Elmwood Park School District in New Jersey Faces Lawsuit from Former Teachers

Two former Elmwood Park School teachers who won a civil lawsuit against the Board of Education over its attempted suspension of their teaching licenses filed a lawsuit this month to settle attorneys’ fees in the case, according to court documents filed Sept. 13.

On Feb. 1, the case of Kamber Chaiken and Evelyn Cordova v. Elmwood Park School Board went before Administrative Law Judge Andrew M. Barron in a hearing where he ruled that the school board’s underlying action to revoke teachers’ licenses for a year was “dishonest and frivolous.” That decision was issued Feb. 29, according to court documents.

In May, the education commissioner, who makes the final decision, upheld the administrative judge’s initial ruling.

Both sides are waiting for the state Superior Court to enforce the commissioner’s decision. The Superior Court will also decide whether the school district should pay the teachers’ attorneys’ fees. Court documents did not reveal a specific date for that hearing.

The Elmwood Park school board could not be reached for comment.

Chaiken and Cordova were both hired as non-tenured teachers by the Elmwood Park School District. Both signed contracts that ran through the 2022-23 school year, ending June 30, 2023.

Following expiration, both were employed part-time in the school district’s ESY summer program in 2023. Their services were not part of a new contract and were not part of a requirement for the 2022-23 contract year.

Local: Spend Football Game Day at One of These 9 Northern New Jersey Sports Bars

Court documents say the district claimed Chaiken verbally agreed to continue teaching at Elmwood Park. The district also claimed Cordova indicated his return in an online survey.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys, Alfred F. Maurice and Arsen Zartarian, said in their arguments before the administrative judge that the plaintiffs never signed a new contract with the school district, although Chaiken was offered a contract “a few days before the first contract expired” and Cordova was offered another in early July 2023.

Chaiken submitted her resignation to the district “after completing her teaching duties on August 1, 2023,” telling the district she would not return as a teacher for the 2023-24 school year. Cordova did the same.

Schools Superintendent Anthony Lachetti imposed a “statutory 60-day notice period against (Chaiken), effective August 4.” The teachers’ attorneys added: “According to Dr. Lachetti, if Chaiken fails to meet this deadline, the district would seek a one-year suspension of his teaching license.”

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs said in court documents: “On August 15, 2023, Dr. Lachetti sent Chaiken another communication advising her to report to the school on September 5, 2023 to complete the exit process, and that he would attempt to release her from any further teaching obligations by September 30, 2023.”

Chaiken’s attorneys argued that because she had accepted a new, non-permanent position in another district, she would not be able to attend the final exit meeting.

Attorneys Maurice and Zartarian said the district notified Chaiken on Sept. 5 that it would suspend his teaching license for a year. Cordova has a similar case.

In June and July 2023, Cordova “repeatedly expressed her concerns and reservations to the building manager, Danielle Sharples, which is part of the reason she did not sign the new contract,” Maurice and Zartarian said in court documents.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that there was no “meeting of the minds” between Cordova and the school board regarding his return for the 2023-24 school year.

Cordova would then accept a job with the Paterson School District in July 2023. The Board of Education requested that Cordova’s teaching license be suspended after she resigned.

The Board of Education argued that it sought the suspensions “for their respective alleged failures to comply with the 60-day notice requirements as set forth in the New Jersey Teacher Tenure Law,” as stated in the legal discussion and analysis portion of the court documents.

In his decision, the commissioner said the council claims that even if a contract has not been signed, contracts can be formed without writing.

The board said the teachers’ summer employment led it to believe the two were returning full-time and that the board was prejudiced “by the respondents’ failure to provide 60 days’ notice when they resigned just before the start of the 2023-24 school year.”

The board said it was acting to “protect vulnerable children and ensure non-disruptive educational programming at the start of the school year.”

The plaintiffs argued that “because they had fulfilled their contractual obligations to the board before resigning, they were not required to provide 60 days’ notice.”

Decisions of the judge and the commissioner

The administrative judge initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, rejecting the suspensions.

The state education commissioner, who by law has final say on the matter, also rescinded the suspensions.

In the decision, the commissioner said the school board must offer a written employment contract or written notice that no employment will be offered by May 15 of each year, and also requires employees to agree in writing by June 1.

The Commissioner agreed with the complainants in that, as they had not accepted a written offer of employment, they had no obligation to the council.

The Elmwood Park School Board did not file an appeal and its decision to appeal has expired.

What happens next?

The teachers also want the court to “assess attorneys’ fees and costs against Elmwood Park, both for the underlying action and for this proceeding.”

Court documents indicate that the fees for legal services provided to the plaintiffs amount to $30,070.

A date has not yet been set by the Superior Court, attorneys for the teachers told NorthJersey.com