Stephanie Platia v. Board of Education of the Township of Hamilton, Mercer County

84 A.3d 982, 434 N.J. Super. 382, 2014 WL 300779, 2014 N.J. Super. LEXIS 17
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division·Decided January 29, 2014·No. A-1730-12·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1730-12T3

STEPHANIE PLATIA, Petitioner-Appellant, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

January 29, 2014

v.

APPELLATE DIVISION

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON, MERCER COUNTY,

Respondent-Respondent.

Argued December 17, 2013 – Decided January 29, 2014 Before Judges Fisher, Espinosa and Koblitz.

On appeal from the New Jersey Commissioner of Education, Docket No. 206-7/11.

Edward A. Cridge argued the cause for appellant (Mellk O'Neill, attorneys; Arnold M. Mellk, of counsel; Mr. Cridge, on the brief).

Sanmathi Dev argued the cause for respondent Board of Education of the Township of Hamilton (Capehart & Scatchard, P.A., attorneys; Ms. Dev and Joseph F. Betley, on the brief).

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Commissioner of Education (Lauren A. Jensen, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in lieu of brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by ESPINOSA, J.A.D.

Stephanie Platia was employed as a special education teacher by the Board of Education of Hamilton Township (Board) for more than three academic years in a four-year period. However, the Board denied that she obtained tenure under the Tenure Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:28-1 to -18, because her employment for one of those academic years was as a "Long Term Substitute" pursuant to a contract that stated the position was "non- tenurial." In this, her appeal from a final decision of the Commissioner of Education, we consider the application of the "temporary" employee exception to the Tenure Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:16-1.1. We conclude the exception does not apply and that Platia obtained tenure as of right.

I.

Platia was hired by the Board to serve as a full-time special education teacher at Greenwood Elementary School in Hamilton Township, effective January 28 to June 30, 2008. She was rehired to serve in the same position for the next two academic years, 2008-09 and 2009-10. According to the Board, Platia was not offered a contract for the 2010-11 academic year "based on reasons of economy."

However, in July 2010, the Board offered Platia a new contract to serve in the position of "Long Term Substitute" as a

special education teacher at the Mercerville and Lalor Schools, effective September 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011. That contract included the following notice:

You are replacing an employee who is on a leave of absence and who may be returning to his/her position at the expiration of this contract. This position is non-tenurial and carries no seniority eligibility. You will be assigned to the Substitute Teacher List if no position is available at the expiration of this contract.

Platia signed the contract and accepted the position. When Platia inquired about her status regarding tenure, she was informed:

Tenure is not accruable as a Long term Substitute. Tenure is gained in a full-time position – it is equal to 3 years and 1 day – a[nd] must be within a 4 year period – 1 full year as a long term substitute would make a tenure clock start over again.

In April 2011, the Board notified Platia it would be unable to offer her a contract for the 2011-12 academic year because funding for the position she held would expire at the end of June 2011. The Board added that it was "reviewing . . . staffing needs for the 2011-2012 school year" and would contact Platia if its needs changed and her services were desired.

In July 2011, Platia filed a verified petition with the Commissioner of Education seeking, among other relief, an order that would direct and compel the Board to recognize her as a

tenured employee and restore her to the teaching position she previously held.1 The Board filed an answer in which it denied Platia had acquired tenure. The matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law as a contested case. Both Platia and the Board moved for summary decision. Following oral argument, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an initial decision on September 17, 2012, granting the Board's cross- motion for summary decision and dismissing Platia's appeal. Thereafter, the Commissioner adopted the ALJ's Initial Decision as the final decision of the Department of Education.

Both the ALJ and the Commissioner viewed the question as whether Platia filled a permanently vacant position or one that was temporarily vacated by a teacher who intended to return. The Commissioner agreed with the ALJ that Platia was not entitled to tenure credit during the 2010-11 academic year because "she filled a position resulting from a leave of absence, not a permanent vacancy." The Commissioner noted further that, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:16-1.1, the Board was "authorized to designate a person" who would "act in the place of an employee during a leave of absence" but not acquire tenure credit for that employment.

1 Platia concedes that if she were restored to a tenured teaching position, her employment would remain subject to a reduction in force. See N.J.S.A. 18A:28-9.

Our review in an appeal from a final decision of an administrative agency is limited. Circus Liquors, Inc. v. Governing Body of Middletown Twp., 199 N.J. 1, 9 (2009). However, the issue presented here calls for the interpretation of the Tenure Act and the exception for temporary employees, N.J.S.A. 18A:16-1.1. Such interpretation "is primarily the role of the judiciary and is not an administrative function." Krayniak v. Bd. of Trs., 412 N.J. Super. 232, 237 (App. Div. 2010). As a result, the Commissioner's interpretation of the statutes is not entitled to our deference.

II.

"The right to tenure is created and governed entirely by statute." Merlino v. Borough of Midland Park, 172 N.J. 1, 8 (2002) (quoting Breitwieser v. State-Operated Sch. Dist., 286 N.J. Super. 633, 637 (App. Div. 1996)). The Tenure Act "defines the conditions under which teachers are entitled to the security of tenure." Spiewak v. Bd. of Educ., 90 N.J. 63, 72 (1982). Tenure becomes a "mandatory term and condition of employment" for "all teaching staff members[2] who work in positions for which

2 "Teaching staff member" is defined in N.J.S.A. 18A:1-1 as "a member of the professional staff of any district or regional board of education . . . holding office, position or employment of such character that the qualifications, for such office, position or employment, require him to hold a valid and effective standard, provisional or emergency certificate, (continued)

a certificate is required, who hold valid certificates, and who have worked the requisite number of years . . . unless they come within the explicit exceptions in N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5 or related statutes such as N.J.S.A. 18A:16-1.1." Id. at 72, 81.

Because a "legislative source for tenure rights is essential," Lukas v. State of New Jersey, 103 N.J. 126, 128 (1986), the right to tenure accrues only when there is "compliance with the precise conditions articulated in the relevant legislative enactment." Merlino, supra, 172 N.J. at 8; see also Picogna v. Bd. of Educ., 143 N.J. 391, 400 (1996); Zimmerman v. Bd. of Educ., 38 N.J. 65, 72 (1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 956, 83 S. Ct. 508, 9 L. Ed. 2d 502 (1963). Thus, actual service of the time specified in the statute is a necessary prerequisite to the right to tenure. Tenure will not accrue for an employee discharged before that time requirement is satisfied, even if the discharge is in breach of an employment contract.3 Picogna, supra, 143 N.J. at 401-02;

(continued) appropriate to his office, position or employment, issued by the State Board of Examiners . . . ." 3 In addition to the Tenure Act, the Board's power to dismiss is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the New Jersey Constitution, federal and state anti-discrimination laws, see Picogna, supra, 143 N.J. at 402; Zimmerman, supra, 38 N.J. at 70-71, and, presumably, by other (continued)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Stephanie Platia v. Board of Education of the Township of Hamilton, Mercer County, 84 A.3d 982, 434 N.J. Super. 382, 2014 WL 300779, 2014 N.J. Super. LEXIS 17 (N.J. Ct. App. 2014).

84 A.3d 982 (Stephanie Platia v. Board of Education of the Township of Hamilton, Mercer County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related