JUAN GRILES VS. NEW JERSEY INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION (COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2227-17T1
JUAN GRILES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE
INTERSCHOLASTIC
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Respondent-Respondent.
______________________________
Submitted February 13, 2020 – Decided May 21, 2020
Before Judges Nugent, Suter and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the New Jersey Commissioner of
Education, Department of Education, Docket No. 357-
17.
Springstead & Maurice, Attorneys at Law, attorneys for
appellant (Alfred F. Maurice, Harold N. Springstead
and Lauren E. McGovern, on the briefs).
Parker McCay, PA, attorneys for respondent New
Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association
(Steven Phillips Goodell and Scott Thomas Miccio, on
the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent Commissioner of Education (Donna Sue
Arons, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;
Geoffrey Nelson Stark, Deputy Attorney General, on
the statement in lieu of brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner, Juan Griles, a high school basketball coach, appeals from a
final decision of the Commissioner of Education ("Commissioner"). The
Commissioner upheld the New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic
Association's ("NJSIAA") determination petitioner had violated the NJSIAA's
"Recruitment Rule," for which the NJSIAA suspended petitioner from coaching
for two years, fined him $1000, and required him to undergo additional training.
Our standard of review requires we affirm an agency's decision unless it is
arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by substantial credible
evidence in the record. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011). Having
reviewed the record in light of this standard, and having concluded the
Commissioner's final decision is neither arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, nor
without support in the record, we affirm.
The NJSIAA is "an independent voluntary association of the boards of
education of local school districts as well as private schools who have elected
to join the association for the coordination and regulation of athletic programs
A-2227-17T1
2
in conjunction with other school districts." B.C. ex rel. C.C. v. Bd. of Educ.,
220 N.J. Super. 214, 234 (App. Div. 1987). Eastside High School in the Paterson
School District is a member school of the NJSIAA. Petitioner coached the
Eastside men's basketball team.
The NJSIAA's bylaws prohibit "athletic recruitment." NJSIAA Bylaws,
art. V, § 4 in part states:
1. Athletic recruitment is contrary to the purposes
and objectives of high school sports. Prohibiting
athletic recruitment helps to keep athletics in its proper
place and subordinate to academics; protects student-
athletes from those having interests that might not be
consistent with the interests of the student-athletes; and
maintains competitive equity on a level playing field
among member schools.
2. Athletic recruitment is defined as any effort to
proselytize, pressure, urge or entice a student to enroll
in or transfer to a school for athletic purposes. It is a
violation for a member school to engage in athletic
recruitment or for a student-athlete to enroll or transfer
to a school as a result of athletic recruitment. Athletic
recruitment includes, but is not limited to:
a. Using mail, letters, brochures, or news
media to compare high schools and to solely point out
the athletic assets of the sender;
b. Engaging in proselytizing interviews
initiated by school personnel or associates;
c. Offering athletic scholarships, free tuition
or other monetary assistance, either from the school
A-2227-17T1
3
directly or indirectly through some affiliated body or
individual, to induce a student to attend the school for
athletic reasons.
In February 2017, the media reported that petitioner was the temporary
guardian of five or more basketball players from Puerto Rico and Nigeria, all
either seventeen or eighteen years old, four of whom had enrolled at Eastside
High since the previous September. Citing a school district database, the media
report stated that five of the young men listed petitioner as their legal guardian
and claimed his condominium as their primary address.
In response to the media reports, the Paterson School District retained the
Honorable John E. Wallace, Jr., (retired), "to conduct an investigation of the
boys' basketball program, and to make appropriate recommendations pertaining
to policy, procedures, and personnel actions." In addition, the assignment
"included monitoring of all district athletic programs to ensure compliance of
district athletic programs with the [NJSIAA] Constitution, Rules and
Regulations for the balance of this school year and for the 2017-201[8] school
year." Justice Wallace completed the investigation and issued a report (the
"Report").
The Report, which included an interview with petitioner, cited evidence—
undisputed by petitioner—that petitioner indeed once had five student athletes
A-2227-17T1
4
living at his condominium. Petitioner was the godfather and "surrogate
godfather" to two of the young men. Petitioner took in two others at the request
of a friend he knew from basketball camps. Petitioner took in the fifth at the
request of "a former friend from when he played professional basketball."
Justice Wallace found no evidence petitioner's motive for housing the
students "was other than humanitarian." Further, the retired Justice "found no
evidence that [petitioner] obtained temporary custody of five students for any
personal gain, financial or otherwise, offered inducement to the students, or
recruited the students for an athletic advantage." Although the Report included
findings petitioner had committed other violations of NJSIAA rules and
regulations, it did not conclude petitioner violated the NJSIAA's Recruiting
Rule.
Following the release of the Report, the NJSIAA's Controversies
Committee scheduled a hearing. One week before the hearing, NJSIAA's
counsel notified petitioner's counsel of the hearing "regarding potential
violations of NJSIAA's rules regarding transfer, eligibility, and recruiting by the
Eastside Paterson basketball program. Specifically, the hearing will address the
findings of the . . . report regarding [the] investigation of the 2016-2017 Eastside
Paterson Boys' Basketball Team."
A-2227-17T1
5
The notice letter also informed petitioner's counsel of petitioner's right to
appear, have counsel, present testimony under oath, cross-examine witnesses,
and submit any relevant documentation. Last, the notice informed petitioner's
counsel the Controversies Committee was authorized to impose penalties,
suspend personnel, including coaches, and fine the member school and
personnel, including coaches, in an amount not to exceed $1000. Petitioner did
not respond to the notice, did not request an adjournment, and did not participate
in the hearing.
Based upon the Report and other evidence presented at the hearing, the
Committee determined that petitioner had, among other violations, violated the
NJSIAA's Recruitment Rule. The Committee noted that when the media reports
were published, petitioner had five students living with him, "and at least four
of the five, at one point or another, actually played in games for Eastside." The
Committee also noted two of the students were from Puerto Rico and two others
were foreign students. The Committee found numerous violations concerning
the five students, including the falsification of one of their transcripts. The
Committee imposed the sanctions we have previously discussed.
The NJSIAA's Executive Committee unanimously affirmed the penalties
imposed by the Controversies Committee. Petitioner appealed to the
A-2227-17T1
6
Commissioner, who upheld the Committee's decision and sanctions. As the
Commissioner noted in her decision:
It is undisputed that the petitioner had multiple students
living in his home who also became members of the
basketball team that he coached. Many of the students
had no connection to Paterson; their arrival in Paterson
was facilitated through contacts the petitioner made in
the basketball world; and they came to Paterson solely
for the purpose of enrolling at Eastside High
School. Moreover, none of the students who joined the
basketball team for the 2016-2017 school year had
transfer forms completed until after the media reports
regarding the circumstances of their living situation
were released. Importantly, the ban on athletic
recruitment does not require a showing that the players
received an athletic advantage or that they provided an
actual athletic advantage to the basketball team, but
simply that the players enrolled in the Paterson School
District for an athletic reason.
Petitioner argues on appeal the Committee disregarded the Report when it
reached a conclusion contrary to that of Justice Wallace. However, the scope of
the Justice's charge was much broader than determining whether petitioner
violated the Recruitment Rule. It is not entirely clear from the record before us
that the Justice was specifically tasked with determining if petitioner violated
the Recruitment Rule by making "any effort to proselytize, pressure, urge or
entice a student to enroll or transfer to a school for athletic purposes." As the
Commissioner pointed out, he never addressed that precise question.
A-2227-17T1
7
Further, the facts upon which the Justice based his decision, which were
mostly undisputed, were subject to contrary interpretations and inferences.
Indeed, Justice Wallace wrote, "[t]o be sure, the temporary guardianship of five
student athletes by [petitioner], the basketball coach, at first blush raises
suspicions whether he's doing this for an athletic advantage." As the
Commissioner and the Controversies Committee noted, the inquiry they were
required to address was whether petitioner "engaged 'any effort to proselytize,
pressure, urge or entice a student to enroll in or transfer to a school for athletic
purposes,'" not whether petitioner was attempting to gain an athletic advantage.
It appears from the Report that Justice Wallace reached his conclusion at
least in part on his interview with petitioner. Petitioner chose not to appear
before the Controversies Committee and attempt to persuade them that what
appeared at first blush to be athletic recruiting was not the case.
Moreover, the Commissioner concluded that "[p]roviding housing for
students who became members of his basketball team clearly meets the
definition of recruitment." "The right of a voluntary association to interpret and
administer its own rules and regulations is as sacred as the right to make them
. . . . " James v. Camden Cty. Council No. 10, 188 N.J. Super. 251, 257 (Ch.
Div. 1982); see also Danese v. Ginesi, 280 N.J. Super. 17, 23 (App. Div. 1995).
A-2227-17T1
8
An appellate court "defer[s] to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations
unless 'plainly unreasonable.'" Frazier v. Bd. of Review, 439 N.J. Super. 130,
134 (App. Div. 2015) (quoting In re Election Law Enf't Comm'n Advisory Op.
No. 01-2008, 201 N.J. 254, 262 (2010)).
Contrary to petitioner's arguments, the decisions of the Controversies
Committee and Commissioner are supported by ample credible evidence on the
record as a whole. The Committee and the Commissioner considered the Report
but reached a contrary conclusion. For the reasons we have explained, neither
the Committee nor the Commissioner rendered a decision that was arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable.
Petitioner claims he was denied due process because he was only given
two days' notice of the Controversies and Disputes Committee hearing, and was
not provided with notice of the evidence that would be presented against
him. Petitioner did not object to the notice when he received it, did not ask who
would testify at the hearing, did not request a postponement, and did not appear
at the hearing. He does not deny that he was notified of the hearing and
provided with the opportunity to attend and present evidence. Given those
circumstances, petitioner's argument is without sufficient merit to warrant
further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
A-2227-17T1
9
To summarize, the Commissioner's decision is supported by sufficient
credible evidence on the record as a whole, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D), and is not
arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Petitioner's arguments to the contrary
warrant no further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-2227-17T1
10