Under New Jersey’s Tenure Employees Hearing Law, when a school district files tenure charges against an employee, the state commissioner of education must refer the case to arbitration if he or she determines that the charges are “sufficient to warrant dismissal or reduction in salary of the person charged.” Amada Sanjuan, an assistant principal, was charged with “conduct unbecoming” after lying about the cause of a fall she had taken down a flight of stairs, which was caught on a security camera. The commissioner referred the case to arbitration, and, after a hearing, the arbitrator determined that Sanjuan should be demoted and reinstated without back pay.
Sanjuan filed a complaint seeking to vacate the arbitration award against her and to be reinstated as a tenured administrator with back pay. She argued that New Jersey law limited the possible penalties an arbitrator could impose to termination or a reduction of salary. Sanjuan argued that demotion was not an available penalty, and because the arbitrator had already heard and decided against termination, the arbitrator was collaterally estopped from firing her upon rehearing. The trial court ruled against Sanjuan, but the Appellate Division reversed.
On appeal, the New Jersey Supreme Court determined that the law limited the matters that could be referred to an arbitrator to those that could merit termination or a reduction in salary, but the law did not limit the arbitrator’s power to only those two possible remedies. Rather, the court found that arbitrators traditionally had wide-ranging discretion to fashion an appropriate remedy, and nothing in the law changed or limited that discretion. Nor did any contractual agreement relevant to the matter impose any additional limits on the penalties that the arbitrator could impose. As a result, the arbitrator had the authority to order Sanjuan’s demotion. The Supreme Court reversed and ordered that the arbitrator’s decision be reinstated.
Sanjuan v. School District of West New York, No. 087515 (N.J. Feb. 12, 2024).
©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.
Perspectives on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice.
Recent Posts
Editorial Contacts
Shareholder
Shareholder
Of Counsel
Shareholder
Shareholder
