Petition for Writ of Certiorari — El-Hewie v. Board of Education

Hn Che

Supreme Court of the United States

a +

\IOHAMED F. EL-HEWLE, Pro Se

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE

BERGEN COUNTY VOCATIONAL!

SCHOOL DISTRICT, BERGEN COUNTY,

, ) r

Respondents

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

fo The

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

eee - -_ ———

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the dismissal of a claim of Law

Against Discrimination (LAD) in the residency of

New Jersey State’s Provisional Teacher Program,

which was raised in a state administrative litigation,

offends the State or Federal Constitution, under the

follewing circumstances:

(a) When the reviewing Appellate panel has

abandoned its year 2008’s holding in a similar

residency question and arbitrarily reverted back to

the year 1982’s caselaw that is irrelevant to

residency in the Provisional Teacher Program;

(b) When the State of New Jersey has eliminated

the State Board of Education from the appeal process

after it accepted Petitioner’s briefs and replies, but

held no review:

(c) When, after this Appellate’ opinion was issued,

the State Agency in question removed the

Superintendent of the respondent’s board of

education from his position, for engaging in

malfeasance over the past sixteen years, yet both the

Supreme Court of New Jersey and the State Agency

refused to undo the harm inflected by the

Superintendent upon this Appellant;

(d) When the reviewing Appellate panel

acknowledged its limited-scope of judicial review of

an administrative agency decision and the New

Jersey Supreme Court recognized that “thorny

questions have arisen in previous cases of LAD

claims allegedly raised in an administrative

litigation before an administrative agency having

concurrent jurisdiction with the [Division of Civil

Rights]’’?

LIST OF PARTIES

The following 1s a list of all parties to the

proceedings in the Court below, as required by Rule

24.1(b) and Rule 29.1 of the Rules of the Supreme

Court of the United States.

Muhamed F. El-Hewie, appellant pro se.

Nowell Amoroso Klein Bierman, attorneys

for respondent Board of Education of the

Bergen County Vocational School District

(Bradley M. Wilson, of counsel and on the

brief: Lori E. Kolin, on the brief).

Attorney General of the State of New Jersey,

attorney. for respondent Commissioner of

.

~

Education, (Jennifer L. Campbell, Deputy

Attorney General).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTION PRESENTED

LIST OF PARTIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF

CERTIORARI

OPINIONS BELOW

JURISDICTION

STATUTES INVOLVED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

POINT ONE.

The Appellate's decision contravenes

with the prior decision of the same

Appellate Court in Leang v. Jersey

City Bd. of Educ., 399 N.J.Super. 329

(2008).

(1) The Appellate’s decision erred by

concluding that the plaintiff was evaluated

“twice” formatively, in the first phase of

the PTP

(2) The Appellate’s decision erred in

overlooking the requirements of N.J.A.C.

6A:9-8.7

(3) The Appellate’s decision erred in

applying “Dore v. Board of Educ. Of the

Township of Bedminster’ on provisional

teacher certification.

(-t) The Appellate’s decision erred by

omitting the role of mentoring and training

when comparing a provisional teacher to a

well-trained teacher.

(5) The Appellate’s decision erred by

omitting the emergent teaching experience

which Respondent put petitioner through

without any support or mentoring.

(6) The Appellate’s decision erred in

concluding that an alternate

route/provisional teacher could complete

the Provisional Teacher Program within

SEVEN months.

POINT TWO

The Appellate's decision contravenes with the

prior decision of its Supreme Court in

Hennessey, supra. that questioned’ the

impropriety of administrative litigation in

claims of LAD. (cited by the United

States Court of Appeals for Third

Circuit in El-Hewie v. Bergen County,

USCA for 34 Circuit No. N.J.A.C.

(issued September 17, 2009).

CONCLUSION

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX

Order denying certification, App 2

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW JERSEY.

20-Apr-10

Order denying expanding the record,

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW JERSEY.

20-Apr-10

Opinion

Affirming the Agency Final Decision

SUPERIOR COURT

OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION, A-6310-07T3

24-Dec-09

Final Agency Decision

COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

10-Apr-08

(nitial Decision of ALJ.

State of New Jersey

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

27-Feb-08

Viil

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASELAWS:

Dore v. Board of Educ. Of the Township of

Bedminster, 185 N.J. Super. 447 (App. Div.

1982).

El-Hewie v. Bergen County, et. al., USCA

for the Third Circuit, Case: N.J.A.C.,

clecided 09/17/2009.

Kl-Hewie v. Board of Ed of Bergen County

Vocational School District, docket No. A-

6310-07T3, Decided on December 24, 2009.

Hennessey v. Winslow Township, 183 N.J.

593, 599 (2005).

Leang v. Jersey City Bd. of Educ. 198 N.J.

557 (2009).

Leang v. Jersey City Bd. of Educ. 399

N.J.Super. 329 (2008).

NEW JERSEY STATUTES ANNOTATED:

N.J.S.A 18A.28-5

N.J.S.A. § 18A:27-4.1la

NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE:

N.J.A.C. § GA:9-8.

STATUTES:

12 U.S.C. § 1981

12 U.S.C. § 1983

12 U.S.C. § 1985

12 U.S.C. § 1986

2,8.12,16

2,15,16

16

2,6,7,8,11,15

2,6,7,8,11,15

| ,3-

0,8,10,11, 14-

17

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner Mohamed F. El-Hewie. respectfully

prays that a writ of certiorari be issued to review the

judgments of the Appellate Division of the Superior

Court and of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. In

plain contravention of the requirements of the

Constitution of the United States and federal law

the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New

Jersey has embarked on an ad hoc, standardless, and

lawless exercise of judicial power, which appeared

designed to thwart the considered judgments of New

Jersey's legislative branch. In a year 2009’s opinion,

the Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the

2008’s decision of the Appellate Division that

attempted to uphold the state school law N.J.A.C.

6A:9-8, which requires the local boards of education

to provide provisional teachers with a state-approved

mentoring plan. Instead, the Supreme Court of New

Jersey opined that a provisional teacher could be

terminated from the Provisional Teacher Program if

the hiring board refused to renew his/her contract

without adhering the N.J.A.C. 6A:9-8. Meanwhile,

the same Appellate Division that, in the year 2008,

defended the rights of provisional teachers to the full

protection of N.J.A.C. 6A:9-8, has abandoned its own

2008's holding and arbitrarily reverted to its year

1982’s holding that nontenured teachers could be

nonrenewed regardless of the violation of the state

regulation by the hiring boards of education.

Wherefore, the court of last resort in the

State of New Jersey has created a_ state of

lawlessness in the employment of teachers in the

State of New Jersey, by preventing the Appellate

Division of the Superior Court from upholding the

state school laws; the Appellate Division of the

Superior Court of New Jersey disregarded the

opinion of its Supreme Court in Hennessey, supra,

that questioned the impropriety of administrative

litigation in claims of LAD; and the Commissioner of

Education was compelled by the public outcry to

remove the corrupt superintendent and_ board

members for malfeasance that extended over sixteen

years, granting certification by this Court could

resolve the conflicts between:

i) Dore v. Board of Educ. Of the ‘Township of

Bedminster (1982) and Leang v. Jersey City

Board of Education (2009),

and between:

(ii) This Appellate’s decision and New Jersey

Supreme Court determination in Hennessey v

Winslow Twp., 875 A.2d 240, 245 (N.J. 2005)..

aa

OPINIONS BELOW

The Order of the Supreme Court of New

Jersey is attached in Appendix (App 2-3). The

opinion of Appellate Division of the Superior Court of

New Jersey is attached in Appendix (App. 4-21). The

final decision of the Commissioner of Education is

attached in Appendix (App. 22-25). The Initial

Decision of the ALJ is attached in Appendix (26-73).

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the Supreme Court of New

Jersey denying Plaintiffs application for

certification of the opinion of the Appellate Division

of the Superior Court of New Jersey was entered on

April 20, 2010. This Court has jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 125-4(1).

STATUTES INVOLVED

This case involves 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983,

1985, 1986; N.J.S.A. § 18A:27-4.la (pertaining to a

board of education’s appointment, transfer, or

removal of officers and employees); and N.J.A.C. §§

6A:9-8.3 (“Requirements for Instructional

Certificate”), 6A:9-3.3 (“Professional Standards for

Teachers”), and 6A:9-3.4 (“Professional Standards for

School Leaders’)

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner was hired on November 28, 2005 as

an alternate route/ provisional teacher, to replace the

resigned teacher; Dr. Orlov. Dr. Orlov quitted his

teaching position abruptly, with the responding

hoard of education, after a confrontation with the

school Principal Patricia Cosgrove. Defendant's

School District registered petitioner with the

Provisional Teacher Program (PTP) on November 23,

2005. Petitioner started the PTP on February 28,

2006. On April 10, 2006, the school principal;

Patricia Cosgrove notified petitioner with her

intention to terminate him. On May 19, 2006, the

district’s board of education affirmed the principal's

decision to terminate appellant's teaching contract.

This dispute arises out of a decision by the

soard of Education of the Bergen County Vocational

School District (“the Board”) not to renew

Petitioner's contract for employment as a provisional

teacher for the 2006-2007 school year while

petitioner was still in Phase-One of the Teacher

Training Program. Petitioner was terminated from

the Provisional Teacher Program of the State of New

Jersey without fulfilling the state requirements of

N.S.A.C.6A:9-8.3, 8.4, 86, and _ 8.7. As such,

Petitioner was thrown out of a teacher certification

proceeding, with falsified mentoring documents, and

without the complete three evaluations required by

the State of New Jersey to certify or to deny

certification of an_ alternate-route provisional

teacher

On June 21, 2006, appellant petitioned the

Commissioner of Education to grant him emergent

relief before the end of the first phase of the

Provisional Teacher Program that ended on June LO,

2006. On July 10, 2006, the school principal,

Patricia Cosgrove notified the PTP that “petitioner

NEVER began in the position”, “completed ZERO

weeks of mentoring and ZERO weeks of full-time

teaching.” On December 6, 2006, Superintendent

Robert <Aloia_ notified the Provisional Teacher

Program that petitioner was mentored and has

taught 28 weeks. After the trial record closed,

Plaintiff discovered that \loia started his plan to

remove Cosgrove from her position around that date

After six-day evidentiary trial, the ALJ tssued

her [Initial Decision on February 27, 2008. On April

11, 2008, the Commissioner adopted the [nitial

the ALJ and dismissed petitioners

complaint. On April 14, 2008 petitioner appealed to

the State Board of Education (SBE) from the

Commissioners decision. On July 8, 2008, the

Commissioner of Education aborted the petitioners

Decision of

ongoing appeal process with the SBE

As a consequence of the elimination of the

SBE from the appeal process, Petitioner initiated

anew an appeal with the Appellate Division of the

Superior Court of New Jersey

On October 5, 2009 and simultaneously with

the Appellate Panel's commencement of argument (of

Plaintiffs appeal concerning “the fraudulent

management of an educational institution.” See App

10, end of first paragraph), the Office of Fiscal

\ccountability and Compliance (OFAC) of the

Department of Education was tipped by multiple

complainants over the’ unethical/illegal/unsound

business activities of the respondent’s board

(reference document omitted). On February 1, 2010,

the investigators of OFAC published their Report,

chased the superintendent Robert Aloia out of his

position by indefinitely suspending him

Simultaneously, on February 7, 2010, the County

Kxecutive and the Board of Freeholders removed the

Board's President Jack Drakeford The Report

stated

foward the conclusion of the OFAC investigation

the superintendent was placed on administrative

leave ind An interim superintendent assumed control

of the districts. The newly assigned interim

superintendent took immediate steps to correct

ileficiencies and ensure compliance with statute and

code.” (reference omitted)

On December 2-4, 2009, the Appellate Division

of New Jersey stated its limited-scope of review of an

Agency decision and affirmed the Commissioner’s

final decision. On February 1, 2010, the Report

refuted the Appellate’s Opinion and pursued the

engagement of the respondent's board in criminal

fraud, by filing its factfindings with the same

Attorney General, party to the instant action.

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, petitioned the

Supreme Court of New Jersey for certification of the

order of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court

of New Jersey, which: (i) affirmed the Agency final

decision by relying on Dore’s 1982’s, supra, (il)

dismissed the removal of the State Board of

Education from on July 7, 2008, and (iii) dismissed

its own holding in Leang’s 2008, supra, regarding the

rights of provisional teachers to state-approved

mentoring during the residency in the Provisional

Teacher Program.

On April 20, 2010, after accepting briefs,

replies, and updates on the public outcry of the

corruption with the Board, published in the Report of

OFAC, the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied

certification, with cost.

ae

¥

The vpinion of the Appellate Division of the

Superior Court of New Jersey and the denial of

certification by the Supreme Court of New Jersey

entail the following controversial points:

POINT ONE

The Appellate's decision contravenes with the

prior decision of the same Appellate Court in

Leang v. Jersey City Bd. of Educ, 399

N.J.Super. 329 (2008).

In Leang (2008), supra, the same Appellate

Court applied the School Laws N.J.A.C. 6A:9-8.3, 8.4,

8.6, and 8.7 in a manner that recognized the intent of

the legislature in standardizing the mentoring

program to help alternate-route provisional teacher

succeed in teaching and secure tenure. Leang’s

Appellate Court opined:

“Indeed, the mentoring program was to

begin one month after the date of hire and required

a support team consisting of at least the principal

and the mentor. The mentor was to make five iorty-

minute contacts biweekly for the first ten weeks of

teaching. Thereafter, the mentor was to have four

forty-minute contacts every five weeks during the

remaining twenty weeks of the program. The

mentor was required to complete a "Visitation

Form" following each contact.”

“[The Principal] admitted that not having

the ESL curriculum would cause Sopharie's

evaluations to be lower than they might have been.”

Furthermore, Leang’s Court emphasized the

special circumstances that confront alternate-route

teachers, beyond those of certified and trained

nontenured teachers. The same Appellate Court

reinstated Plaintiffs employment's contract. It

reasoned: “the repeated delays in obtaining the

curriculum would increasingly undermine Plaintiffs

evaluations and cause economic loss.”

In Leang (2009) , supra, the Supreme Court of

New Jersey disregarded the implied employment

contract of provisional teachers in a state-residency

program and thus reversed the <ppellate’s decision

in Leang (2008), supra. Rather, the Court held Public

entities liable for discrimination claims brought by

their employees notwithstanding the limitations

imposed by the Tort Claims Act (TCA).

[n this Appellate’s decision, the Court

abandoned its reasoning in Leang (2008), on the

essential roles of mentoring and _ provisional

evaluations. The court reverted back to Dore v. Bd. of

Educ., 185 N.J. Super. 447, 456 (App. Div. 1982) and

reasoned, “the failure to strictly comply with

statutory procedures does not require _ petitioner's

reinstatement.” While Dore, supra, dealt with a

nontenured teacher who was neither provisional, nor

alternate route teacher, but was rather a certified

teacher in his third year of teaching, this Appellate

Court arbitrarily dismissed all the improvements

made (since Dore’s 1982’s regulation) in the year

2005’s State School Laws N.J.A.C. 6A:9-8.3, 8.4, 8.6,

and 8.7.

This .Appellate panel made the following gross

errors:

(1) The aAppellate’s decision erred _ by

concluding that the plaintiff was evaluated

“twice” formatively, in the first phase of the

rar.

(1) The Appellate’s decision acknowledged clearly

that Plaintiff [attended training in the spring of 2006

and received a certificate of completion for the first of

three phases. He was discharged from ARP on March

15, 2006, however, when the Human Resource

manager for the District learned of his termination.]

See App. 6. <As such, Plaintiff only completed the

first phase of the Provisional Teacher Program,

which coincides with the first formative-evaluation.

Furthermore, Plaintiff was terminated from the PTP

prior to the commencement of any mentoring,

coursework, or provisional evaluation.

(11) The Appellate’s decision stated clearly that the

first formative-evaluation was due at ten-week in the

first phase of the PTP. The second formative-

evaluation was due at twenty-week in the second

phase of the PTP. The third summative-evaluation

was due at thirty-four-week at the end of the third

phase of the PTP. See App. 8. There is nothing in

the record that supports the Appellate’s decision’s

conclusion that Plaintiff was twice evaluated

formatively.

(iii) Furthermore, the Appellate’s decision’s erred

in limiting the characterization of provisional

evaluations by concluding that “a summative-

evaluation is done in paragraph form, whereas a

formative-evaluation is completed by way of a

checklist” See App. 8. The trial record clearly

explains that “formative” and “summative”

evaluations referred to the level of “forming”

teaching skills and in “maturing” in provisional

teaching experience, respectfully.

10

(2) The Appellate’s decision erred in

overlooking the requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:9-

8.7.

(i) N.J.A.C. 6A:9-8.7 (Recommendation for

certification of provisional teachers) holds:

(a) Within 30 clays after the conclusion of the

State-approved district training program, the

building principal shall submit the final

evaluation directly to the Secretary that shall

contain a recommendation regarding standard

certification for each provisional teacher.

(b) The final evaluation for each provisional

teacher shall include one of the _ following

recommendations:

1. Approved: Recommends issuance of a

standard certificate;

2. Insufficient: Recommends that a standard

certificate not be issued but that the candidate be

permitted to seek entry on one more occasion into

a State-approved district training program; or

3. Disapproved: Recommends that

standard certificate not be issued and that the

candidate not be allowed to enter into another

State approved district training program.

a

(c) Candidates who receive a recommendation

of “disapproved” or two recommendations of

“insufficient” may petition the Board of

Examiners for approval of additional

opportunities to seek provisional employment in

districts other than those in which they received

unfavorable recommendations pursuant to

concluded

(ii) Appellate’s decision erroneously

that the alternate-route/provisional teachers’

employment contract could be nonrenewed based on

alleged poor-performance prior to the commencing of

1]

the provisional teachers’ training and mentoring, in

disregard to N.J.A.C. 6A:9-8.3, 8.4, 8.6, and 8.7. (See

App. 20.)

Gi) Appellate’s decision erroneously concluded

that the alternate-route/provisional teachers could be

terminated from the PTP prior to the completion of

the three phases of training, mentoring, and

coursework, in disregard to N.J.A.C. 6A:9-8.3, 8.4,

8.6, and 8.7, and without any recommendation or

evaluation of performance.

(iv) Wherefore, Plaintiff was never been declared

“insufficient” by the school principal Patricia

Cosgrove, who ceased to hold her position, nor was

Plaintitf offered two formative and one summative-

evaluations, the Appellate’s decision erred on

commenting on Plaintiffs performance in_ the

absence of completely developed record. In

Leang, supra, the same Appellate Court opined:

“Nor do we know from the record whether [the

Principal]'s conduct in ignoring [Plaintiff]'s repeated

requests for the ESL curriculum, which [the

Principal] admitted would result in increasingly

unsatisfactory evaluations, caused economic loss to

[Plaintiff].”

(v) Wherefore, Plaintiffs administrative record

was incomplete due to the removal of the State Board

of Education on July 7, 2008, by Jon Corzine’s new

law P.L. 2008, ct. 36, this court does not have clear

facts on reasons why Patricia Cosgrove was removed

from her position as_ school principal, while

petitioner's trial was underway.

]2

—

(3) The Appellate’s decision erred in applying

“Dore v. Board of Educ. Of the Township of

Bedminster” on provisional teacher

certification.

teacher

(1) In Dore, supra, a _ nontenured

challenged his nonrenewal for a third contract year

since three evaluations of him were not conducted

during the 1975-76 school year. Dore was teaching

for two years and was not part of the PTP, that the

three annual evaluations do not have the same effect

as mentoring and training of an alternate route

novice teacher.

(11) In contrast to Dore, the current petitioner was

barely starting a _ teacher-training’ program.

Petitioner would be harmed irreparably if the

mentoring and certification process were not

rectified.

(iii) In 1975-1976, when Dore’s caselaw took place,

the Board of Education, and not the Superintendent,

was authorized to nonrenew teachers. The statutes

were amended such that the Superintendent, and

not the board members, recommends nonrenewal of

a teacher. (N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(c), (d), (h) and (4),

refer to the board member’s duty not to interfere

with the superintendent’s job and N.J.S.A. 18A:27-

4.1 that delegates the task of terminating teacher to

the superintendent, and not to the board members

(as was the case in 1976, when Dore was

adjudicated.))

Therefore, the Appellate’s decision’ assertion

that “The board may reach its conclusion about a

nontenured teacher on a broad base of input received

13

from a variety of people, including members of the

public, parents of students and a board member's

own knowledge of a teacher" is not applicable at the

present time, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:27-4.

(4) The Appellate’s decision erred by omitting

the role of mentoring and training when

comparing a provisional teacher to a well-

trained teacher.

The ALJ commented on Plaintiffs

performance out of the framework of the state-

approved teachers’ training regulation, and by

assuming that petitioners performance was

deficient, when petitioner was introduced to teaching

in emergent situation on November 28, 2005, has

barely started training, and was deprived from the

state-approved Board’s mentoring plan and PTP.

See App. 35.

(3) The Appellate’s decision erred by omitting

the emergent teaching experience which

Respondent put petitioner through without any

support or mentoring.

(i) Dr. Orlov resigned suddenly on November 9,

2005, because of confrontation with the School

Principal Patricia Cosgrove. Cosgrove ended up by

losing her position as a principal on June 29, 2007,

while the evidentiary trial ended on June 6, 2007.

(Orlov ~- Direct, TR. 3: 21, 9-10/ 22, 1-22).

(ii) Petitioner took over Dr. Orlov’s classes on

November 28, 2005 and struggled for three months

to get the five abandoned classes to catch up with

other classes in the school.

(6) The saAppellate’s decision erred in

concluding that an alternate route/provisional

teacher could complete the Provisional Teacher

Program within SEVEN months.

Plaintiff started teaching on November 28,

2005 through June 30, 2006:

(i) The Appellate’s decision erred in concluding

that the statute "does not provide for any

penalty in the event a local board fails to

follow the pr[e]scribed procedures”. I[n Dore,

that procedure was the internal evaluation of a

certified teacher. In the current case, the state

regulation N.-J.A.C. 6A:9-8.3 holds:

“(a) each district board of education shall be

authorized to employ a provisional teacher after

its mentoring plan has been approved pursuant

to V.J.A.C. 6A:9-8,4(d) 3.

(b) Each State-approved district training

program shall provide essential knowledge and

skills through the following training:

L. A full-time clinical experience of no less than

20 days duration shall be provided by in-district

personnel as clescribed and approved in the

district's local mentor plan and may be in joint

sponsorship with other educational entities. The

clinical experience shall prepare the novice

teacher with the skills and knowledge to succeed

in the initial teaching experience and shall take

place prior to the time at which the novice

teacher takes full responsibuity for a classroom.

This clinical cxperience shall provide high

quality pre-professional support, instruction and

clintcal experiences and study in those essential

15

areas of professional study pursuant to 'V.J.A.C.

6A:9-3.3. This requirement shall not apply to

provisional teachers who hold a CEAS pursuant

to NALAC, 6A:9-3.] (b).

2. On-going mentoring

teacher shall take place over a period of 30

weeks in accordance with the local mentor plan

pursuant to .V.-J.A.C. 6A:9-8.-4 and in accordance

with the Professional Standards for Teachers.”

of the provisional

(11) While the Appellate’s decision defends the

school board’s right to terminate teacher's contract ,

it conflicted with its prior decision in Leang, that:

[Plaintiff] has presented facts from which a

reasonable finder of fact might conclude that the

Board's mentor program was part of [Plaintiff]'s

contract because that program was clearly

intended to help provisional teachers to succeed

and secure tenured.”

POINT TWO

The <Appellate's decision contravenes

with the prior decision of its Supreme Court in

Hennessey, supra, that questioned’ the

impropriety of administrative litigation in

claims of LAD. (cited by the United States

v. Bergen County, USCA for 34 Circuit No.

N.J.A.C. (issued. September 17, 2009).

Here, the Appellate Court recognized the

following four inquiries that limit judicial review of

an agency <lecision:

(1) Whether the agency's decision offends the State or

Federal Constitution: (2) whether the agency's action

violates cxpress or implied legislative policies; (3)

whether the record contains substantial evidence to

16

support the findings on which the agency based its

action; and (4) whether in applying the legislative

policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching

a conclusion that could not reasonably huve been made

on a showing of the relevant

factors,

{[Karins v. City of Ath City, 152 N.S. 532, 5-40 (1998)

(quoting George Harms Constr. Co, v. N.J. Tpk. Auth.,

137 N.J. 8, 27 (199-4)).]

See App. 12.

The Appellate’s decision failed to explain how

the Dore (1982)’s. legislative policies would apply to

the current plaintiffs provisional certification,

mentoring, training, and employment. It also failed

to recognize the recent opinion of the New Jersey

Supreme Court on [Law Against Discrimination] in

Hennessey v. Winslow Twp., 875 A.2d 240, 245 (N.J.

2005). In El-Hewie v. Bergen County, et. al., USCA

for 3rd Circuit No. N.J.A.C. (issued September 17,

2009), the USCA For the 34 Circuit emphasized:

“the New Jersey Supreme Court has

recognized that “thorny questions have arisen in

previous cases in respect of whether preclusion of

a [Law Against Discrimination] complaint is

appropriate when the same LAD claim allegedly

was raised in an administrative litigation before

an administrative agency having concurrent

jurisdiction with the [Division of Civil Rights].’

(Citing Hennessey v, Winslow Twp., 875 A.2d 210,

245 (N.J. 2005)).

Therefore, the two higher courts in the State

of New Jersey could not adhere to clear standards in

upholding the state constitution, with the Supreme

Court of New Jersey admitting that the state

administrative agencies should not have the final

judgment on claims of LAD, yet the Appellate

Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey affirms

the administrative decision on LAD claim against all

the provisions of the state law NJAC. 6A:9-8

Likewise, when the Appellate Division attempted to

uphold the teachers right the provisions of N.J.A.C

64:9-8.3, 8.4, and 8.6, the Supreme Court of New

Jersey dismissed the implied contact of provisional

teachers and _ reversed the previous opinion

Furthermore, when the OFAC of the Department of

Education of New Jersey scathed the Board and the

Superintendent of respondent for malfeasance, the

Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's petition for

certification and penalized him with the cost of

petition.

CONCLUSION

Wherefore, the Appellate Division of the

Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Supreme

Court of New Jersey are indifferent to the state and

federal constitution by their embarking of lawle

ad hoc, and standardless application of law, the

petition tor a writ of certiorari should he granted

SAK D PF. RL-HEWIE

(573° Meriline Avenue

Wear Paterson LJ O71?

Phone: (973) 237-0530