High court affirms that New Jersey’s certification regulators may impose separate sanctions even after a local tenure case ends with a lesser penalty
TRENTON — The New Jersey Supreme Court has reinforced the state’s authority to hold educators to statewide licensing standards, ruling that teacher certification penalties may extend beyond discipline imposed through a local tenure arbitration.
In a decision issued December 9, 2025, the high court upheld additional discipline against former Woodbridge Township special education teacher Nicholas Cilento, concluding that state certification regulators were not legally bound by an arbitrator’s earlier tenure-related suspension. The ruling clarifies that New Jersey operates under two separate tracks of educator accountability — one focused on employment discipline within a district, the other centered on the statewide privilege of holding a teaching certificate.
The case, formally titled In the Matter of Certificates of Nicholas Cilento (A-26-24/089658), has drawn wide attention among school districts, unions, and education administrators because it addresses a recurring question in New Jersey education law: when a tenured teacher is disciplined through arbitration, can the state still revoke or suspend that person’s certification based on the same incident?
The Supreme Court’s answer was clear: yes.
The court held that enhanced discipline imposed by the New Jersey State Board of Examiners and upheld by the Commissioner of Education did not violate due process or fairness principles, and it did not trigger the legal doctrines that typically prevent a matter from being re-litigated. In other words, the arbitration outcome did not close the door on a separate credentialing decision.
For readers following statewide education policy and the evolving landscape of professional licensing, more coverage of significant court rulings and policy shifts can be found in Sunset Daily’s ongoing reporting on New Jersey legislation.
The case began in May 2019, when Cilento was removed from his duties by the Woodbridge Township School District after allegations that he consumed alcohol on school property. The Woodbridge Township Board of Education later filed tenure charges.
During the tenure arbitration proceedings, Cilento acknowledged a longstanding struggle with alcoholism and admitted to consuming alcohol on school grounds. An arbitrator found that the district had proven the allegations in all but one charge. While the arbitrator determined the conduct warranted serious discipline, the decision stopped short of termination. Cilento received a three-month unpaid suspension and was reinstated under a “last chance” arrangement, an employment-based remedy that allows a teacher to return under strict conditions.
But the matter did not end there.
After the arbitration outcome, the New Jersey State Board of Examiners — the entity charged with overseeing educator credentials statewide — initiated its own process. It issued an Order to Show Cause demanding that Cilento explain why his teaching certificates should not be suspended or revoked. Relying on the same underlying conduct, the Board concluded that the behavior amounted to “conduct unbecoming” and imposed a two-year suspension of Cilento’s teaching certificate.
Cilento challenged that decision, arguing that the state’s action unfairly duplicated punishment and violated fundamental fairness because the arbitration process had already resulted in a defined penalty. He also contended that doctrines such as res judicata and collateral estoppel — legal concepts designed to prevent repeated litigation of the same dispute — should block the state from adding further sanctions.
The Commissioner of Education disagreed and upheld the Board of Examiners’ suspension, emphasizing that the Board of Examiners is not a party to tenure arbitration and is charged with applying a different statutory scheme with a different purpose: protecting the integrity of statewide certification and public trust in the profession.
When Cilento appealed to the Appellate Division, the court rejected his arguments as well. While that appeal was pending, a closely related decision — Morison v. Willingboro Board of Education — addressed the same core issue and became the controlling framework.
The Supreme Court’s December 2025 decision adopted that reasoning.
The justices explained that New Jersey’s tenure discipline process and its teacher certification process are “distinct and dissimilar.” Tenure arbitration is governed by laws designed to determine whether a tenured educator should face employment consequences within a specific district. Certification proceedings, on the other hand, are governed by statutes aimed at regulating statewide licensure — a broader determination of whether an educator should continue to be authorized to teach anywhere in New Jersey.
That distinction proved decisive for several reasons.
First, the Supreme Court agreed there was no “identity of parties” between the two proceedings. The local school board participates in tenure arbitration; the Board of Examiners does not. In the licensing process, the Board of Examiners and the Commissioner act under their own authority, and the local school board is not a party. Because the players differ, the legal concept of “privity” — which can bind related parties to prior outcomes — did not apply.
Second, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that additional certification discipline violates due process. The court noted that Cilento received notice of the licensing action and an opportunity to respond through established administrative procedures. That satisfies procedural due process requirements, even if the licensing outcome is more severe than the employment discipline imposed earlier.
Third, the court addressed the broader fairness argument head-on. The justices concluded that the existence of two overlapping accountability systems is not inherently unfair, because each system serves a different public purpose. Local discipline addresses the employment relationship. Certification discipline addresses public trust, professional standards, and statewide eligibility to work in schools.
This ruling carries substantial implications across New Jersey’s education system.
For school districts, the decision reinforces that tenure arbitration is not the only mechanism that can shape an educator’s future. A district may resolve an employment case through suspension, reinstatement, or a negotiated outcome — yet the state may still evaluate whether the educator’s conduct warrants a statewide credential consequence.
For educators and unions, the ruling underscores that arbitration success does not guarantee protection from licensing sanctions. Even if a teacher avoids termination at the local level, the professional licensure dimension remains in play, particularly when the conduct implicates student safety, public trust, or professional fitness.
For parents and communities, the decision signals that the state’s certification system is designed to function as an independent public safeguard — one that can impose sanctions based on standards extending beyond district-level disciplinary decisions.
In practical terms, the Supreme Court’s decision strengthens the Board of Examiners’ authority to act as a statewide regulator rather than a body that merely mirrors local disciplinary outcomes. It also clarifies how New Jersey law separates “employment discipline” from “professional licensure,” ensuring that an educator’s right to hold a certificate can be judged independently of whether a local district chose to terminate or reinstate.
With the ruling, the Supreme Court has effectively set a statewide roadmap for future cases where teacher misconduct leads to both local tenure proceedings and subsequent licensure review — confirming that the two tracks can coexist and that, when warranted, the state can impose stricter certification penalties even after an arbitrator has imposed a lesser employment sanction.
