In Sanjuan v. School District of West New York (A-45-22/087515) (Decided February 12, 2024), the Supreme Court of New Jersey clarified an arbitrator’s authority under the Tenure Employees Hearing Law. According to the court, the statute provides the basis to refer a case to arbitration but does not limit an arbitrator’s authority to impose penalties.
Facts of Sanjuan v. School District of West New York
Plaintiff Amada Sanjuan worked assistant principal of Memorial High School and had acquired tenure both as a teacher and as an assistant principal when Defendant, the Board of Education for the Town of West New York Public Schools, certified tenure charges against her for conduct unbecoming. Sanjuan reported that she fell down a staircase at the school after reaching to pick up a piece of paper. However, security footage revealed 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.
Under the Tenure Employees Hearing Law (TEHL), N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10 to -18.1, the State Commissioner of Education is required to refer a tenure case to arbitration upon determining that the charges are “sufficient to warrant dismissal or reduction in salary of the person charged,” which it did in this case. The arbitrator subsequently concluded 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. He 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.”
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 confirmed the arbitration award. The Appellate Division vacated the trial court’s order, holding 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. In support, the appeals court noted that “[n]owhere does the statute provide that an employee can be demoted.”
NJ Supreme Court’s Decision in Sanjuan v. School District of West New York
The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the arbitration award. According to the court, 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.
In reaching its decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the history of the TEHL from its enactment in 1967 through its amendment in 2012 via the Teacher Effectiveness and Accountability for the Children of New Jersey Act (TEACHNJ).
“Although the TEACHNJ amendments to the TEHL changed the entity that makes the final determination in a case, it did not make any changes as to what could or should be the final determination,” Justice Lee A. Solomon wrote. “Arbitrators have the same discretion to impose penalties under the post-TEACHNJ version of the TEHL as did the hearing officer under the pre-amendment version of the statute.”
The New Jersey Supreme Court next addressed the arbitrator’s authority under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16, emphasizing that although the statute limits the cases that reach the arbitrator, it does not limit the remedies available to the arbitrator.
“That construction sets forth the conditions under which a matter must be referred to arbitration by the Commissioner; it does not set forth, limit, or in any way address the penalties that may be imposed by an arbitrator to whom a matter is referred,” Justice Solomon wrote. “If the Legislature had wanted to limit the possible penalties that a tenured employee could face under the amended statute, it could have done so. Instead, the Legislature included in the TEHL only the conditional ‘if x, then y’ jurisdictional trigger of N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16 that informs the Commissioner when a case must be submitted to binding arbitration.”
He added: “Although the legislation limits the cases that reach the arbitrator, it does not limit the remedies available to the arbitrator. And that remains the case even after the 2012 TEACHNJ amendments to the TEHL, under which the arbitrator’s discretion was not circumscribed despite the change in the person to whom the contested charge is submitted.” Because N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16 does not limit the possible penalties to reduction in salary and termination, and because there was no contractual agreement that sets limits beyond those imposed by the TEHL, the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers in demoting Sanjuan and instead correctly determined a penalty tailored to this case.