IN THE MATTER TENURE HEARING OF ADAM MUJICA, STATE OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF PATERSON

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3883-03T13883-03T1

IN THE MATTER OF THE TENURE

HEARING OF ADAM MUJICA, STATE

OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF

THE CITY OF PATERSON,

PASSAIC COUNTY

________________________________________________________________

 

Argued October 12, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Kestin and Lefelt.

On appeal from a Final Decision of the

State Board of Education, Docket No.

40-03.

John H. Norton argued the cause for

appellant (Alpert, Goldberg, Butler,

Norton, Bearg & Peach, attorneys;

Mr. Norton and Clark E. Alpert, of

counsel; Mr. Alpert and David N.

Butler, on the brief).

John D. McCarthy argued the cause

for respondent School District of

the City of Paterson (Schenck, Price,

Smith & King, attorneys; Joanne L.

Butler and Mr. McCarthy, on the

brief).

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General,

submitted a brief on behalf of

respondent State Board of Education

(Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney

General, of counsel; Tracey Hinson,

Deputy Attorney General, on the

brief).

PER CURIAM

Adam Mujica taught bilingual social studies at Paterson Eastside High School. In a prior appeal of tenure charges that were brought against Mujica, we affirmed the State Board of Education's decision sustaining seven charges of conduct unbecoming a teacher, which consisted of sexually inappropriate remarks and gestures Mujica made to his students. However, we remanded the matter for reconsideration of the penalty because the Administrative Law Judge and the Commissioner of Education had considered prior unadjudicated charges in deciding to remove Mujica from his tenured teaching position.

After conducting the remand, the Commissioner, without giving any weight to past undetermined accusations, found once again that Mujica's pattern of unprofessional conduct was sufficient to warrant his dismissal. Upon Mujica's administrative appeal, the State Board affirmed the Commissioner and commented that Mujica "routinely made inappropriate sexual gestures and sexual remarks over much of the school year." The State Board noted that "[s]uch a pattern of conduct alone would have warranted [Mujica's] dismissal even if he had not, as the ALJ found and the Appellate Division affirmed, attempted to manipulate one of his students not to testify against him." The State Board concluded therefore that "the appropriate penalty in this case is respondent's dismissal from his tenured position." Mujica appeals, once more, to the Appellate Division arguing that the State Board failed to perform "the analysis intended by this Court" and imposed a penalty disproportionate to Mujica's offenses and inconsistent with pertinent precedence.

As has often been said, however, we will not disturb an administrative agency's decision in the absence of a showing that it was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, violative of expressed or implicit legislative policies, or lacking fair support in the evidence. Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963). The State Board's decision, contrary to Mujica's arguments, cannot be faulted on any of these bases.

The decision terminating Mujica is consistent with prior cases. See e.g., In re Tenure Hearing of Roberts, 94 N.J.A.R 2d (Dep't of Ed.) 284, aff'd, 95 N.J.A.R 2d (Dep't of Ed.) 349, aff'd, App. Div. 95 N.J.A.R 2d (Dep't of Ed.) 549, certif. denied, 146 N.J. 499; In re Tenure Hearing of Van Gilson, 93 N.J.A.R 2d (Dep't of Ed.) 378, aff'd, 93 N.J.A.R 2d (Dep't of Ed.) 630; and In re Tenure Hearing of Sheriden, 92 N.J.A.R 2d (Dep't of Ed.) 257, aff'd, 92 N.J.A.R 2d (Dep't of Ed.) 393. Mujica relies upon Tomaino v. Burman, 364 N.J. Super. 224 (App. Div. 2003), certif. denied, 179 N.J. 310 (2004), however, this case is not analogous because unlike Tomaino, we did not find in the original appeal that the penalty dismissing Mujica was excessive and "not sustainable on the facts." Id. at 232. Therefore, because termination of Mujica was supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record and is neither arbitrary nor capricious, we must sustain the State Board's determination. See Dore v. Bedminister Twp. Bd. of Ed., 185 N.J. Super. 447, 453 (App. Div. 1982).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-3883-03T1

October 24, 2005