In the Matter of Certificates of Nicholas Cilento, (A-26-24/089658) (Decided December 9, 2025), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the imposition of additional discipline by the New Jersey State Board of Examiners (Board) and the Commissioner of Education beyond the disciplinary suspension imposed by an arbitrator based on tenure charges did not violate principles of privity, comity, and due process, or the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
The Court’s per curium decision largely adopted the analysis and holding of Morison v. Willingboro Board of Education, 478 N.J. Super. 229 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 258 N.J. 143 (2024), an analogous case decided by the Appellate Division.
Facts of In the Matter of Certificates of Nicholas Cilento
On May 21, 2019, Nicholas Cilento was relieved of his responsibilities as a special education teacher employed by the Woodbridge Township School District on the ground that he had consumed alcohol on school premises. The Woodbridge Township Board of Education (Woodbridge BOE) subsequently certified tenure charges against Cilento.
Following a hearing where Cilento admitted to struggling with alcoholism for years and consuming alcohol on school grounds, an arbitrator determined that the Woodbridge BOE had met its burden of proving the allegations in all but one charge. The arbitrator found that Cilento’s conduct provided just cause for discipline but not dismissal and determined that a three-month unpaid suspension and reinstatement on a “Last Chance Basis” was appropriate.
Thereafter, the Board issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) as to “why [Cilento’s] teaching certificate(s) . . . should not be revoked/suspended.” Citing the same facts at issue in the tenure proceeding, the Board found Cilento’s conduct to be unbecoming of a teacher and issued a two-year suspension of his teaching certificate.
The Board further concluded that, as a separate body that “applies its own, independent decision as to whether the specific conduct established in the tenure proceedings warrants action on an educator’s teaching certificates,” the Board was authorized to exercise its distinct authority pursuant to an independent statutory scheme related to the appropriateness of statewide teacher certification.
Cilento appealed the Board’s decision to the Commissioner of Education, who upheld the Board’s determination, finding that “the Board [was] not constrained by the Arbitrator’s penalty determination” because it was not a party to the arbitration proceeding, which had been conducted pursuant to a distinct statutory scheme, N.J.S.A. 18A:6-17.1. Those two decisions by the arbitrator and the Board, according to the Commissioner, were the result of “separate proceedings undertaken for different purposes.”
Cilento appealed the Commissioner’s decision to the Appellate Division. The appeals rejected Cilento’s challenge, relying on Morison, which was decided while the appeal was pending.
As explained in the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion, Morison outlined, in detail, the two “distinct and dissimilar” statutory schemes at play — one “to revoke or suspend an educator’s certificate under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38,” and the other “to discipline a tenured educator under . . . N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10 to -18.1.”
The appellate court also found that because “the Board of Examiners was not a party to the arbitration,” and “the School Board [was] not a party to the certificate proceedings,” there was “no identity of [the] parties,” and, therefore, no privity between the Board of Examiners and the local Board of Education. Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that “the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata do not bind the Board of Examiners.”
Additionally, the Morison court found that there was no procedural due process violation because the teacher was provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard. Additionally, it found no substantive due process or fundamental fairness violations because “[t]he separate regulatory action of the Board of Examiners . . . does not amount to ‘an egregious governmental abuse’ . . . ‘shock the conscience’ . . . [or] offend ‘judicial notions of fairness.’” The court further found that the licensing scheme “ha[d] a clearly rational foundation, and its co-existence with the teacher tenure laws is complementary, not deleterious.”
NJ Supreme Court’s Decision in In the Matter of Certificates of Nicholas Cilento
The Supreme Court affirmed.
According to the Court, Morison “presented the exact issue that Cilento raises here: whether ‘a tenure arbitrator’s determination of discipline through the procedures set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:6-17.1 prevents the State Board of Examiners and Commissioner from imposing a more severe sanction of suspending or revoking the licensee’s certificate to teach within this State, under the procedures set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38 to -39.” The Court agreed with “Judge Sabatino’s comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion”
