act of 1979 The Appellate disagree. Division held that were. We
I Pierce, Gaiss, Respondents, Lukas, Barbara Alfred Herbert Williams, Audrey employed teaching supervisory or positions School, School, Woodbridge at New Lisbon Psychiatric Hospital, Greystone Psychiatric Marlboro Hos- pital, respectively. Jersey Department The New of Human responsible operating Services is for the educational facilities pursuant these institutions to the State Facilities Edu- (the Act), cation Act of -13. 18A:7B-1 to Respondents positions. displaced were laid off or from their They petitions filed with the Commissioner of Education con- tending respective discharges that their violation of rights. their tenure The of Human Services and specific denying institutions filed an answer that the teach- protection. ers were entitled to tenure Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1, the matter was transferred to the Office of Adminis- trative Law.
Respondents partial summary judgment filed a motion for represent and a notice for class action certification for them to all certified in institutions members employed the terms of the Act. There are according to administered are employ institutions that teachers who twenty-seven State regional boards of education subject to the Act. No district involved. are for Department Human Services filed a cross-motion
The Decision, In his Initial summary judgment or dismissal. Judge granted Department’s motion Law Administrative summary judgment, dismissing petition. He also denied class action certification. findings and
The of Education affirmed the Commissioner Judge, of the Administrative Law and the State determination of Education affirmed the decision of the Commissioner. Board Division, however, findings that the reversed the and remanded the case right teachers had no to achieve tenure *3 requirements for a determination of whether the tenure certification, granted petition 101 fact met. We State’s (1985). 222 N.J.
II
Jersey
right
It is well-established that New
tenure is
statutory.
legislative
A
source for tenure
is essential.
63,
(1982);
Educ.,
Spiewak
90
72
v.
Bd.
N.J.
Rutherford
Educ.,
65,
(1962),
70-72
Zimmerman v. Newark Bd.
denied,
956,
508,
(1963).
cert.
371
83
To determine whether the are entitled to tenure scheme, present statutory under the an examination of the prior statutory necessary. Legislature In scheme is 1972 the determined “that it is the best interests of the State of New Jersey provide program of educational advancement to 1972, residents of the State’s institutions.” A. c. 187. To ac- complish goal, Legislature enacted N.J.S.A. 30:4AA-1 -8, which established Department within the of Institutions Agencies and a statewide school district known as the Garden (the District).1 State School District provided N.J.S.A. 30:4AA-2 that: The district shall be of such composed correctional, charitable, relief, hospital, training agencies and other institutions and noninstitutional within the Depart- Agencies ment of Institutions and as the commissioner thereof shall determine. Establishment of the school district hereunder shall be in provided two phases. Phase 1 shall include the correctional institutions in the of Institu- Department Agencies. tions and Phase shall include the institutions for mental health, agencies charitable institutions and hospitals, other institutions and Agencies. of Institutions and Department of Phase 2 shall Implementation passage not commence until after of 90 after the Commissioner of days Agencies Institutions and has advised the Commissioner of Education of the Agencies[’] begin Commissioner of Institutions intention to Phase [sic] 2.... 30:4AA-2, Pursuant to N.J.S.A. the Commissioner of Institu- Agencies tions and implemented only Phase which included the correctional Department institutions in the of Institutions Agencies. Upon days notice to the Commissioner of Education, the Commissioner of Agencies Institutions and had implement discretion to Phase which would have included the noncorrectional institutions. Since he did not exercise that dis- cretion, implemented. Phase was never The District therefore composed solely of the correctional institutions within the Agencies. of Institutions and
At created, the same time that the new school district was Legislature the 30:4AA-6, enacted provided N.J.S.A. which respects that: “In all purposes, and for all ... the State school district for institutions shall be considered a local education Agencies 1The of Institutions was Department abolished in 1976. The correctional branch of the became the Department present Department Corrections, and the non-correctional branch became the present Department /,. of Human Services. 1976, 98; c. N.J.S.A. 30:1A-1 to -3. employed in the dispute teachers authority.” There is no 30:4AA-6.2 rights by granted tenure were District however, status to the grant did not provision, This institutions that were employed who were teachers i.e., non-correctional institu- incorporated into the respondents concede that appeal, this purposes For tions. institutions.3 employed in the non-correctional they were Facilities Education Legislature enacted In 1979 Act, 1979, the Garden State 207. This Act abolished L. c. of Corrections and District, charging the School responsibility for Department of Human Services with insti- in the correctional and non-correctional operating classes by departments. administered those tutions 18, September Attorney opinion that this dated 1980concluded 2An General’s employed in the Phase 1 provision the teachers conferred tenure status on District, reasoning School Garden State institutions which district similar to be treated as a local school that since the state district was to Act, provided eligibility governed by should be similar tenure those the Tenure justifiable interpretation employees. opinion of the statute even if is a its This conferring something practice exception to the historical of an expressed through explicit statutory grant. opinion that the also the view right State School these teachers in the Garden to attain tenure for extinguished upon that District. the abolition of District disagree colleague's position be a remand to that there should 3We with our somehow non-correctional institutions whether determine Respondents are not members of the Garden State School became claiming the District. For us tenure is not (as may imply) question but of "statute.” N.J.S.A. of "contract” the dissent implemented. clearly The AU in Phase 2 was to be sets forth how 30:4AA-2 182-7/78, 1982), State, (February EDU EDU Ward v. OAL Nos. 1075/81 Division, unpublished opinion No. Docket affirmed in an (decided 1983), September Phase 2 of the concluded that A-296-82 TB implemented. No one has offered District had not been Garden State School Agencies Institutions and in this record that the Commissioner of evidence informally implemented formally 2. Phase ever colleague's attempt help sympathetic these teachers who with our We are developmentally-disabled the difficult task of the most undertook Nevertheless, Only Legislature to make. the decision is not ours children. may confer tenure status.
III (N.J.S.A. Section 18A:7B-11) 15 of the Act reads in its entirety: proceedings, a. brought This act shall not affect actions or civil or criminal, against pending or by Garden State School District and on the effective date of this but act, such actions be further or may defended in the same prosecuted manner and to the same effect by Department Corrections, Depart- ment of Human or the Services, Department Education, whichever has subject assumed those duties, and powers, which are the responsibilities
proceedings. regulation, judicial b. Whenever in law, rule, order, contract, document, proceedings, or administrative or reference is made otherwise, to the Garden State School District, the same shall be considered and mean the Department Corrections, of Human Department Services, of Edu- cation, which has assumed those and duties, which are powers, responsibilities subject of the reference. rights privileges enjoyed teaching All members Garden staff enjoyed teaching State School District shall be members (emphasis eff. State added).] 15, 1, c. § July [L.1979, facilities. paragraph The last of this section appeal. is the focus of this urge, agreed, and the Division that the plain language paragraph clearly of this unambiguously grants eligibility teaching to all staff members facilities, regardless of whether prior staff members of the District to its abolition. The State argues contrary paragraph on the that this adopted only preserve already enjoyed by teaching staff members upon of the District their transfer assuming to State facilities the responsibilities of since those otherwisé would destroyed by repeal have been of the District’s enabling legislation. paragraph The words of the last of this section, isolation, considered in admit interpretation. of either ambiguity inapposite any
This renders emphatic and all invo- cations of statutory concerning “plain maxims of construction unambiguous words” or “clear and terms” —such as the teach- upon ers’ reliance the maxim that a statute is clear and “[i]f unambiguous on only interpretation, its face and admits of one deeper need no delve than the act’s literal terms to [the Court] Legislature’s Butler, derive the intent.” State v. *6 (1982). only thing clear. this is its The aboiit statute need to the
ambiguity. ambiguity, To resolve that we consider first, in its light of 18A:7B-11: of paragraph last N.J.S.A. second, history; language in to the and legislative relation section; third, against back- the entire the structure of statutory the these ground of the entire scheme. On basis of considerations, judgment of the Divi- we reverse the sion. Statement,
First, Assembly, Committee the Senate Education 18A:7B-1, L.1979, 207, incorporated c. in N.J.S.A. No. 86— concerning explains purpose of specifically the the amendments repeal the District as follows: the of litigating the School are the of Garden State District currently employees rights contend have under Garden State School District Statute they they legal regard tenure and With the Statute, with to salaries. repeal [N.J. basis for case would out. The amendments sections be wiped legal S.A. restore basis but [N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-11] and 15 would 18A:7B-6] grant rights them which do committee, would in the not, opinion enjoy. not currently Thus, Legislature clearly purpose stated that the preserve already dispute merely rights section litigated employees enjoyed being of the former District or Act it. is no evidence that the at the time the abolished There Legislature explicit an independent intended to create basis or rights statutory acquisition those source in the employed who never were State facilities Second, language and structure of the entire section point preserve vestiges establish that its is to certain District, notwithstanding explicit the Act’s abolition of this section, aegis. parallelism there is a institutional Within initially among all to the paragraphs: its three three refer District) (the subsequent- predecessor Garden State School facilities ly explicitly implicitly refer its successor State duties, responsibilities in powers, and that have assumed the indepen- question. Legislature provide an Had intended statutory teaching staff mem- dent basis for tenure bers in State facilities never included likely it most separate would have done inso explicitly section dealing with members in State facilities.
Third, the 18A:7B-11, context of against the back- ground of the entire statutory scheme as well as the statutory abolished, scheme it serves to underscore the section’s function savings clause, as a which such should strictly be construed. Sands, 2A C. (4th Sutherland 1984). Stat. Const. 47.12 ed. § This further stands as a reminder that the Commissioner of the Department of Agencies Institutions and never exercised the *7 implement discretion to 2 Phase of the Garden State School District, which would have included the non-correctional institu- tions in the Respondents were teachers in non-correc- tional institutions within the of Human Services. Hence, they never employees such, of the District. As enjoyed never the tenure employees in correction- al institutions included in implementation the District Phase 1. Holding as the Division did is tantamount holding to very abolishing (and that act of the District savings that), Legislature a clause at implement intended to now-repealed Phase of the statute. Absent a clear statement (and of intent to effectuate change through such a fundamental unlikely means), such an we will not attribute this intent to the Legislature. hesitancy
The soundness of our impute Legislature to the respondents urge upon intent that us is confirmed three one, additional respect considerations: Spie- for our decision in wak; two, Legislature’s practice deference to the historical conferring rights through explicit tenure statutory grant; and three, negative inferences to be drawn from the financial impact evidently of an uncontemplated, inexplicit grant of ten- rights. ure comports spirit
Our decision here with the of our decision in Spiewak, There, contrary respondents’ assertion. we con- 18A:28-5, Act, specifically
sidered whether the Tenure held that eligibility on a class of teachers. We conferred tenure did, “serving Title finding I teachers were it that [a] education,” and so came district or under board school [a] Therefore, they express terms of the statute. within the tenure, exception eligible statutory unless a presumptively respondents in While applied. at 74. Not so this case. 90 N.J. proclaim purpose, of its remedial Spiewak does “because liberally its Act should be construed to achieve Tenure ends,” opinion at does extend tenure beneficent id. grant eligibility expressly in issue do not where other statutes place. rights in the first tenure Hence, pays appropriate here Spiewak as well as our decision conferring Legislature’s practice of deference to the historical Moreover, through explicit statutory grant. 82-83, recognized Spiewak, we at N.J. Rutherford (1985), Educ., v. Board Educ. Ass’n govern- granting has a financial effect on the of tenure serious education). Here, (in cases, those employer mental boards would granting of tenure to hundreds of teachers4 likewise future impact financial on the current and have serious Depart- budgets Department of Human Services and the Legislature ment of We do not believe Corrections. grant rights, inexplicit language intended by such *8 thereby public. on the imposing such a financial burden
IV structure, conclusion, language, of In context N.J. 18A:7B-11,together with the Senate Education Committee S.A. practice Legislature’s deference to the historical Statement and grant, conferring eligibility through explicit statutory Legislature’s enacting in statute establish that the intent attorney approxi- argument, respondents' he 4At oral stated that believed mately would be affected this decision. teachers preserve merely was the tenure members of Garden State School District. We find it Legislature, through inconceivable ambig- statute’s inexplicit language, uous and grant eligibili- intended to ty to hundreds never employees who District. now-abolished
Accordingly, judgment we reverse the Appellate Divi- sion.
For reversal —Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices HAN- DLER, and STEIN—4. GARIBALDI part; in
Concurring dissenting pari O’HERN— —Justice 1. J.,
O’HERN, concurring part dissenting part. Plaintiffs never given day have been on their court upon claims to employment by tenure based the Garden State I School District. must from majority’s disposition dissent hearing those claims without the evidence. The issue is simply adjudication by for ripe not us.
Preliminarily, I respect note that with to the one issue decid- Division, ed agree majority I with the that the Act, State Facilities Education and particularly N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-11, perforce grant teaching-staff does tenure to agree purpose members in state I facilities. that its preserve teaching-staff and effect the tenure was previously employed by members School Garden State disagree I majority Where with the is in conclusion its hearing proof question it can resolve without plaintiffs employed by whether these the Garden State School a status that could confer tenure. complaint alleges
Plaintiffs’ that each was in an “part institution that of the Garden State District.” School or, alternative, petition The State moved to dismiss the in the summary judgment, grounds judica- based on that “res estoppel relitigation ta and collateral bar of the ultimate issues *9 136 unpublished compan- an upon The State relied
in this matter.” Jersey, Appellate Division v. New State Ward decision in ion 29, 1983), (decided holding September No. A-296-82T3 Docket by Depart- employed programs in educational teachers eligibility. to tenure Services were entitled ment of Human representative partic- employee an The State asserted since adversely and the matter had been resolved ipated that case involved, similarly-situated plaintiffs these were to the teachers by the decision. barred
. Judge accepted position this and Administrative Law must look to the Ward Hence motion. we granted State’s principles of law whether correct record determine resolving the teachers’ claims. case, Judge’s findings Law In the Ward Administrative that, positions were federal- recognized at least insofar funded, employees of the Garden State ly the teachers were He found: School hired, dismissed interviewed, supervised
The Garden School District State determined the certificates re- Corrections, for the teacher approved calendars, conducted teachers, workshops, quired programs carried in the ten correctional institu- of educational reports required programs did the Garden State School Title I tions. Only respect programs with in the De- involved educational similarly District become Services. Human partment of (Feb. 1075-81 v. New Nos. EDU EDU State 182-7/78, OAL [Ward Jersey, (1983) (emphasis 1982), Div. A-296-82T3 at aff'd, App. sup slip op. plied).] However, principle he con- upon relied discredited when he cluded: teaching members by It is well that not all public settled although attain duties tenure, may perform districts can
school Board Examiners. Capella and be holders of certificates issued (App.Div. 209 Sch., Ed. Voc. Tech. 145 N.J.Super. v. Bd. Camden County 1976); v. 11 Callam, N.J.Super. Point Pleasant Beach Teachers Ass’n 173 (App.Div.1976), (App.Div.1980); Waldwick, N.J.Super. Biancardi v. 175 (1977). aff'd 73 N.J. at supra, OAL, slip 10.] [Ward, op. precedents specifically overruled or limited
These of Educ., Bd. Spiewak N.J. v. Rutherford our decision *10 (1982), explained where we once teaching that staff members district, are employed by public a school the or source manner funding of legal is irrelevant to their status. at Id. 82. The language unflinching Spiewak of is on point. this The Court “[b]y focusing notes that on the contractual relations between parties the tenure, and not the statutory criteria for the court in Point authority Pleasant overlooked the which holds that ten- governed ure is legal right by statute rather than contract.” Spiewak, supra, N.J. at 76.
I impressed by point am not the final the Administrative Law Judge made in that Ward there is no evidence the that Commis- sioner of Agencies adopted Institutions and ever formally phase second the development of of the Garden State School Ward, OAL, supra, slip op. at 11. The reader will search in opinions vain the two the Attorney dealing of General with teaching-staff of members of the Garden State School District concept for reference to this phasing-in employees. Comparable Tenure Un- Benefits Op. der seq., Att’y Sept. 11, N.J.S.A. et N.J. Gen. SOfAA-l 1975; Teachers, Supervisors Tenure Status of Certificated Assigned Instructors to the Garden State School Op.N.J.Att’y Sept. In opinion, Gen. 1980. his latter Attorney recapitulated General the status of the law: eligible In of the State school district were to summary, [Garden] employees attain tenure when district was of Institutions Department
Agencies in with the of N.J.S.A. 18:28-5. conformity requirements Similarly, eligible were when district was transferred to employees Education conditions set in Department pursuant forth 18A:60-1. tenure could be attained in Additionally, only those programs educational to those local school districts. equivalent required of the section 14 State Facilities Education Act Finally, status of preserves those who had attained tenure to the abolition of the State school prior district, but does not an basis certificated provide independent employees Office of Education Human Services and Corrections to tenure in the future. These should be afforded the acquire employees employ- generally ment available to State protections employees. Gen., at 18, 1980, [Op.N.J.Att’y Sept. 7-8.] question simply plaintiffs Hence the is this: whether the that, were employees “the State School District.” As we findings at that least insofar know from the AU’s Ward federally funded, they employees were positions “hired, finding of his District the District because * * * respect Title I supervised and dismissed * * Ward, OAL, op. supra, slip It is of no *.” at 7. programs thought that the teachers whether the Commissioner moment formally tenure-eligible Phase had not been because Educ., supra, Bd. implemented. Spiewak If v. Rutherford a matter of anything, us it is tenure is teaches *11 subjective atti- of contract. Hence the mental status not is of the immaterial. tude Commissioner School District as the If the State used Garden State federally programs, implement to fund it employer educational fact, ways. 2 cannot it Phase if not name. It have both ed ” square must ‘turn corners.’ F.M.C. Stores “[Government (1985) Plains, Morris 426 Borough v. Co. Tp., N.J.Super. 120 (quoting Mayor v. Raritan Gruber (1962)). perhaps only a (App.Div.), I realize that aff'd, N.J. developmentally- in our State for few teachers institutions stringent requirements to disabled will be able meet they eligibility under 18A:60-1 -15. For N.J.S.A. years of prove only they required that met the must service, they employed under uninterrupted but also cases, many a certificate and should survive here, Having given in force. themselves to reduction educating developmentally disabled of difficult task of most children, only students whose chance our and to needs of will come State thorough for a and efficient education institutions, allegations teachers are entitled have these developed than complaint their tested on a record rather point in an disposed of of one raised have them resolution appeal. Petition, emphasized that his Attorney
In his General holding was that gravest concern with decision below “[i]n Facilities 18A:7B-11 State Education that N.J.S.A. Act] [the upon Human Services bestows tenure benefits teachers, radically departed the Lukas court has from Legislature.” statute and has substituted its will for that of the Attorney We have decided that in favor issue General. not, however, That does resolve the other difficult issues raised below, by these In a filed teachers. brief the teachers reserved rights: these legal The have several theories that believe entitle them to petitioners they pertaining
tenure.
It must
admitted,
be
that facts
to all but
frankly
however,
one of these theories are in
motion therefore is devoted to
dispute.
present
the one
to which there is no relevant
factual
theory
dispute, namely,
are entitled to tenure
virtue of Section 15 of the
Facilities
petitioners
18A:7B-ll(b).
Education Act of
may
pursuit
It
turn out that
of the teachers’ other theories
may
Still, they
day
not be successful.
are
entitled
court.
I would remand their cases and those of other teachers
similarly
hearing
question
situated for a factual
on the
whether
interviewed, hired,
they
supervised,
were in fact
and dismissed
were,
by the
they
Garden State School District.
If
are
tenure-eligibility
principles
Spiewak
entitled to claim
on the
Educ., supra,
v.
Bd.
Argued Decided April March 1 986 1986.