ANDREW K. BONNER, JR. VS. CUMBERLAND REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOLÂ (L-860-14, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                         NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
    APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
    This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
    Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
    parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
    SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
    APPELLATE DIVISION
    DOCKET NO. A-4133-15T1
    ANDREW K. BONNER, JR.,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    CUMBERLAND REGIONAL HIGH
    SCHOOL DISTRICT,
    Defendant-Respondent.
    _________________________________
    Argued May 24, 2017 – Decided June 27, 2017
    Before Judges Accurso and Manahan.
    On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
    Law Division, Cumberland County, Docket No.
    L-860-14.
    Andrew K. Bonner, Jr., appellant, argued the
    cause pro se.
    Stefani C. Schwartz argued the cause for
    respondent (Schwartz Simon Edelstein & Celso
    LLC, attorneys; Ms. Schwartz, of counsel and
    on the brief, Saiju George, on the brief).
    PER CURIAM
    Plaintiff Andrew K. Bonner, Jr. appeals the grant of summary
    judgment in favor of defendant Cumberland Regional School District
    Board of Education.1      We affirm for the reasons set forth in the
    comprehensive fourteen-page written opinion of Judge Darrell M.
    Fineman.    We add only the following.
    This matter arises out of alleged incidents of bullying and
    harassment perpetrated against plaintiff while he was a student
    at Cumberland Regional High School (CRHS) from September 2010
    through    June   2013.    In   2009,    CRHS   adopted   a   "Harassment,
    Intimidation,     and   Bullying"   policy   (HIB)   providing    for   the
    procedure for filing a complaint, the investigation process, and
    the punishment for violations of the HIB.2
    The HIB defines "harassment, intimidation, or bullying" as
    any gesture, any written, verbal or physical
    act, or any electronic communication, as
    defined in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-14, whether it be
    a single incident or a series of incidents
    that:
    1.    Is   reasonably    perceived   as   being
    motivated by either any actual or
    perceived characteristic, such as race,
    color,   religion,   ancestry,   national
    origin,   gender,   sexual   orientation,
    gender identity and expression, or a
    mental, physical or sensory disability,
    or   by    any    other    distinguishing
    characteristic;
    2.    Takes place on school property, at any
    school-sponsored function, on a school
    1
    Defendant was improperly pled as Cumberland Regional High
    School District.
    2
    The policy was revised in 2011, and again in 2014.
    2                            A-4133-15T1
    bus, or off school grounds, as provided
    for in N.J.S.A. 18A:37-15.3;
    3.   Substantially disrupts or interferes
    with the orderly operation of the school
    or the rights of other students; and that
    a.    A reasonable person should know,
    under the circumstances, that the
    act(s) will have the effect of
    physically or emotionally harming a
    student or damaging the student's
    property, or placing a student in
    reasonable fear of physical or
    emotional harm to his/her person or
    damage to his/her property; or
    b.    Has the effect of insulting or
    demeaning any student or group of
    students; or
    c.    Creates a hostile environment for
    the student by interfering with a
    student's education or by severely
    or pervasively causing physical or
    emotional harm to the student.
    In accordance with the policy, plaintiff and his parents filed a
    HIB complaint with CRHS on November 29, 2012.                   The complaint
    alleged   plaintiff    was   the   victim    of   pervasive    harassment      by
    students, teachers, and coaches.
    Thereafter,      John   Mitchell,      principal     of   CRHS   and     HIB
    coordinator, together with Joseph Spoltore, a bullying specialist,
    conducted   an   investigation     into     plaintiff's    complaint,       which
    included interviews with all involved parties.                 On December 3,
    2012, both Mitchell and Spoltore concluded plaintiff's claims were
    3                               A-4133-15T1
    unfounded    based    on   their    inability      to   obtain    sufficient
    corroborating evidence and the inconsistencies in plaintiff's
    recounting of the alleged predicate events.               By letter dated
    December 10, 2012, plaintiff and his parents were advised of the
    HIB investigation results.     Plaintiff did not appeal the findings
    to the New Jersey Commissioner of Education pursuant to N.J.S.A.
    18A:37-15(b)(6)(e).
    On October 24, 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint against
    defendant alleging, amongst other claims, negligence, "reckless
    endangerment of numerous children," violations of the HIB policy,
    the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1
    to -42, public transportation laws, medical privacy laws, and/or
    "intellectual property theft."        Defendant filed an answer and an
    amended answer.      Prior to the expiration of discovery, defendant
    moved for summary judgment, which was denied without prejudice.
    After the conclusion of discovery, defendant again moved for
    summary judgment.      On April 11, 2016, the judge granted summary
    judgment in favor of defendant.           This appeal followed.
    Plaintiff raises the following arguments on appeal:
    POINT I
    [PLAINTIFF] WAS NOT AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY
    TO APPEAL THE HIB FINDING AND [DEFENDANT'S]
    HIB INVESTIGATION PROCESS WAS FLAWED.
    4                             A-4133-15T1
    POINT II
    A STUDENT HAS A RIGHT TO ACHIEVE AN EDUCATION
    FREE OF HARASSMENT AND [PLAINTIFF'S] CLAIMS
    AS OUTLINED CONSTITUTE HIB UNDER THE NJLAD.
    POINT III
    DISCLOSURE    OF     [PLAINTIFF'S]    MEDICAL
    INFORMATION WAS IN VIOLATION OF FERPA.
    Our review of a ruling on summary judgment is de novo,
    applying the same legal standard as the trial court.     Nicholas v.
    Mynster, 
    213 N.J. 463
    , 477-78 (2013).       Summary judgment must be
    granted if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories
    and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show
    that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged
    and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a
    matter of law."   Town of Kearny v. Brandt, 
    214 N.J. 76
    , 91 (2013)
    (quoting R. 4:46-2(c)).
    Thus, we consider, as the judge did, whether "the competent
    evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most
    favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a
    rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor
    of the non-moving party."   
    Ibid.
     (quoting Brill v. Guardian Life
    Ins. Co., 
    142 N.J. 520
    , 540 (1995)).     If there is no genuine issue
    of material fact, we must then "decide whether the trial court
    correctly interpreted the law."   Massachi v. AHL Servs., Inc., 396
    5                          A-4133-15T1
    N.J. Super. 486, 494 (App. Div. 2007), certif. denied, 
    195 N.J. 419
       (2008).     We   accord    no   deference    to   the   trial   judge's
    conclusions on issues of law and review issues of law de novo.
    Nicholas, supra, 213 N.J. at 478.
    Having    considered    appellant's   arguments    in   light   of    the
    discovery record, our standard of review and the controlling law,
    we find them to be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion
    in a written opinion.        R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
    Affirmed.
    6                               A-4133-15T1
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-4133-15T1

Filed Date: 6/27/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021