1 In the Matter of Tenure Hearing of Davis Hannah, State-Operated School District of the City of Newark, Essex County Agency Docket No /15 Ruling on Respondent s Motion to Dismiss Tia Schneider Denenberg, Arbitrator APPEARANCES FOR THE PETITIONER: Theresa L. Moore, Attorney Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti, LLP FOR THE RESPONDENT: Genevieve Murphy-Bradacs, Attorney Zazzali, Fagella, Nowak, Kleinbaum & Friedman BACKGROUND This matter is before the arbitrator for a decision on the motion to dismiss filed by Davis Hannah (Respondent) on December 2, 2015, along with a letter memorandum in support of the motion. On December 18, 2015, the State-Operated School District of the City of Newark (District) filed a letter memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss. On January 4, 2016, the Respondent filed a reply brief. On January 8, 2016, the District submitted a recent arbitration decision in support of its opposition to the motion to dismiss.
2 I/M/O Davis Hannah SOSD City of Newark, Essex County  I. Statement of Facts The Respondent is a tenured art teacher who has been employed by the District since the school year. He holds a New Jersey instructional certification with an endorsement to teach art. For the and school years, Mr. Hannah taught art at the elementary grade level at BRICK Peshine Academy. The Respondent was rated Partially Effective in his annual summative evaluation (Statement of Evidence, Exhibit 6). During the school year, he received two unannounced, formal classroom observations one of 25 minutes on November 18, 2013, and the other of 22 minutes two weeks later, on December 2, 2013 (Statement of Evidence, Exhibits 3 and 4). Also, administrators conducted informal Learning Walks in the Respondent s classroom on December 21, 2013; January 27, 2014; 1 February 4, 2014; and March 4, 2014 (Statement of Evidence, Exhibit 15). The Respondent s annual summative evaluation described him as very open to improving his practice during the Midyear Review. We discussed having weekly coaching sessions. A plan was put in place. Immediat[el]y, Mr., Hannah began to implement the strategies and suggestions given to him during the coaching sessions. Unfortunately, Mr. Hannah became ill and was hospitalized. Upon his return, NJASK testing took place and after that, the Arts teachers began planning for the Grease Production. Since these ratings took place in that order, it was difficult for us to continue our coaching sessions. Out of fairness to Mr. Hannah, he should still be eligible for his increment even though his annual rating is Partially Effective. Mr. Hannah has agreed to continue to be open to the feedback given for the school year. He is a valuable team player and a great asset. Mr. Hannah is a hard worker and dedicated to becoming a Highly Effective teacher. Statement of Evidence, Exhibit 6. The Respondent was rated Ineffective in his annual summative evaluation (Statement of Evidence, Exhibit 14). During the school year, he received four formal classroom observations on October 6, 2014; January 6, 2015; March 19, 2015; and March 24, 2015 (Statement of Evidence, Exhibits 7, 9, 11, and 12). Administrators also conducted informal Learning Walks in his classroom on October 21, 2014; December 1 The District contends that an informal Learning Walk also was conducted in the Respondent s classroom on October 21, 2013, but the record does not verify that incident (see Statement of Evidence, Exhibit 15).
3 I/M/O Davis Hannah SOSD City of Newark, Essex County  16, 2014; January 6, 2015; and January 8, 2015 (Statement of Evidence, Exhibit 15). The summary portion of the Respondent s annual summative evaluation was left blank (Statement of Evidence, Exhibit 14). On August 20, 2015, the District filed tenure charges against the Respondent with the Commissioner of Education, pursuant to Section 25 of the TEACHNJ Act, N.J.S.A. 18A: (Certification, Exhibit A). On November 14, 2015, the Commissioner of Education forwarded the charges to arbitration, stating that he is unable to determine that the evaluation process has not been followed (Opposition at 1). The Respondent Contends: II. Contentions of the Parties The Respondent maintains that the tenure charges should be dismissed because the District failed to adhere to the evaluation procedures prescribed by Section 25 of TEACHNJ. New Jersey statute and regulation require that allegations of inefficiency be rejected if the evaluation process has not been followed. In support of his contention, the Respondent cites arbitral decisions, dismissing tenure charges because a school district failed to conduct a proper evaluation. More specifically, the Respondent cites N.J.A.C. 6A:10-4.4(c) as setting forth the following mandatory evaluation procedures: Each teacher shall be observed as described in this section, at least three times during each school year but not less than once during each semester. For all teachers, at least one of the required observations shall be announced and preceded by a pre-conference, and at least one of the required observations shall be unannounced. N.J.A.C. 6A:10-4.4(c) (emphasis supplied by the Respondent). The District s own evaluation guide, titled Framework for Effective Teaching, similarly requires a minimum of three observations annually, including at least one announced observation, and dictates that [a]ll teachers must be observed at least once in each semester (Certification, Exhibit E). According to the Respondent, the annual summative evaluation is flawed and, as a matter of law, may not form the basis of the instant charges because, during that
4 I/M/O Davis Hannah SOSD City of Newark, Essex County  school year, he: (1) did not receive at least three observations, the minimum number required by law (Certification, Exhibit B 3-6); (2) did not receive at least one announced observation, preceded by a pre-conference, as required by law (Certification, Exhibit C at 1); and (3) was not observed at least once each semester, as required by law (Certification, Exhibit D at 1). The District does not dispute these facts, as is apparent from the Statement of Evidence that it filed. The Respondent asserts that each of these procedural violations, standing alone, constitutes a serious failure to adhere to the evaluation process, since they undermine the integrity of his summative evaluation. When the violations are viewed together, it becomes clear that the District completely disregarded its obligation to observe and evaluate the Respondent fairly and in accordance with the uniform regulatory requirements applicable to all teachers. Such an egregiously defective evaluation warrants the immediate dismissal of the charges, the Respondent argues. Further, answering arguments presented in the District s opposition, the Respondent asserts that the arbitrator has jurisdiction to consider and resolve the motion to dismiss at the pre-hearing stage. In support, the Respondent cites arbitral decisions holding that motions to dismiss premised upon a district s failure to comply with statutory and regulatory procedural requirements are properly within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. In addition, the Respondent contends that the Commissioner s statement that he is unable to determine that the evaluation process has not been followed is not dispositive and does not preclude an arbitrator from addressing a district s compliance with required statutory procedures. The Respondent also disputes the District s claim that its failure to formally observe him in accordance with the requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:10-4.4(c) is mitigated by its conduct of learning walks throughout the year. According to the Respondent, there is no statutory or regulatory authority that permits a school district to substitute such informal evaluation methods for the formal classroom observations required by law. Finally, the Respondent disputes the District s contention that a tenure charge cannot be dismissed absent a determination that the District s failure to follow the evaluation process materially affected the outcome of the evaluation in the relevant school year. N.J.A.C. 6A:3-5.1(c) does not contain such a requirement and plainly dictates that any failure to abide by the evaluation procedures prohibits the tenure charges from being moved to the next stage of the filing process, including to an arbitration proceeding. The language quoted by the District is in Section 23 of the TEACHNJ Act (N.J.S.A. 18A:6-
5 I/M/O Davis Hannah SOSD City of Newark, Essex County  17.2), titled Considerations for arbitrator in rendering decision. According to the Respondent, that section, which limits the issues that an arbitrator can consider and the defenses an employee can raise at an arbitration hearing, applies only to decisions on the substantive merits of a tenure charge after an arbitration hearing has concluded. In sum, the Respondent contends that N.J.S.A. 18A: has no bearing on the prehearing motion to dismiss, which essentially seeks a ruling on a procedural arbitrability issue. The instant motion seeks dismissal of the tenure charges on the ground that the procedural conditions leading to arbitration namely, that the District must comply with the evaluation procedures required by law have not been met. In the absence of any factual dispute regarding the District s failure to evaluate the teacher in the manner required by law, the motion to dismiss must be granted, according to the Respondent. The District Contends: As an initial matter, the District challenges the Respondent s argument that the charge is defective on its face by noting that the Commissioner stated that he was unable to determine that the evaluation process has not been followed (Opposition at 1). The District contends that if the charge were clearly defective, the Commissioner would have dismissed the charge outright. Secondly, the District asserts that the claims made in the motion should be weighed after a hearing. The motion alleges, in essence, that the District did not follow its teacher performance evaluation process in the school year. According to the District, whether a teacher s evaluation adhered substantially to the evaluation process is one of four defenses that TEACHNJ permits respondents to raise in response to a tenure charge of inefficiency. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-17.2(a)(1). That issue implicates findings of fact that can be made only after a hearing. Where, as here, the facts are in dispute, summary decision cannot be entered. Third, the District contends, it is unclear on what authority the Respondent seeks summary decision. Citing an arbitral decision, the District asserts that the rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) which apply to tenure charges of inefficiency see N.J.S.A. 18A: (c) do not provide for entry of summary decision. The only authority cited in the Respondent s Notice of Motion is N.J.A.C. 6A:3-5.3(a)1, which addresses filing a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer to the charges. Since the Respondent has filed an answer, that rule is inapposite here.
6 I/M/O Davis Hannah SOSD City of Newark, Essex County  As to the merits of the motion to dismiss, the District asserts that when considering a district s failure to comply substantially with its teacher evaluation process, an arbitrator must perform a two-step analysis pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-17.2(b): 1. Determine whether or not the employee s evaluation failed to adhere substantially to the evaluation process; and, if so, 2. Determine if that fact materially affected the outcome of the evaluation. The District emphasizes that the tenure charges are based on two years of summative evaluations of the Respondent s performance. The District acknowledges that in the Respondent did not receive one formal observation to which he was entitled. However, the District asserts that this failure, in the context of the many formal and informal observations which occurred in a period of two years, cannot be said to have materially affected the outcome of his evaluation. After , he acquired a corrective action plan to improve his performance (Statement of Evidence, Exhibit 8), following two formal and multiple informal observations, plus a mid-year evaluation (Statement of Evidence, Exhibit 5). The same analysis, according to the District, holds true for the Respondent s claim that an announced observation was omitted in , and he was not observed at least once in each semester, as called for in N.J.A.C. 6A:10-4.4(c). Further, the District contends that the arbitral awards dismissing tenure charges are unavailing because, unlike here, those dismissals were issued after disputed facts were resolved at arbitration hearings. The District also contests the Respondent s reliance on another arbitration award, in which the arbitrator addressed a pre-hearing motion for summary decision as a matter of discretion, given the importance and relative novelty of the legal principles involved. Here, the District contends, there is nothing novel about the issue presented by the motion. The disputed facts as to whether the District adhered substantially to the evaluation process present the fundamental issue on which a hearing should be based, and this issue should not be determined on a motion for summary decision. For the foregoing reasons, the District argues that the Respondent s motion for summary decision should be held in abeyance, pending a hearing on the charge. Alternatively, if the arbitrator decides the motion on its merits, it should be denied because the District adhered substantially to the evaluation process in and , and any procedural flaw did not materially affect the outcome of the Respondent s evaluation.
7 I/M/O Davis Hannah SOSD City of Newark, Essex County  DISCUSSION The threshold issue is whether the arbitrator has the authority to rule on the Respondent s motion to dismiss charges at this early stage of the proceeding. The arbitrator relies here on her decision on January 30, 2015, in another Newark case, involving a teacher s motion to dismiss tenure charges before the arbitration hearing. In Marie Ebert, State-Operated School District of the City of Newark, Essex County, Agency Docket No /14 (Ebert), a respondent teacher filed a pre-hearing motion to dismiss tenure charges on the ground that the District did not make timely disclosure to her of evidence due before the scheduled hearing. The District put forward there, as it does here, arguments based on procedural arbitrability. It claimed that the arbitrator could not consider the motion because the Commissioner had already determined that the charges could be brought to arbitration and because any ruling on a motion to dismiss had to be based on a full evidentiary hearing. Both claims were rejected by the arbitrator in Ebert: Consideration of the relevant statutory provisions leads to the conclusion that the Respondent's motion to dismiss is properly before the Arbitrator. It is clear from the provisions of TEACHNJ, and is undisputed by the parties, that a chief purpose of the legislation was to expedite the processing of teacher tenure cases. To this end, N.J.S.A. 18A: states that upon receipt of a charge of teacher inefficiency, the Commissioner shall examine the charge, and the teacher shall have 10 days to submit a written response. Within five days from the deadline for a written response, the Commissioner must refer the case to an arbitrator, unless he or she determines that the evaluation process has not been followed. Thus, the Commissioner s determination must be made within a brief period. The term "evaluation" is defined in N.J.S.A. 18A:6-119 as a process based on the individual's job description, professional standards and Statewide evaluation criteria that incorporates analysis of multiple measures of student progress and multiple data sources. Such evaluation shall include formal observations, as well as post conferences, conducted and prepared by an individual employed in the district in a supervisory role and capacity and possessing a school administrator certificate, principal certificate, or supervisor certificate. The Legislature also defined the factors that an arbitrator may consider in analyzing the "evaluation process." Under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-17.2a.1, the arbitrator shall consider whether "the employee's evaluation failed to adhere substantially to the evaluation process, including, but not limited to providing a corrective action plan." If the employee is able to demonstrate
8 I/M/O Davis Hannah SOSD City of Newark, Essex County  such a failure, the arbitrator must determine if it materially affected the outcome. If it did not, the arbitrator renders a decision in favor of the board, and the employee is dismissed. N.J.S.A 18A:6-17.2b. Thus, the Legislature created distinctive roles for both the Commissioner and an arbitrator in reviewing the evaluation process. The Legislature clearly intended the Commissioner to decide within five days whether a District had taken the requisite steps for completing an evaluation, whereas the arbitrator was asked to determine whether those steps were carried out correctly and in accordance with the prescribed standards. This construction of the legislation gives meaningful purpose and effect to both its language and intent. The Respondent's motion to dismiss presents several arguments challenging the way her evaluation was conducted, which is the domain of the arbitrator.... [The] arguments submitted in the motion are properly before the Arbitrator and will be addressed to the extent necessary. *** Contrary to the [District s] argument, holding a full evidentiary hearing is not a prerequisite to considering the motion to dismiss. Nothing in the relevant statutory provisions limits an arbitrator's ability to resolve motions before holding a hearing. Indeed, demanding a full evidentiary hearing before ruling on potentially dispositive motions could unnecessarily prolong tenure disputes, ignoring the expressed desire of the Legislature to expedite them. [Ebert at 7-8 (footnotes omitted) and 18.] The same reasoning and conclusions are warranted here with respect to both of the District s procedural arguments. First, the Commissioner s statement that he was unable to determine that the District had not followed the evaluation process does not preclude the arbitrator from determining whether each step of the process was carried out correctly and in accordance with the prescribed standards. Second, nothing in the relevant statutory provisions limits an arbitrator's ability to rule on motions before holding a hearing. Similarly, nothing in the AAA rules cited by the District precludes an arbitrator from resolving dispositive motions prior to a hearing in appropriate circumstances. As stated in Ebert, requiring a full evidentiary hearing before ruling on potentially dispositive motions could unnecessarily prolong tenure disputes, thwarting the expressed desire of the Legislature to expedite their resolution. The District contends that there are disputed facts in this case which require a hearing before acting on the motion. The District s Statement of Evidence concedes, however, that in the Respondent was denied several entitlements: one formal observation, one announced observation, and at least one observation in each semester, as N.J.A.C. 6A:10-4.4(c) requires. The District s opposition to the motion is, therefore, premised not on disputed facts but on an argument of law that the District s observations of the Respondent over the two-year period under review satisfied the statutory requirements. This statutory claim can be considered without a hearing.
9 I/M/O Davis Hannah SOSD City of Newark, Essex County  Having found that the motion to dismiss may be submitted at this stage of the proceeding, the arbitrator turns to the merits of the motion. In enacting TEACHNJ, the legislature stated with clarity and precision the minimum requirements for evaluating a teacher: Each teacher shall be observed as described in this section, at least three times during each school year but not less than once during each semester. For all teachers, at least one of the required observations shall be announced and preceded by a pre-conference, and at least one of the required observations shall be unannounced. N.J.A.C. 6A:10-4.4(c). These minimum requirements are reiterated in the District s own evaluation guide, titled Framework for Effective Teaching, which also requires a minimum of three observations annually, including at least one announced observation, and mandates at least one observation in each semester. The Respondent s annual summative evaluation fell short of the statutory requirements in three distinct respects. First, he was observed only twice, not three times the minimum allowed by law. Second, he was not observed during both semesters, as 2 required by law. Third, he was not provided with an observation that was announced and preceded by a pre-conference. The requirements set forth in N.J.A.C. 6A:10-4.4(c) are not ambiguous, complex, or 3 onerous. They are plainly intended to establish a sufficient basis for judging a teacher s performance during a school year and to assure the teacher due process by specifying how he or she will be evaluated. In this instance, the District clearly did not carry out the obligatory steps prescribed by law. At no point during the evaluation process or subsequently has it offered any justification for its failure to do so. As noted above, Ebert stated: 2 His two observations during the school year occurred within two weeks of each other, during the first semester of the school year. 3 The Legislature was as forthright in this respect as it was in a related provision (N.J.S.A. 18A:6-17.1b3), requiring districts to provide teachers with all evidence upon referral of tenure charges to arbitration. The comment in Ebert about that provision applies with equal force here: The Legislature could not have more lucidly articulated the District s obligation [Ebert at 16].
10 I/M/O Davis Hannah SOSD City of Newark, Essex County  The Legislature also defined the factors that an arbitrator may consider in analyzing the "evaluation process." Under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-17.2a.1, the arbitrator shall consider whether "the employee's evaluation failed to adhere substantially to the evaluation process, including, but not limited to providing a corrective action plan." If the employee is able to demonstrate such a failure, the arbitrator must determine if it materially affected the outcome. [Ebert at 8.] There can be no doubt that the District s evaluation of the Respondent in failed to adhere substantially to the evaluation process and that this unexplained error materially affected the outcome of his evaluation. Although there was no contention that the process was defective, ignoring the minimum statutory requirements in deprived the Respondent of due process protections explicitly set forth in the Legislature s enactment of TEACHNJ. In these 4 circumstances, the motion to dismiss the tenure charges must be granted. 4 Both the District and the Respondent cite other arbitrators decisions in support of their respective positions. Those decisions are not dispositive here but have been given due consideration. As Ebert observed: The awards are informative, but the controlling consideration is the Legislature s intent, as evidenced in the statutory provisions. Since the TEACHNJ Act established a permanent panel of 25 [recently enlarged by the Legislature to 50] arbitrators to hear tenure charges, it is to be expected that awards may reach contradictory interpretations of the legislation. The awards are subject to judicial review, which may ultimately resolve conflicts among them. Until then, the awards ought not to be regarded as final for purposes of collateral estoppel. [Ebert at 7 n.4.]
IMO Military Service Credit for State Teachers, Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services, and Juvenile Justice Commission DOP Docket No. 2004-641 (Merit System Board, decided February 25,
Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Appellate Division In the Case of: The Physicians Hospital in Anadarko, Petitioner, - v. - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. DATE:
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST FEDERAL AGENCIES UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT The Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency administratively to assess civil penalties
SAN FRANCISCO AMENDS BUSINESS TAX ORDINANCE BOARD OF REVIEW ELIMINATED, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR REFUNDS INCREASED AND MUCH MORE Tax On February 19, 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom approved recent
SENATE, No. STATE OF NEW JERSEY th LEGISLATURE INTRODUCED FEBRUARY, 0 Sponsored by: Senator M. TERESA RUIZ District (Essex) SYNOPSIS Teacher Effectiveness and Accountability for the Children of New Jersey
#306-09 (OAL Decision: http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/html/initial/edu07419-07_1.html) SHERRI L. GLENNON, : PETITIONER, : V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION NEW JERSEY STATE BOARD OF : DECISION EXAMINERS
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DR. RAYMOND FAILER, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D13-5603
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 99,491 KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, v. JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Under the Kansas Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY SERVICES BUREAU OF HEARINGS In the matter of Ned S. Curtis, III, Petitioner v Public School Employees Retirement System, Respondent / Docket No. 2000-1025
MONTGOMERY COUNTY LAW REPORTER 140-301 2003 MBA 30 Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. Resinski [140 M.C.L.R., Part II Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Resinski APPEAL and ERROR Motion for Summary
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Discovery Charter School, Petitioner v. No. 673 C.D. 2014 Argued February 10, 2015 School District of Philadelphia and School Reform Commission, Respondents BEFORE
IN THE MATTER OF : NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THE CERTIFICATE OF : STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS NANCY BECKER : ORDER OF REVOCATION : DOCKET NO: 0405-185 At its meeting of April 3, 2003, the State Board
Order filed February 18, 2011 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). IN
Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying
No. 291 August 7, 2013 795 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Compensation of Randi P. Ayres, Claimant. VIGOR INDUSTRIAL, LLC, Petitioner, v. Randi P. AYRES, Respondent.
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 10-3272 In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor NOT PRECEDENTIAL ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant VANASKIE, Circuit Judge. On Appeal from the United States District
N.J.A.C. 6A:10, EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBCHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 6A:10-1.1 Purpose and scope 6A:10-1.2 Definitions 6A:10-1.3 Applicability of rules on collective bargaining agreements
Page 1 21 of 44 DOCUMENTS NEW JERSEY REGISTER Copyright 2011 by the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law VOLUME 43, ISSUE 08 ISSUE DATE: APRIL 18, 2011 RULE ADOPTIONS LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
In Re Liquidation of Integrity Insurance Company: Cutting Off the Long-Tail of IBNR Claims December 20, 2007 In a decision carrying significant implications for reinsurer liability in insurer insolvency
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION EEOC versus BROWN & GROUP RETAIL, INC. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-06-3074 Memorandum and Order Regarding Discovery Motions,
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO PREHEARING INSTRUCTIONS For the purpose of facilitating disciplinary hearings and related proceedings that are conducted pursuant to Rule V of
Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Civil Remedies Division Sheldon Pinsky, Ph.D., LICSW, Petitioner v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Docket No. C-11-86 Decision
August 19, 2004-1 - Final Decision and Order 04-150 STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Student v. Shelton Board of Education On behalf of the Parents: On behalf of the Board: Before Hearing Officer:
Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Civil Remedies Division Scott Christie, Psy.D. (OI File No. H-12-42635-9) Petitioner, v. The Inspector General. Docket No. C-14-88 Decision
\ ~~/ g65-r7 sitj > THE * COMPTROLLER GENERAL DECISION >½h7;,. OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON. D. C. 2054B FILE: B-199291 DATE: June 19, 1981 MATTER OF:EEO Regulations - Attorney Fees DIGEST: 1. Title
Case 106-cr-00271-PLF Document 24 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GUSTAVO VILLANUEVO-SOTELO, Defendant. CRIMINAL
Office of the Comptroller v. Colonial Roofing Company, Inc. OATH Index No. 632/13, mem. dec. (Feb. 19, 2013) In prevailing wage case, contractor sought summary judgment dismissing petition due to delay
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED BILLS TO REFORM THE WORKERS COMPENSATION SYSTEM Part O of Senate Bill 2605 / Assembly 3005, which is part of the proposed budget bill introduced by Governor Cuomo proposes to reform
POLICY MANUAL CHAPTER 1 - PROCUREMENT POLICIES 1.1 DISPUTE RESOLUTION 1.1.1 DEFINITIONS A. Act means the Tennessee Education Lottery Implementation Law, as may be amended from time to time. B. Aggrieved
IN THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2015 MTWCC 13 WCC No. 2015-3545 CAR WERKS, LLC Petitioner vs. UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND Respondent/Third Party Petitioner vs. JAMES E. GAWRONSKI
Tkaczyk v 337 E. 62nd LLC 2015 NY Slip Op 31522(U) August 11, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 160264/2013 Judge: Cynthia S. Kern Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY
United States Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division, Indian Head, MD and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1923 58 FLRA 498 Federal Labor Relations
2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PIOTR NOWAK : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER, LLC, : et al. : NO. 14-3503 MEMORANDUM McLaughlin, J. February 4, 2015
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re Sale of Real Estate by Lackawanna County Tax Claim Bureau Judicial Tax Sale Property Situated at 221 Stephen Avenue, Scranton, PA Tax Map No. 15612-030-020
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2013 ME 103 Docket: Wal-13-175 Argued: October 7, 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013 Reporter of Decisions Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 2395/13 BEFORE: A.G. Baker: Vice-Chair HEARING: December 27, 2013 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: May 9, 2014 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2014 ONWSIAT
N.J.A.C. 6A:9C, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBCHAPTER 1. SCOPE AND PURPOSE 6A:9C-1.1 Scope 6A:9C-1.2 Purpose SUBCHAPTER 2. DEFINITIONS 6A:9C-2.1 Definitions SUBCHAPTER 3. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
IN THE MATTER OF : NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THE CERTIFICATES OF : STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS DANIELLE PICKLO : ORDER OF SUSPENSION : DOCKET NO: 1213-129 At its meeting of April 12, 2013, the State
#198-06 (OAL Decision: http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/html/initial/edu08569-04_1.html) SEARCH DAY PROGRAM, INC., : PETITIONER, : V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT : DECISION OF EDUCATION,
T.C. Memo. 2013-187 UNITED STATES TAX COURT STAFFMORE, LLC, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 13101-12. Filed August 15, 2013. respondent. Thomas J. Profy IV and John
ARTICLE TWENTY-TWO GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE It is the declared objective of the parties to encourage the prompt and informal resolution of employee complaints as they arise and to provide recourse to orderly
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA The Summit School, Inc., t/d/b/a Summit Academy, Petitioner v. No. 20 M.D. 2011 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Argued November 13, 2014 Department of Education,
In the Matter of Peter Kristensen DOP Docket No. 2004-662 (Merit System Board, decided December 15, 2004) Peter Kristensen, a Police Officer with the Borough of Fair Lawn Police Department, represented
#476-12 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP : OF NORTH BERGEN, HUDSON COUNTY, : PETITIONER, : V. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION : NEW JERSEY STATE INTERSCHOLASTIC DECISION ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, : RESPONDENT.
Matter of D-M-C-P-, Applicant Decided August 5, 2015 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1) Neither an Immigration Judge nor the Board of Immigration
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court *** Electronically Filed *** 10/28/2011 8:00 AM HONORABLE DEAN M. FINK CLERK OF THE COURT S. Brown Deputy STATE OF ARIZONA, et al. THOMAS C HORNE MARY JO FOSTER v. COLLEEN
Chapter 8a Public Education Human Resource Management Act Part 1 General Provisions 53A-8a-101 Title. This chapter is known as the "Public Education Human Resource Management Act." 53A-8a-102 Definitions.
JUSTICE GERALD E. LOEHR, J.S.C. Rockland County Supreme Court 1 South Main Street New City, New York 10956 Courtroom 1 Tel: (845) 483-8343 Fax: (845) 708-7236 Staff Bruce J. Pearl, Principal Law Secretary
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Earl v. Decatur Public Schools Board of Education, 2015 IL App (4th) 141111 Appellate Court Caption SHARI L. EARL, as Parent and Guardian of A.B., a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Docket No. 107472. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. KEY CARTAGE, INC., et al. Appellees. Opinion filed October 29, 2009. JUSTICE BURKE delivered
VLACH v. VLACH 141 Ronald G. Vlach, appellant, v. Rhonda K. Vlach, appellee. N.W.2d Filed June 21, 2013. No. S-12-866. 1. Declaratory Judgments: Appeal and Error. When a declaratory judgment action presents
OKLAHOMA (CURRENT SYSTEM) 1) MAKE-UP / STRUCTURE The Oklahoma Workers Compensation Court has exclusive jurisdiction (OWCC) over work related injury claims unless the employer fails to carry insurance and
RESOLUTION NO. 21/2015-2016 DENYING THE PROPOSED MATERIAL REVISION CONTAINED IN TODAY S FRESH START RENEWAL CHARTER PETITION BY THE STATE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE INGLEWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEREAS,
NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 130903-U NO. 4-13-0903
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D, this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
Case 2:03-cr-00122-JES Document 60 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 7 PageID 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION FRANCIS MACKEY DAVISON, III, Petitioner, vs. Case No.
Colorado s Civil Access Pilot Project and the Changing Landscape of Business Litigation On January 1, 2012, new rules approved by the Colorado Supreme Court entitled the Civil Access Pilot Project ( CAPP
#308-15 (OAL Decision Not yet available online) KIMBERLYNN JURKOWSKI, PETITIONER, V. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE DECISION CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY, ATLANTIC COUNTY, AND DONNA HAYE,
7.3 PREHEARING CONFERENCES AND SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES 7.3.1 Prehearing Conferences A contested case is commenced when the notice of and order for hearing or other authorized pleading is served by the agency.
Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Civil Remedies Division In the Case of: Gary Grossman, Petitioner, - v. - The Inspector General. Date: May 4, 2009 Docket No. C-09-227
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JOAN FALLOWS KLUGE, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. L-10-00022 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Joan Fallows
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 01 H 1 HOUSE BILL 1 Short Title: Shift Workers' Bill of Rights. (Public) Sponsors: Referred to: Representatives Brockman, Baskerville, Harrison, and Fisher (Primary
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 15 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 26th day of February, 2008, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2007-CC-1091 FREY PLUMBING
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 K.M.W. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. C.S. Appellant No. 85 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Order Entered December 16, 2014 In the Court of
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION In re: Case No. 3:08-bk-1882-PMG Chapter 13 RAY KEMP STANSBURY and JENNIFER L. STANSBURY, Debtors. / ORDER ON DEBTORS' OBJECTION
USA CHIROPRACTIC a/s/o JULIE MENDEZ, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, NJ RE-INSURANCE COMPANY and NAF/FORTHRIGHT SOLUTIONS, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Defendants-Respondents.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, VS. Plaintiff, WILLBROS CONSTRUCTION (U.S.) LLC, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-10-4634 MEMORANDUM
IN THE MATTER OF THE TENURE : HEARING OF THOMASINA LEMON, : STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, ESSEX : DECISION COUNTY. : : SYNOPSIS Board (now State-operated
Case 1:08-cv-06957 Document 45 Filed 10/19/2009 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ROBERT F. CAVOTO, ) ) Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant,
#131-14 (OAL Decision Not yet available online) DANA GREENE, PETITIONER, V. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE DECISION TOWNSHIP OF IRVINGTON, ESSEX COUNTY, RESPONDENT. SYNOPSIS Pursuant
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE GIAN BIOLOGICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS BIOMET INC. and BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.