In re Slappy, DOCKET NO. A-2599-15T3

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE TENURE HEARING OF SHELIA SLAPPY, STATE OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, ESSEX COUNTY.
• Docket Number: DOCKET NO. A-2599-15T3
• Decision Date: 20 December 2017

IN THE MATTER OF THE TENURE HEARING OF SHELIA SLAPPY, STATE OPERATED
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, ESSEX COUNTY.

DOCKET NO. A-2599-15T3

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted October 25, 2017
December 20, 2017

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

Before Judges Alvarez and Currier.

On appeal from the Commissioner of Education, Docket No. 137-6/15.

Clifford G. Stewart, attorney for appellant Shelia Slappy.

Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent New Jersey Commissioner of Education (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Kristen L. Settlemire, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Purcell, Mulcahy & Flanagan, LLC, attorneys for respondent State-Operated School District of the City of Newark (Robert M. Tosti, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Page 2

In 2015, the School District of the City of Newark certified tenure charges before the Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) against Shelia Slappy, a teaching staff member. The District alleged her excessive absences in the 2011-2012 school year, including unauthorized months-long periods of time, adversely affected her students.

Although properly served, Slappy did not respond to the charges. Accordingly, the allegations against her were deemed admitted, see N.J.A.C. 6A:3-5.3(b)(1), and she was dismissed from employment on July 16, 2015.

Slappy's counsel filed papers that same day seeking an extension of time to file an answer pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-5.3(b)(1). The request was denied, and on July 29, 2015, Slappy filed an application to reopen.

Slappy contended her responsibilities for the care of a disabled husband and very young child constituted grounds to reopen the proceedings. The Commissioner, however, determined that her family obligations did not constitute "exceptional circumstances" as required by the statute. See N.J.S.A. 18A:6-17.4.

The Commissioner rendered a final decision on October 16, 2015, concluding Slappy was not entitled to reconsideration of her termination as she failed to meet any of the grounds entitling her

Page 3

to such relief as enumerated in N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.15(b)(2). We affirm.

It is well-established that our scope of review of an administrative agency...