On March 13, 2026, the New Jersey Appellate Division in J.R. v. Township of Long Hill Board of Education affirmed the New Jersey Commissioner of Education’s (“Commissioner”) decision, upholding the Township of Long Hill Board of Education’s (“Board”) determination that a student’s conduct met the statutory criteria of harassment, intimidation, and bullying (“HIB”) under the New Jersey Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act (the “Act”).
An eighth grade student was the subject of HIB investigation following a report that he made demeaning comments about another District student (target) in a Snapchat group chat. The Snapchat group chat was comprised of over two dozen students. The target was not in the Snapchat group chat, but the student made vulgar comments about the target’s appearance, weight, and sexual orientation in the group chat. The student admitted to making the statements regarding the target. As a result of the conduct, the student received a six-day out of school suspension for violations of the middle school’s code of conduct.
The District conducted a HIB investigation and determined that the student’s actions constituted HIB. The District’s finding of HIB was reported to the Board. The student’s parent requested a HIB appeal hearing before the Board. The Board heard the appeal and affirmed the recommendation of the superintendent and upheld the determination that the student committed an act of HIB. The student’s parent then appealed the Board’s decision to the Commissioner, who transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law, which was heard by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). After a two-day hearing, the ALJ upheld the HIB finding and discipline of the student. Thereafter, the Commissioner adopted the ALJ’s decision.
The student’s parent appealed the Commissioner’s final decision to the Appellate Division, which reviewed the Commissioner’s decision under the arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable standard.
On appeal, the student’s parent argued that the Board’s HIB policy ran afoul of the Act by adding the word “or” after subsection (a) of N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14, thereby making subsection (a) disjunctive rather than conjunctive. The Appellate Division rejected the parent’s argument, finding that the Act only requires one of the three subsections of N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14 to be satisfied to establish a finding of HIB.
The Appellate Division also rejected the parent’s argument that the District’s factual findings required the HIB to be overturned. Petitioner relied on a portion of the District’s HIB report that indicated the student was not aware of the potential impact on the target. The Appellate Division noted the language relied on by the parent spoke to the student’s subjective intent, which is not the standard under the Act. The Appellate Division then relied on the ALJ’s analysis finding that a reasonable eighth grader should have known his messages would have the effect of emotionally harming the target.
The Appellate Division held the ALJ correctly determined that the student’s conduct substantially disrupted or interfered with the orderly operation of the school or the rights of other students. The Court referenced the ALJ’s analysis of the widespread impact of the student’s conduct, including the target expressing fear of attending high school and requiring counseling and the student who reported the conduct fearing retaliation from other students. The Appellate Division rejected the parent’s argument that the target would not have been aware of the Snapchat messages but for administration informing the target, as the target reported to administration that she was informed of the messages by a friend. The Court also noted that the district was statutorily required to inform the parents or guardians of all students involved in alleged HIB incidents. See N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15(b)(5).
Finally, the Appellate Division rejected the parent’s argument that the HIB finding violated the student’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech because the student was not aware that his words would cause harm to the target. The Appellate Division reiterated that a reasonable eighth grader should have known the statements would harm the target. Further, the decision noted that to even accept the parent’s argument would require a finding that the Act violates the First Amendment. The parent did not raise that claim in the appeal. Therefore, the Appellate Division did not reach the merits of this claim.
Ultimately, the Appellate Division found that the Commissioner’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable and upheld the finding of HIB.