Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4627-12T1
06-09-2015
JAMES L. FESTA, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, GOURMET DINING, JR TOBACCO OUTLETS, INC., and DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES, INC., Respondents.
James L. Festa, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Adam Verone, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Respondents Gourmet Dining, JR Tobacco Outlets, Inc., and Delaware North Companies, Inc., have not filed briefs.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Koblitz and Higbee. On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 389,990. James L. Festa, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Adam Verone, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Respondents Gourmet Dining, JR Tobacco Outlets, Inc., and Delaware North Companies, Inc., have not filed briefs. PER CURIAM
James Festa appeals the May 24, 2013 decision of the Board of Review (Board) that upheld the Appeal Tribunal's decision to reduce claimant's weekly benefit from $373 to $364 due to a pension offset, but modified the finding of the Appeal Tribunal that fully disqualified him from benefits, and instead imposed a partial disqualification. Given our deference to the agency's decision-making, we affirm.
The Appeal Tribunal modified the Deputy to the Director's decision by determining that Festa's disqualification was tolled as of October 27, 2012.
This court's role in reviewing administrative agency decisions involving unemployment benefits is generally limited. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 ( 1997). We defer to fact-findings if reasonably based on the proofs. Ibid. "[T]he test is not whether an appellate court would come to the same conclusion if the original determination was its to make, but rather whether the factfinder could reasonably so conclude upon the proofs." Ibid. (quoting Charatan v. Bd. of Review, 200 N.J. Super. 74, 79 (App. Div. 1985)). Thus, the issue is whether the factual findings are supported by sufficient credible evidence. Ibid. In making that determination, we also give due regard to the agency's credibility findings. Logan v. Bd. of Review, 299 N.J. Super. 346, 348 (App. Div. 1997). Nonetheless, a court can intervene if the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable; or, it was "clearly inconsistent with its statutory mission or with other State policy." Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 210 (quoting George Harms Constr. Co. v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 137 N.J. 8, 27 (1994)). Thus, judicial review is confined to determining, first, whether the agency decision offends the State or Federal Constitution; second, whether it violates legislative policies; third, whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the agency decision; and, lastly, whether the agency, in applying legislative policies to the facts, clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made. Id. at 211.
Our State's unemployment compensation law, N.J.S.A. 43:21-1 to -24.30 (Act), is primarily designed to lessen the impact of unemployment that befalls workers without their fault. Id. at 212. "The public policy behind the Act is to afford protection against the hazards of economic insecurity due to involuntary unemployment." Yardville Supply Co. v. Bd. of Review, 114 N.J. 371, 374 (1989); see also N.J.S.A. 43:21-2. Therefore, a person who voluntarily quits work for personal reasons, as opposed to causes attributable to the work, is ineligible for benefits.
Festa was seventy-six years old and working three jobs. He held a full-time job with Gourmet Dining in the Seton Hall University dining area. However, during the summer break he would be laid off from mid-May to the last week of August every year. He also had two part-time jobs. His second job was as a sales associate and cashier at J.R. Tobacco during the evening hours. At the end of the night, he had to cash out the register and tally credit card receipts. He started this job in April 2011. He candidly admitted that he had cataracts when he took the job, which worsened over time, and he became unable to read the receipts at the end of his shift. He began making mistakes. He finally quit on May 1, 2012, because of difficulty with his eyes. He had no medical documentation that his condition was aggravated by his work, as opposed to just worsening naturally over time. As a result, he was not entitled to full benefits. In addition to his income from his three jobs, Festa received a pension from Aramark, where he worked for twenty-five years, of $35.08 per month before taxes. Festa testified he worked three jobs, not only because it was necessary to survive, but that he liked to work and was anxious to work; however, due to his advanced age he had limited opportunities. Neither the Appeal Tribunal nor the Board questioned Festa's credibility.
Festa also worked part-time for Delaware North in the food concession at Met Life Stadium, but this job was "on call" with limited and very variable hours, primarily during football season.
--------
The Board upheld the reduction of his weekly benefit due to a pension offset pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5, as decided by the Appeal Tribunal. However, the Board modified the decision of the Appeal Tribunal that found him fully disqualified. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.2, the Board found claimant was only partially disqualified for benefits as it would be unduly harsh to fully disqualify the claimant under these circumstances. It remanded to the Deputy to the Director to calculate the partial disqualification.
We affirm for the reasons set forth in the Board's written decision. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION