Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3365-11T4
03-03-2015
CARLA SANNS, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW and INNOVEST HOLDINGS, INC., Respondents.
Carla Sanns, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Nicole M. DeMuro, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., attorneys for respondent Innovest Holdings, Inc. (Mark Diana and Christopher J. Capone, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Yannotti and Hoffman. On appeal from Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 335,656. Carla Sanns, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Nicole M. DeMuro, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., attorneys for respondent Innovest Holdings, Inc. (Mark Diana and Christopher J. Capone, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Carla Sanns ("Sanns") appeals from a final determination of the Board of Review ("Board"), which found that she is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) because she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. We affirm.
Sanns filed a claim for unemployment benefits on April 3, 2011. On May 6, 2011, a deputy director in the Division of Unemployment and Disability Insurance of the New Jersey Department of Labor determined that Sanns was eligible for benefits from April 3, 2011. Sanns' employer, Innovest Holdings, Inc. ("Innovest"), appealed the deputy director's decision to the Appeal Tribunal on May 12, 2011.
Innovest, a Colorado company, employed Sanns as an operations analyst since March 3, 2008. Her responsibilities included reviewing and preparing monthly and quarterly performance reports, cash flow analyses, paperwork for securities litigation, and annual client surveys. Sanns relocated to New Jersey in 2010, and Innovest permitted her work remotely.
In March 2011, Innovest informed Sanns it was reorganizing and combining its operation and research groups. Innovest subsequently assigned Sanns to a new position as a portfolio accounting coordinator. This new position required Sanns to work the same amount of hours and paid the same salary she received in her original position.
Sanns, however, refused to take this position, claiming she had ethical concerns about the company's portfolio accounting decisions. She communicated to Innovest management that her ethical concerns related to her not wanting to "change data" and also involved "how the software [used by the company] works." After Sanns refused to take the position, she was terminated on April 1, 2011.
The appeals examiner ("examiner") reversed the deputy director's decision and issued a decision, which was mailed on July 11, 2011. The examiner found that Sanns refused to remain with Innovest because of a change in her job responsibilities. However, the new responsibility involved a task that Sanns had previously performed in her original position. The examiner concluded that Sanns' "desire not to perform and/or dislike of the task" was not a substantial or compelling reason to leave her employment. Thus, Sanns was disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits as of March 27, 2011, because she voluntarily left the position without good cause attributable to the work, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a).
Sanns then filed an administrative appeal with the Board, which issued a final decision that was mailed on January 25, 2012. The Board affirmed the Appeal Tribunal's decision.
On appeal, Sanns argues that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. She contends that she did not leave work voluntarily, and that if she did leave voluntarily, she left for good cause attributable to the work.
The scope of our review in an appeal from a final determination of an administrative agency is limited. The agency's decision may not be disturbed unless shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). We "'can intervene only in those rare circumstances in which an agency action is clearly inconsistent with its statutory mission or with other State policy.'" Ibid. (quoting George Harms Constr. Co. v. N.J. Turnpike Auth., 137 N.J. 8, 27 (1994)).
Furthermore, "'[i]n reviewing the factual findings made in an unemployment compensation proceeding, the 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. (alteration in original) (quoting Charatan v. Bd. of Review, 200 N.J. Super. 74, 79 (App. Div. 1985)).
In this matter, the Appeal Tribunal and the Board found that Sanns was disqualified from unemployment compensation benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), which provides that an individual may not receive benefits if he or she "left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work[.]" Although the statute does not define "good cause," it has been construed to mean "'cause sufficient to justify an employee's voluntarily leaving the ranks of the employed and joining the ranks of the unemployed.'" Domenico v. Bd. of Review, 192 N.J. Super. 284, 287 (App. Div. 1983) (quoting Condo v. Bd. of Review, 158 N.J. Super. 172, 174 (App. Div. 1978)).
The test for determining whether an employee's decision to leave work constitutes "good cause" is one of "ordinary common sense and prudence." Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 214 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The employee's decision to quit "'must be compelled by real, substantial and reasonable circumstances not imaginary, trifling and whimsical ones.'" Ibid. (quoting Domenico, supra, 192 N.J. Super. at 288). "A claimant has the 'responsibility to do whatever is necessary and reasonable in order to remain employed.'" Ibid. (quoting Heulitt v. Bd. of Review, 300 N.J. Super. 407, 414 (App. Div. 1997)).
Following our review of the record, we conclude that there is sufficient credible evidence to support the Appeal Tribunal's and the Board's determination that Sanns left her position at Innovest voluntarily and not for reasons attributable to the work. The record indicates that the Board informed Sanns that she would have new job responsibilities, but that those responsibilities included work she had previously performed on an intermittent basis. The record does not show that Sanns had objected to these duties prior to her assignment to the new position.
In response to Sanns' concerns, Innovest management informed her the company was not "married" to its software vendor and advised Sanns that "they wanted accuracy and would address her concerns, including obtaining a new vendor." However, Sanns refused to take the position. Additionally, on appeal she also alleges for the first time that Innovest was under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for its portfolio accounting practices. There is no evidence in the record to support this assertion.
Thus, the record fully supports the Appeal Tribunal's and the Board's determination. As the Board found, Sanns' unemployment was caused by her refusal to take the position and not by good cause attributable to the work. N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). Sanns failed to show she left her job for a reason "so compelling as to give [her] no choice but to leave the employment." N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(b).
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION