PREMILA J. PATEL v. BOARD OF REVIEW

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5933-03T25933-03T2

PREMILA J. PATEL,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW,

Respondent,

and

HUNTLEIGH USA CORP.,

Respondent.

____________________________________

 

Submitted: October 18, 2005 - Decided:

Before Judges Skillman and Axelrad.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, 19, 575.

Premila J. Patel, appellant pro se.

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Allan J. Nodes, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

No brief was submitted on behalf of respondent Huntleigh USA Corp.

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Premila Patel appeals from the final determination of the Board of Review finding her ineligible for TEUC-A (Additional Temporary Extended Unemployment for Displaced Airline and Airline-related Workers) benefits because she did not have "qualifying employment" as defined by the Temporary Extended Unemployment Act of 2002. Petitioner had worked at Newark Airport as a pre-board airline screener for Huntleigh USA from November 5, 2001 through November 10, 2002. She was laid off when the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), a federal agency, assumed responsibility for security at airports. Petitioner did not pass the test for employment with the federal agency.

The Temporary Extended Unemployment Act of 2002 authorized extended unemployment benefits to displaced airline and airline-related workers who were unemployed or partially employed on or after April 20, 2003, and who exhausted regular compensation under state law based in whole or part on "qualifying employment" performed during the individual's base year. See Pub. L. No. 107-147 ( 116 Stat. 21), as amended by Pub. L. No. 108-1 ( 117 Stat. 3). The term "qualifying employment" was statutorily defined as employment:

(A) with an air carrier, employment at a facility at an airport, or with an upstream producer or supplier for an air carrier; and

(B) as determined by the Secretary, separation from which was due, in whole or in part, to-

(i) reductions in service by an air carrier as a result of a terrorist action or security measure;

(ii) a closure of an airport in the United States as a result of a terrorist action or security measure; or

(iii) a military conflict with Iraq that has been authorized by Congress;

[Ibid. (emphasis added).]

The United States Department of Labor has narrowly defined this provision to include only a reduction in service by an air carrier or closure of an airport, not a reduction in job duties or layoff resulting from a determination by Congress that the federal government should assume responsibility for airport security. The federal agency squarely addressed petitioner's specific situation in Section 6(h) of its Questions and Answers for Clarification of Section 4002, Public Law 108-11, providing as follows:

Question: An individual worked as a security screener at an airport. In response to the terrorist actions of September 11, 2001, this function was transferred to the newly created federal Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The individual was not hired by the TSA and is, as a result, now unemployed. Is this a qualifying reason for separation for TEUC-A purposes?

Answer: No. The above individual worked at a facility at an airport and was separated from employment due to a security measure taken in response to the terrorist actions of September 11, 2001. However, to have "qualifying employment," the individual must have been separated because of reductions in service by an air carrier or the closure of an airport in the United States. This did not occur under the scenario described. Rather, the individual was separated because the TSA took over security at the airport.

[http://ows.doleta.gov/dmstree/uipl/uipl2k2/uipl_3002c3a.pdf]

The Board properly deferred to the federal administrative interpretation of this Act and found petitioner was not entitled to extended unemployment benefits. We similarly defer to the expertise of the Board, the state agency entrusted with administering unemployment benefits in New Jersey, which decision is not "arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable." Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963); Cortese v. Bd. of Trs., 336 N.J. Super. 607, 611 (App. Div. 2001).

 
Petitioner's argument that the agency erred in its decision because it overlooked her pay stubs is without merit. No one disputes that petitioner was employed as a pre-board airline screener for the base year. She was not eligible for benefits because she did not meet the balance of the statutory requirements, that of "qualifying employment."

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-5933-03T2

October 27, 2005