NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-4290-18T1 L.K. and T.K., on behalf of minor child, A.K., Petitioners-Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MANSFIELD, BURLINGTON COUNTY, Respondent-Respondent. ______________________________ Argued September 14, 2020 – Decided November 2, 2020 Before Judges Mayer and Susswein. On appeal from the New Jersey Commissioner of Education, Docket No. 82-3/16. David R. Giles argued the cause for appellants. Casey P. Acker argued the cause for respondent Board of Education of the Township of Mansfield, Burlington County (Lenox, Socey, Formidoni, Giordano, Lang, Carrigg & Casey, LLC; attorneys, Casey P. Acker on the brief). Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Commissioner of Education (Sadia Ahsanuddin, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in lieu of brief). PER CURIAM Petitioners L.K. and T.K. appeal from a final decision by the Commissioner of Education, affirming the determination by the Mansfield Township school board (Board) that their seven-year-old daughter, A.K., harassed, intimidated, or bullied a fellow second-grade classmate, N.V. 1 N.V., who was born a male, was transitioning from expressing herself as male to female.2 The allegations of harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB) stemmed from A.K. asking N.V. inappropriate questions concerning N.V.'s gender expression as a female. Petitioners contend they were denied due process during the initial adjudicatory process before the Board. They assert they should have been afforded the same procedural rights that apply when a student faces a long-term suspension, including the right to cross-examine witnesses at the Board hearing. 1 We use initials to refer to the petitioners and the children involved to protect their privacy. 2 Throughout the record, N.V. was referred to with masculine personal pronouns. We choose instead to use the personal pronoun consistent with her gender expression and preference. A-4290-18T1 2 We disagree. The framework for adjudicating HIB allegations is set forth in the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (ABR), N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 to -47 and administrative code promulgated by the Commissioner of Education as authorized by the State Board of Education. We are satisfied those procedures meet constitutional requirements. Petitioners also contend that the Commissioner abused his discretion in affirming the Board's determination that A.K. engaged in HIB, as defined in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14. Our review of the record shows the Board presented testimonial evidence that, if found credible, would establish that A.K. engaged in HIB based on N.V.'s gender identity and expression. However, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over the five-day plenary hearing discounted the credibility of some of the testimony, concluding that the Board relied heavily on uncorroborated evidence. Most notably, the ALJ concluded that the Board failed to corroborate its determination that A.K. persisted in questioning, teasing, and threatening N.V. after school staff and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals