ARTI SAHNI v. BOARD OF EDUCATION CITY OF TRENTON, MERCER

 

 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1867-04T31867-04T3

ARTI SAHNI,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE

CITY OF TRENTON, MERCER

COUNTY,

Respondent-Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

 

Argued December 20, 2005 - Decided January 11, 2006

Before Judges Lefelt and Hoens.

On appeal from a Final Decision of the

State Board of Education, Docket No.

EDU-2356-03.

Michael T. Barrett argued the cause

for appellant (Bergman & Barrett,

attorneys; Mr. Barrett, of counsel

and on the brief).

Thomas W. Sumners, Jr. argued the

cause for respondent Board of

Education of the City of Trenton

(Sumners George, attorneys; Mr.
Sumners, of counsel and on the brief).

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General,

attorney for State Board of Education

(Patricia M. O'Neill, Deputy Attorney

General, on the statement in lieu of

brief).

PER CURIAM

Petitioner, Arti Sahni, appeals from the State Board of Education's final decision, which affirmed the Commissioner of Education's and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Israel Dubin's decisions, confirming that her teaching contract had not been renewed for the 2002-03 school year. Petitioner argues on appeal that because she was not timely notified of the non-renewal, she should have been rehired and shortly thereafter granted tenure. We disagree and affirm.

Here is what happened. Petitioner taught science for the Trenton Board of Education until the 2002-03 school term. Although petitioner claims to have taught in the district for over three years, she did not have tenure at the end of the 2001-02 school year because she was not a citizen of the United States, see N.J.S.A. 18A:28-3, and did not become a citizen until August, with a swearing in during September 2002.

Though petitioner had been employed since the 1998-99 school year, the Trenton Board formally considered, in March 2002, whether to terminate her teaching services at the end of the school year. Petitioner appeared before the Board with counsel and a union representative, and the Board withdrew the proposed termination. Petitioner continued to teach until the end of the school year in June 2002.

According to the Trenton Board, even though it took no steps to terminate petitioner after the March meeting, it sent her, by certified and regular mail, notification of non-renewal of her teaching contract for the next school year. The Secretary to the Board's Human Resources Manager testified that on May 2 she prepared petitioner's non-renewal letters, addressed the envelopes correctly, and took them to the Board "mail room."

Petitioner claims she never received any notification of non-renewal, and on May 16, 2002, she hand-delivered an acceptance of reemployment for the 2002-03 school term. Neither the green receipt card nor the letters sent to petitioner were returned. In addition, none of the other letters of termination or non-renewal that were sent during that same period to other employees were returned. In any event, when the district declined to recognize petitioner's reemployment, she commenced an action before the Commissioner of Education, which resulted in this appeal.

On her appeal, petitioner takes issue with ALJ Dubin's determination that a presumption of receipt occurred with regard to the non-renewal letter because the testimony does not reflect that "the mailing was deposited in a proper mail receptacle or at the post office." SSI Med. Servs. Inc. v. State Dept. of Human Servs., 146 N.J. 614, 621 (1996). According to petitioner, the testimony should have resulted in a presumption of non-receipt because there was no evidence whatsoever of the mail room procedures.

This argument is key to petitioner's appeal because of the statutory construct governing employment notices required for non-tenured teachers. Pursuant to the school laws, "[o]n or before May 15 in each year, each nontenured teaching staff member continuously employed . . . since the preceding September 30 shall receive either [a] written offer of a contract for employment . . . or [a] written notice . . . that such employment will not be offered." N.J.S.A. 18A:27-10. Should any district fail to timely comply with the notice requirements, the "board of education shall be deemed to have offered to that teaching staff member continued employment for the next succeeding school year." N.J.S.A. 18A:27-11. "If the teaching staff member desires to accept such employment [he or she] shall notify the board of education of such acceptance, in writing, on or before June 1." N.J.S.A. 18A:27-12. Thus, petitioner argues that because she never received notice of non-renewal, she properly accepted the statutorily authorized constructive offer of employment and because she was a citizen by September 2002, she achieved tenure.

However, it is clear from the testimony that the secretary who prepared petitioner's non-renewal notice followed the Board's normal mailing practices. There was no evidence that the secretary deviated in any fashion from the Board's routine practice or custom for business mailings. SSI Med. Services, Inc., supra, 146 N.J. at 622. We suspect that it would be unusual for the Board mail room, in the absence of any evidence of prior gross ineptitude or inefficiency, to fail to deliver such letters into the postal system. Under these circumstances, we cannot fault Judge Dubin for applying the rebuttable presumption of receipt. Id. at 625.

It is clear to us that not only did the judge find the secretary "extremely credible," but he also, significantly, found petitioner's story unconvincing. For example, the judge questioned why, as the May 15th statutory deadline approached, petitioner did not ask anyone about the district's intentions, especially considering that the Trenton Board had, in March, formally considered terminating her services. From March until the end of the school term, a reasonable teacher would have had some concern regarding the security of her teaching position. Instead of inquiring, however, the judge noted she suspiciously, on May 16th, the day after the statutory deadline, "hand-delivered her letter . . . accepting a teaching position for the 2002-2003 school year." Just as the Commissioner and State Board are bound by Judge Dubin's credibility assessments, so are we. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c); see S.D. v. Div. of Med. Assistance, 349 N.J. Super. 480, 485 (App. Div. 2002).

 
In conclusion, our review of the record in light of petitioner's arguments and the pertinent law leads us to conclude that the agency's decision was not arbitrary or capricious and, therefore, deserves to be affirmed. Dore v. Bedminister Twp. Bd. of Educ., 185 N.J. Super. 447, 453 (App. Div. 1982).

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

6

A-1867-04T3

 

January 11, 2006