Middlesex County Teacher's Harassment Conviction Upheld

An appeals court has upheld the conviction of a Middlesex County teacher who was found guilty of harassing a student.

The court also agreed that it was proper for that conviction to trigger the forfeiture of that teaching job, along with the right to hold any public jobs in the future.

Emilio Perez, who had worked as a teacher at the Perth Amboy campus of the Middlesex County Vocational and Technical Schools, “verbally harassed several of his students,” and targeted one Jewish student in particular, according to an Appellate Court decision.

He ridiculed that boy for celebrating Hanukah, referred to an African-American girl as “ghetto,” and “called a student by a homophobic slur,” the court said.

“Defendant’s classroom conduct caused a student to engage in cutting her wrists. Another student harbored suicidal thoughts as a result of defendant’s racist remarks and religious slurs,’’ the decision said.

According to that decision:

Perez began working in Perth Amboy in September 2009, and was suspended in January 2012.

In June 2012, he was charged with four counts of harassment, and after a municipal court trial, he was convicted of harassing two students and acquitted of harassing two others.

Because the convictions were disorderly persons offenses, the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office could have applied for a waiver that would then have allowed Perez to continue to hold public jobs.

But, the Prosecutor declined to seek that waiver and the teacher was fired. He was also forced to forfeit the right to any future public employment.

Perez appealed the municipal court decision, and after a trial in state Superior Court, he was found guilty of harassing only one student.

But that judge rejected Perez’s claim that the state’s refusal to seek the waiver “amounted to an abuse of discretion.”

Last week, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court upheld that harassment conviction and agreed with the state Superior Court judge, saying there was no abuse of discretion.

“In reaching the decision not to seek waiver, the Prosecutor reasoned that defendant “grossly” violated the duties of his office by verbally abusing students in the classroom,’’ the appeals court said. “The decision was also premised upon the input from the school board and the victims who “absolutely and unequivocally” sought forfeiture of defendant’s position based upon his “harassing and bullying behavior.” We are satisfied that the Prosecutor adhered to both the Attorney General Guidelines and controlling decisions of law in reaching his decision.”