Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-3783-13T2
04-14-2016
NANCY YOUSSEF, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and THERMO ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Respondent.
Nancy Youssef, appellant pro se. Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review, Department of Labor (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Peter H. Jenkins, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Respondent Thermo Asset Management Services, Inc., has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Sabatino and Suter. On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No. 436,821. Nancy Youssef, appellant pro se. Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review, Department of Labor (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Peter H. Jenkins, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Respondent Thermo Asset Management Services, Inc., has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
Appellant Nancy Youssef seeks reversal of the Board of Review's March 28, 2014 final agency decision rejecting her claim for unemployment benefits. The Board sustained the Appeal Tribunal's refusal to consider the merits of appellant's claim because she had filed her administrative appeal with the Tribunal several days after the ten-day deadline prescribed by N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(b)(1). The Appeal Tribunal declined to relax the ten-day deadline, finding that appellant failed to present good cause to justify a short extension of the deadline. We vacate the Board's decision and remand for a disposition of appellant's administrative appeal on its merits.
According to the limited record supplied to us, appellant left her position with her employer, Thermo Asset Management Services, Inc., when her employer changed her long-standing assigned work station from East Brunswick to Teterboro. The employer opposed her application, although it has elected not to participate in the appeal to this court.
A deputy of the Division of Unemployment Insurance ("the deputy") initially considering the matter declared appellant ineligible for benefits, finding that she had voluntarily left her position without good cause. N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). The deputy's determination was issued and mailed on August 1, 2013. Appellant received the mailed determination on August 3, 2013.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(b)(1), a claimant may file an administrative appeal with the agency within seven calendar days after delivery of the deputy's initial determination or within ten calendar days after notification of that determination was mailed to her address. Under that presented timetable, appellant's administrative appeal should have been filed by August 11, 2013. Appellant apparently missed that deadline by two days, filing her appeal on August 13, 2013. She explained in her sworn testimony at the hearing before the Appeal Tribunal that she had needed additional time to gather documentation in support of her appeal and that she had mistakenly believed the filing deadline to be two weeks instead of ten days.
An administrative regulation of the agency, N.J.A.C. 12:20-4.1(h), allows claimants to file administrative appeals beyond the statutory ten-day deadline so long as the delay in filing the appeal was: (1) "due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant;" or (2) in "circumstances which could not have been reasonably foreseen or prevented." This good-cause avenue for extension comports with case law requiring the agency to afford due process and procedural fairness to claimants. See Rivera v. Bd. of Review, 127 N.J. 578, 586-90 (1992). The Appeal Tribunal concluded that such good cause was lacking to justify appellant's two-day tardiness in this case and the Board of Review agreed.
We conclude that the agency misapplied its discretion in rigidly deeming appellant's two-day delayed filing to be inexcusably late. Although we do not rely on appellant's contention that she misread the ten-day deadline set forth on the deputy's denial letter, we credit her explanation that she was delayed by gathering documentation pertinent to her appeal. Appellant sufficiently demonstrated good cause to have her appeal heard on the merits. See Viviano v. CBS, Inc., 101 N.J. 538, 547 (1986) (noting that our system of justice favors the disposition of matters on the merits). The modest two-day delay here caused no manifest prejudice and was reasonably explained in light of the relative complexity of the issues in which appellant's position was founded upon (i.e., relocation issues) whereas the employer's position hinged upon separate issues concerning the voluntariness of her departure.
Vacated and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION