Sanjuan v. Sch. Dist. of W. N.Y.

309 A.3d 619

256 N.J. 369

Amada SANJUAN, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.SCHOOL DISTRICT OF WEST NEW YORK, HUDSON COUNTY, Defendant-Appellant.

A-45 September Term 2022

087515

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued November 29, 2023

Decided February 12, 2024

On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 473 N.J. Super. 416 (App. Div. 2022).

Lester E. Taylor, III, argued the cause for appellant (Taylor Law Group, attorneys; Lester E. Taylor, III, Newark, and David J. Kass, of counsel and on the briefs).

Evan L. Goldman argued the cause for respondent (Goldman Davis Krumholz & Dillon, attorneys; Evan L. Goldman, Hackensack, of counsel and on the briefs, and Kelly A. Smith, Montclair, on the briefs).

William P. Hannan, Newark, argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey Education Association (Oxfeld Cohen, attorneys; William P. Hannan, of counsel and on the brief).

Andrew L. Schwartz argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association (Schwartz Law Group, attorneys; Andrew L. Schwartz, Newark, and Jordan Shead, on the brief).

JUSTICE SOLOMON delivered the opinion of the Court.

₃₇₃When a school district files tenure charges against an employee, the Tenure Employees Hearing Law (TEHL), N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10 to -18.1, requires that the State Commissioner of Education refer the case to arbitration upon determining that the charges are "sufficient to warrant dismissal or reduction in salary of the person charged." N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16. This appeal requires that we determine the limits of an arbitrator’s discretion to penalize conduct under the TEHL.

The Appellate Division determined that the language of N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16 constrains the arbitrator to impose only the penalties of dismissal or reduction in salary, not demotion. We disagree and hold that N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16 provides the basis to refer a case to arbitration but does not limit an arbitrator’s authority to impose penalties.

₃₇₄I.

A.

Defendant, the Board of Education for the Town of West New York Public Schools (the Board), hired plaintiff Amada Sanjuan as a teacher in the early 1990s. She acquired tenure for that position in 2001. In August 2019, the Board appointed Sanjuan assistant principal of Memorial High School, and she later acquired tenure for that role as well.

On February 12, 2020, Sanjuan attended an evening event at the school as part of her duties as assistant principal. At the event, on the way to meet parents in the cafeteria, Sanjuan fell down a staircase.

The following day, Kathleen Fradera, the Board’s benefits coordinator, directed Sanjuan to fill out an illness and injury report. After speaking with Sanjuan, Fradera wrote: "The employee saw a piece of paper on the steps, and she slipped/lost her balance. She fell down the entire set of steps and landed on her back hitting her head on the concrete …. "

A school security camera captured Sanjuan’s fall on video. The same day that Sanjuan filled out her report, the high school’s principal and the assistant superintendent watched the security footage of the fall. The video showed that after Sanjuan fell, she reached into her pocketbook, took out a piece of paper, set it down in the middle of the staircase, and then resumed her position on the floor.

Two weeks later, Sanjuan and her union representative met with the assistant superintendent and the Board’s administrative assistant to discuss the accident report and the possibility that it was false. Sanjuan repeated that she fell after seeing a piece of paper on the staircase and reaching to pick it up. After being shown the security camera footage, Sanjuan claimed to be "just as surprised as everybody else." The Board thereafter placed Sanjuan on administrative leave.

₃₇₅B.

On August 31, 2020, the Board certified tenure charges against Sanjuan pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10, suspended her without pay, and sought her dismissal for conduct unbecoming. The Commissioner then considered the charges filed, the relevant evidence, and Sanjuan’s response. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16, the Commissioner deemed the charges "sufficient to warrant dismissal or reduction in salary of the person charged" and referred the case to an arbitrator under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-17.1.

Following a virtual hearing, the arbitrator issued a written decision concluding that Sanjuan’s "conduct justified a penalty," but one "less severe than" dismissal. In reaching that conclusion, the arbitrator considered the mitigating factors discussed in In re Fulcomer, 93 N.J. Super. 404, 421-22, 226 A.2d 30 (App. Div. 1967) (considering length of service, the harsh impact of dismissal on an individual’s career, and a favorable teaching record), and determined that the limited scope of the incident and Sanjuan’s long service with the public school district as a teacher warranted a demotion, not termination. As a result, the arbitrator terminated her tenured administrative position but allowed Sanjuan to retain her tenured teaching role. The arbitrator further concluded that Sanjuan’s "failure to take ownership" of her misdeed "warrants that her reinstatement … be without backpay."

C.

Sanjuan filed a verified complaint and order to show cause seeking to vacate the arbitration award and to be reinstated as a tenured administrator with backpay. The trial court denied plaintiff’s order to show cause and confirmed the arbitration award, reasoning that N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5 "contemplates a remedy short of termination when it mentions ‘reduction in compensation.’ " Deriving guidance from this Court’s decision in Linden Board of Education v. Linden Education Ass’n, 202 N.J. 268, 997 A.2d 185 (2010), the court determined that arbitrators are empowered to impose an alternate, fair punishment in the absence of just cause ₃₇₆for termination. The court also affirmed the arbitrator’s denial of back pay to Sanjuan because Sanjuan failed to show any "fraud, corruption, or similar wrongdoing on the part of the arbitrator" that would justify vacating the award under N.J.S.A. 2A:24-8.

Sanjuan appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that the arbitrator had not exceeded his statutory authority by demoting her from tenured assistant principal to tenured teacher. The Appellate Division agreed, vacated the trial court’s order upholding the arbitrator’s award, and remanded the matter to the arbitrator to issue a supplemental award limited to any further suspension without pay. Sanjuan v. Sch. Dist. of W. N.Y., 473 N.J. Super. 416, 429, 281 A.3d 270 (App. Div. 2022). The Appellate Division rejected the Board’s request to remand the case to the arbitrator to reconsider Sanjuan’s termination, stating that "[t]he arbitrator has already determined that Sanjuan should not be terminated; therefore, we discern no legal equitable basis to have him revisit that ruling." Ibid.

In vacating the arbitration award, the Appellate Division found that the plain language of N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10 and -16 does not grant an arbitrator the authority to impose demotion as a penalty. Id. at 425-26, 281 A.3d 270. The court reasoned that N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16 "provides that tenure charges that are sustained against a tenured teaching staff member can only result in termination or depriv[ation of] salary," and "[n]owhere does the statute provide that an employee can be demoted." Id. at 426, 281 A.3d 270.

The Appellate Division noted that it had "found no case law upholding the penalty of demoting a tenured teaching staff member to a lower-titled, previously held tenured classroom teaching position" since the enactment of the TEHL. Id. at 427, 281 A.3d 270. The court found the trial court’s reliance on Fulcomer and Linden misplaced because Fulcomer dealt with a dispute prior to the TEHL and thus did not involve an arbitrator while Linden concerned an arbitrator’s decision under a collective bargaining agreement not present here. See id. at 427-28, 281 A.3d 270 (discussing Fulcomer, 93 N.J. Super. at 421-22, 226 A.2d 30, and ₃₇₇Linden, 202 N.J. at 270-71, 997 A.2d 185). The appellate court also found an unpublished Appellate Division decision discussed by the trial court to be inapplicable. Ibid.

The Appellate Division concluded that because the Legislature "chose not to include demotion as a penalty for a teaching staff member, an arbitrator has no authority to impose that form of disciplinary action." Id. at 429, 281 A.3d 270.

The Board petitioned for certification, asking us to review (1) whether N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10 and -16 limit an arbitrator’s authority in setting a penalty to either a dismissal or a reduction in pay in general and (2) if so, whether the arbitrator in this case should be able to reconsider termination. We granted the petition. 254 N.J. 90, 294 A.3d 279 (2023). We also granted leave to the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) and the New Jersey Principal and Supervisors Association (NJPSA) to appear as amici curiae.

II.

The Board argues that the Appellate Division erred in vacating the arbitrator’s decision demoting Sanjuan to a tenured teaching position because N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16 does not restrict an arbitrator’s options to "dismissal" or "a reduction in salary." The Board further contends that the plain language of the statute "places absolutely no restriction" on an arbitrator’s ability to fashion an appropriate remedy, but rather provides conditional language which relates to whether the matter may be transmitted to arbitration. Alternatively, the Board asserts that if this Court finds that the statute limits the arbitrator’s available penalties, the case should be remanded so that the arbitrator can reconsider whether Sanjuan should be terminated.

Amicus the NJEA supports the Board and argues that the Appellate Division’s decision should be reversed because it contravenes (1) the statute’s plain meaning, the Legislature’s intent, and decades of tenure law; (2) precedent affording arbitrators wide discretion in public sector arbitrations; and (3) the notion of...