IN THE MATTER SUSPENSION CERTIFICATES OF COREY YOUNGER BY THE STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2800-05T32800-05T3

IN THE MATTER OF THE SUSPENSION

OF THE CERTIFICATES OF COREY YOUNGER

BY THE STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS.

__________________________________

 

Argued September 27, 2006 - Decided November 15, 2006

Before Judges Lefelt and Sapp-Peterson.

On appeal from the State Board of Education.

Ashton E. Thomas argued the cause for appellant Corey Younger.

Carolyn G. Labin, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent State Board of Education (Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney; Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Patricia M. O'Neill, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

The State Board of Education (Board) suspended the teaching certificates of appellant, Corey Younger, for two years for conduct unbecoming a teacher. Younger appeals this decision contending that the suspension, more than eighteen months following the settlement of the tenure charges lodged against him, was arbitrary, capricious and in violation of due process of law. He contends further that the Board should be estopped from imposing sanctions upon him because he reasonably relied on the Board's inaction as a basis to continue to advance his education and, in light of the earlier settlement, the Board's actions should be rejected as against public policy because the manner in which it conducted these proceedings compromises resolution through settlement. We disagree with these contentions and affirm the Board's decision.

These are the facts. Appellant was employed by the State-Operated School District of the City of Jersey City (District) as a teacher and coach. He had been so employed since 1991. In April 1998, appellant, as part of his coaching duties with Lincoln High School, supervised an overnight field trip to the Penn Relays, a national track meet held annually in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at the University of Pennsylvania. While at the meet, allegations of sexual misconduct between a male, who shared a room with appellant, and two students, who were under appellant's supervision, surfaced. The Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) subsequently conducted an investigation and substantiated the allegations. The investigation report indicated that: (1) the events took place in appellant's room; (2) there was alcohol present in the room; (3) appellant made no effort to protect the students from the individual; (4) appellant did not report the incident to his superiors or law enforcement; and (5) appellant's actions were unjustified, inappropriate, and placed the students at an unnecessary and undue risk of serious harm.

On May 1, 1998, the District filed tenure charges against appellant with the Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) seeking to terminate appellant's employment based upon unbecoming conduct. On July 7, 1999, appellant, along with his attorneys and the general counsel for the District, executed a Stipulation of Settlement. The pertinent language of the settlement at issue provides:

WHEREAS, the respondent Corey Younger testified under oath before the Administrative Law Judge on June 16, 1999, that he clearly understood the terms of the settlement agreement, that he entered into the settlement agreement voluntarily, and that he was advised and understood that the Commissioner of Education had to approve the settlement agreement and that the Commissioner could refer the matter to the State Board of Examiners for possible revocation of his teaching certificate[.]"

Further, in exchange for the District's withdrawal of tenure charges, appellant agreed to resign from the District. The Commissioner accepted the settlement agreement and adopted the terms of the settlement as the final agency decision on September 22, 2000.

On May 9, 2002, the State Board of Examiners (Examiners) voted to file a petition and Order to Show Cause as to why appellant's teaching certificates should not be revoked. The matter proceeded to hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ found that appellant exercised poor judgment in connection with the events. The ALJ concluded, however, that the loss of tenure was the appropriate resolution of the matter and recommended dismissal of the petition. The Examiners deferred to the ALJ's findings of fact but disagreed that appellant's conduct warranted only a loss of tenure. The Examiners ordered a two-year suspension of appellant's teaching certificates.

On March 14, 2005, appellant appealed the Examiners' decision to the Board. Appellant also sought to supplement the record before the Board and stay the suspension. These applications were denied by the Examiners and, thereafter, by the Board. On January 4, 2006, the Board affirmed the Examiners' decision to suspend appellant's teaching certificates for the reasons set forth in the Examiners' January 20, 2005 decision.

On appeal, appellant raises the following points for our consideration:

POINT I

THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS TO SUSPEND THE CERTIFICATION OF COREY YOUNGER WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

POINT II

THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION SHOULD BE ESTOPPED FROM IMPOSING SANCTIONS AGAINST COREY YOUNGER WHO REASONABLY RELIED ON THE INACTION OF THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS WHEN HE DECIDED TO INVEST TIME AND RESOURCES TO ADVANCE IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION.

POINT III

THE PROCESS EMPLOYED BY THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS SHOULD BE REJECTED AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY BECAUSE THE OAL'S ABILITY TO SETTLE DISPUTES WILL BE COMPROMISED.

After carefully reviewing the record in light of the written arguments advanced by the parties, we conclude that the issues presented by appellant are without sufficient merit to warrant extensive discussion in this opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1) (E). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in the January 20, 2005 decision of the Examiners and adopted by the Board in its January 4, 2006 decision. We add, however, the following comments.

Other than the fact of the delay, appellant offers no facts from which we may conclude that the decision to pursue revocation/suspension of his teaching certificates, more than eighteen months after the settlement, was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. We agree that the Board should have acted with greater speed and that it offered no explanation for the delay. Nonetheless, "delay will not, generally, affect the validity of administrative decisions." Appeal of Darcy, 114 N.J. Super. 454, 462 (App. Div. 1971) (citing 1 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise 8.08 at 548 (1958). Moreover, in the interim months, appellant enhanced his educational skills, secured employment and received certificates from the Board certifying that he was eligible to secure employment consistent with those certificates. Thus, we see no prejudice to appellant occasioned by the delay. Id. at 463.

Further, appellant, who clearly and unquestionably was on notice that under the settlement the Commissioner could refer the matter to the Board for further action, did nothing to determine whether a decision had been made to take further action or whether the matter was under review for possible future action. Consequently, we do not find that the Board's issuance of eligibility certificates in response to appellant's completion of continuing education courses, presumably a routine function, was dispositive proof that the Board had closed the pending action.

The scope of our review in this matter is to determine whether the findings made by the Board could "reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record, considering the proofs as a whole, with due regard to the opportunity of the one who heard the witnesses to judge of their credibility." In re Tenure Hearing of Grossman, 127 N.J. Super. 13, 22-23 (App. Div.), certif. den. 65 N.J. 292 (1974), (citing Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 598-99 (1965)). We are obliged to defer to a Board decision that is based upon an accurate view of the facts, legally correct, and bears no indicia of arbitrariness, caprice, or unreasonableness. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). The Board's determination here was supported by the record and is not arbitrary, capricious nor unreasonable. As such, it is entitled to our deference. Ibid.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

7

A-2800-05T3

November 15, 2006