Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0391-11T2
01-06-2014
STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, ESSEX COUNTY, Petitioner-Respondent, v. CHRISTINE GILLESPIE, Respondent-Appellant.
Christine Gillespie, appellant, argued the cause pro se (Joseph M. Gillespie, on the briefs). Caroline Jones, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent New Jersey Department of Education (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. Jones, on the brief). Daniel A. Schlein argued the cause for respondent State-Operated School District of the City of Newark, Essex County (Adams Stern Gutierrez & Lattiboudere, LLC, attorneys; Cherie L. Adams, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Grall, Waugh, and Nugent.
On appeal from the Office of Administrative Law.
Christine Gillespie, appellant, argued the cause pro se (Joseph M. Gillespie, on the briefs).
Caroline Jones, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent New Jersey Department of Education (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. Jones, on the brief).
Daniel A. Schlein argued the cause for respondent State-Operated School District of the City of Newark, Essex County (Adams Stern Gutierrez & Lattiboudere, LLC, attorneys; Cherie L. Adams, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
By leave granted, respondent Christine Gillespie appeals the determination of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) that it has jurisdiction to determine the tenure charges brought against her by petitioner State-Operated School District of the City of Newark (District). We affirm.
Christine Gillespie is a tenured teacher for the District. In December 2002, the District brought tenure charges against her based on excessive absenteeism, absence without leave/abandonment of position, and incapacity as a teacher due to absenteeism. At that time, Newark schools were under full state intervention. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-5.1, the State district superintendent certified that probable cause existed for the tenure charges. In February 2003, the charges were filed with the Commissioner of Education. The Commissioner deemed the charges to be "sufficient, if true, to warrant dismissal or reduction in salary." Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16, the matter was referred to the OAL.
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16 was amended in 2012 to refer these matters to "an arbitrator pursuant to section 22 of P.L. 2012, c.26 (C.18a:6-17.1)" instead of the OAL. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-17.5, this case is governed by the pre-amendment provisions of the statute.
In 2006, Gillespie filed a petition with the Department of Education seeking an amendment to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-5.1. She argued, among other things, that the regulation was "inconsistent with N.J.S.A. 18A:6-11, because it permit[ed] the State district superintendent, rather than the local district board of education," to make the probable cause determination for charges brought against tenured employees. Gillespie's petition was rejected. Gillespie appealed and we affirmed. Gillespie v. Dep't of Educ., 397 N.J. Super. 545 (App Div.), certif. denied, 195 N.J. 420 (2008).
The hearing in the OAL was delayed because Gillespie had a workers' compensation claim pending against the District.
--------
In 2009, Gillespie filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against, among other parties, Clifford Janey, individually and in his capacity as State district superintendent, claiming that the tenure charges certified by him violated, among other things, due process, the First Amendment, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and that they constituted discriminatory treatment. The District Court dismissed Gillespie's complaint for failure to state a viable claim. The Third Circuit affirmed. Gillespie v. Janey, 441 Fed. App'x. 890, 892-93, 896 (3rd Cir. 2011).
In 2010, the tenure charges against Gillespie were again placed on the OAL's active list. In January 2011, Gillespie filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that OAL lacked jurisdiction. Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey A. Gerson denied Gillespie's motion, as well as the District's cross-motion for summary disposition. We granted Gillespie's motion for leave to appeal.
Having reviewed the issues raised on appeal, we find them to be without merit and not warranting discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Consequently, we affirm essentially for the reasons stated by ALJ Gerson in his April 27, 2011 written opinion.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION