Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0338-11T3
04-18-2013
PAULA M. RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and AT SYSTEMS ATLANTIC, INC., Respondents.
Alan H. Schorr argued the cause for appellant (Alan H. Schorr & Associates, P.C., attorneys; Arykah Asheley, on the briefs). Adam Verone, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney; Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Verone, on the brief). Respondent AT Systems Atlantic, Inc. has not filed a brief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Alvarez and St. John.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 309,141.
Alan H. Schorr argued the cause for appellant (Alan H. Schorr & Associates, P.C., attorneys; Arykah Asheley, on the briefs).
Adam Verone, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney; Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Verone, on the brief).
Respondent AT Systems Atlantic, Inc. has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM
Appellant Paula Rodriguez appeals from a final decision of the Board of Review finding her disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits because she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work, N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). Our examination of the record satisfies us that the Board's final decision was properly premised on facts in the record and is consonant with relevant statutory provisions. Accordingly, we affirm.
I.
Rodriguez was employed as an ATM department supervisor by respondent AT Systems Atlantic, Inc. (AT) from 1993 until September 1, 2010. On that date, she notified her employer that she was leaving the company. Rodriguez filed a claim for unemployment benefits, but the Deputy Director disqualified her for benefits from August 29, 2010, finding that "[she] left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work." Rodriguez appealed that decision.
Rodriquez contends that her department was "taken over" by Garda Cash Logistics in 2006.
Rodriguez appeared for a telephone hearing with an Appeal Examiner on December 16, 2010. Rodriguez's main complaint before the examiner was that on September 1, 2010:
An interpreter was provided.
--------
Well that day they offended me, they yell at me, they discriminated, they told me I didn't know how to do my work in front of all my co-workers that had been working with me all these years and after all these years now they were stating that I didn't know how to do my job.Rodriguez further stated, "I told them if they were displeased with what I was doing that I would leave the company that's what I told them." When pressed for more details, Rodriguez stated, "well they wanted to know why we were doing so much overtime because they didn't want us to do that." She went on to explain,
Well what happened was this they wanted us to do a certain job without making overtime and they were behind us. So they went to our department and in order to solve the overtime and make up for the job they wanted us to do within the eight hours without any overtime. And that's why they were very rude to me because they were forcing me to do what we were supposed to do in eight hours without overtime because they didn't want the overtime. And then when they were offending me and telling me all the things they [he] told me because they didn't want to pay overtime and they wanted us to do all the work in eight hours without any overtime that's when I told him if you're not happyIn an email to various company employees sent a week after her resignation, Rodriguez claimed that on September 1, management, "yelling" and "harassing," told her to put pressure on her subordinates to work faster. They further expressed their displeasure with her management ability. Her email also claimed that management mocked a subordinate of Rodriguez for her inability to speak English.
with what I am doing then I guess I won't be working here anymore that's what happened.
The Appeal Tribunal affirmed the determination of the Deputy, finding, in pertinent part:
The claimant worked for the above-named employer, as a supervisor from 11/06 through 9/1/10, when she left the job because she was unhappy with the working conditions. The employer announced that they were not offering overtime and expected the work to be completed within the regular work hours. The employer told the claimant that she was not working to the best of her ability. The claimant got upset and left the job for this reason only. The claimant did not try to resolve her concerns with the employer such as contacting Human Resources until she already resigned.The Appeal Tribunal found that Rodriguez's "working conditions were not severe enough to join the high ranks of unemployed" and that she "did not take the necessary steps to resolve her problems with the employer." Accordingly, the Appeal Tribunal determined that Rodriguez left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work and, therefore, is disqualified for benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) as of August 29, 2010. On July 6, 2011, the Board of Review affirmed and this appeal followed.
II.
On appeal, Rodriguez argues that she was terminated from her employment because her employer created a hostile work environment, had unrealistic goals as to the amount of work which could be performed during a given shift, and because her supervisors were openly racist towards her and her Spanish-speaking staff. The factual record does not support these contentions and, therefore, we are not persuaded by these arguments.
Our scope of review of an agency decision is limited. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579 (1980)). In challenging an agency conclusion, the claimant carries a substantial burden of persuasion and the determination of the administrative agency carries a presumption of correctness. Gloucester Cnty. Welfare Bd. v. N.J. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 93 N.J. 384, 390-91 (1983). We also accord substantial deference to the agency's interpretation of a statute it is charged with enforcing. Bd. of Educ. of Neptune v. Neptune Twp. Educ. Ass'n, 144 N.J. 16, 31 (1996). Further, "[w]e are obliged to defer to the Board when its factual findings are based on sufficient credible evidence in the record." Lourdes Med. Ctr. of Burlington Cnty. v. Bd. of Review, 197 N.J. 339, 367 (2009) (internal citations omitted). We overturn an agency determination only if it is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, unsupported by substantial credible evidence as a whole, or inconsistent with the enabling statute or legislative policy. Barry v. Arrow Pontiac, Inc., 100 N.J. 57, 71 (1985) (quoting Gloucester Cnty. Welfare Bd., supra, 93 N.J. at 391).
The purpose of this State's Unemployment Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 43:21-1 to -71, "is to provide some income for the worker earning nothing, because he is out of work through no fault or act of his own . . . ." Yardville Supply Co. v. Bd. of Review, 114 N.J. 371, 375 (1989) (citations omitted). In order to avoid disqualification, the claimant has the burden of establishing that she left work for good cause related to work. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 218 (1997). While the statute does not define "good cause," it has been construed to require more than mere dissatisfaction with working conditions.
In scrutinizing an employee's reason for leaving, the test is one of ordinary sense and prudence. Mere dissatisfaction with working conditions which are not shown to be abnormal or do not affect health, does not constitute good cause for leaving workAdditionally, "good cause" has been defined by regulation as "a reason related directly to the individual's employment, which was so compelling as to give the individual no choice but to leave the employment." N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(b).
voluntarily. The decision to leave employment must be compelled by real, substantial and reasonable circumstances not imaginary, trifling and whimsical ones . . . . [I]t is the employee's responsibility to do what is necessary and reasonable in order to remain employed.
[Domenico v. Bd. of Review, 192 N.J. Super. 284, 288 (App. Div. 1983) (internal citations omitted).]
An employee who quits a job without a sufficient work-related reason is disqualified from benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). Moreover, an employee who leaves work for a good but personal reason, is also subject to the disqualification. See Pagan v. Bd. of Review, 296 N.J. Super. 539, 542 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 150 N.J. 24 (1997).
In essence, in determining whether the employee voluntarily left work for a work-related good cause, the employee must show that he or she did all that was "necessary and reasonable in order to remain employed." Heulitt v. Bd. of Review, 300 N.J. Super. 407, 414 (App. Div. 1997) (citation omitted). Clearly, such a test is fact sensitive. See Utley v. Bd. of Review, 194 N.J. 534, 550 (2008). As a result, when an agency's findings of fact are challenged on appeal, we will defer to its findings so long as there is credible evidence in the record to support them. Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 210.
Applying our highly deferential standard of review, we find no occasion to interfere with the Board's decision. The record amply supports the Board's conclusion that Rodriguez resigned from her position because she was unhappy with the working conditions. The employer announced it was not offering overtime and expected the work to be completed within the regular work hours. The employer told Rodriguez that she was not working to the best of her ability. Rodriguez got upset and left the job.
An employee who leaves work for personal reasons is not deemed to have left work voluntarily with good cause. Id. at 213; Rider Coll. v. Bd. of Review, 167 N.J. Super. 42, 47-48 (App. Div. 1979). "Mere dissatisfaction with working conditions which are not shown to be abnormal or do not affect health, does not constitute cause for leaving work voluntarily." Domenico, supra, 192 N.J. Super. at 288 (quoting Medwick v. Bd. of Review, 69 N.J. Super. 338, 345 (App. Div. 1961)). "'The decision to leave unemployment must be compelled by real, substantial and reasonable circumstances . . . attributable to the work.'" Fernandez v. Bd. of Review, 304 N.J. Super. 603, 606 (App. Div. 1997) (quoting Domenico, supra, 192 N.J. Super. at 288); see also In re N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.6 State Dept. of Labor, 395 N.J. Super. 394, 399-400 (App. Div. 2007). "[I]t is the employee's responsibility to do what is necessary and reasonable in order to remain employed." Domenico, supra, 192 N.J. Super. at 288 (citing Condo v. Bd. of Review, 158 N.J. Super. 172, 175 (1978)).
Rodriguez failed to carry her burden of proving that she did what was reasonable and necessary to remain employed.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION