Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0637-13T4
04-17-2015
PABLO SAMOL, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and WEGMAN'S FOOD MARKETS, INC., Respondents.
Pablo Samol, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher M. Kurek, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Respondent Wegman's Food Markets, Inc., has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fisher, Nugent and Manahan. On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 402,518. Pablo Samol, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher M. Kurek, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Respondent Wegman's Food Markets, Inc., has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
Appellant Pablo Samol appeals from a final decision of the Board of Review disqualifying him from employment benefits based on "severe misconduct." N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(b). We affirm.
Samol was employed as a full-time customer service representative at Wegman's Food Markets for approximately seven years. On his last day of employment, Samol was called into his manager's office and confronted about lying on his employment application, which Wegman's had discovered from Samol's stepson's ex-wife. Plaintiff admitted that he falsely answered "no" when asked whether he had ever been convicted of a crime; in truth, he had been convicted in 1986 of sexual assault. Samol stated that he was untruthful because he believed he would not otherwise be hired.
Following a telephone hearing, the Appeal Tribunal found Samol's dishonesty in his employment application reflected an "intentional disregard" of the employer's best interests and of the standards of behavior that an employer has the right to expect from its employees. As a result, Samol was disqualified from receiving benefits. The Board affirmed this decision.
On appeal, Samol argues that the employer failed to follow proper hiring procedures, hired him without requesting a background check, and failed to temporarily suspend him without pay pending a full investigation by his reporting officer.
In considering such an appeal, we pay considerable deference not only to an agency's findings of fact and credibility assessments but its expertise as well. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). After careful consideration of Samol's contentions and a thorough review of the record on appeal, we are satisfied there is adequate, substantial and credible evidence to support the Board's determination. Samol's arguments, which mainly suggest only the employer's failure to discover his deceptive conduct sooner, do not present a ground upon which it could be concluded that he did not intentionally misrepresent his background when applying for the job. His arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION