SHEILA A. DIGGS v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0458-05T30458-05T3

SHEILA A. DIGGS,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

and PLAINFIELD MUNICIPAL UTILITIES

AUTHORITY,

Respondents.

_____________________________________

 

Argued October 24, 2006 - Decided November 8, 2006

Before Judges R. B. Coleman and Gilroy.

On appeal from a Final Decision of the Board of Review, Department of Labor, 81,258.

Tina Velantzas-Austin argued the cause for appellant.

Alan C. Stephens, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Board of Review (Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney; Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Stephens, on the brief).

Paulette Brown argued the cause for respondent Plainfield Municipal Utilities Authority (Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, attorneys; Ms. Brown, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Claimant, Sheila A. Diggs, appeals from the September 19, 2005 final decision of the Board of Review (Board), affirming the August 8, 2005 decision of the Appeal Tribunal, determining claimant disqualified for unemployment benefits because she "left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work," N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). We affirm.

On June 19, 2005, claimant filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits. On July 11, 2005, a Deputy Examiner found claimant ineligible for benefits, determining that she had left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. On July 18, 2005, claimant filed an appeal with the Appeal Tribunal claiming that she was forced to resign having been subjected not only to a continuous pattern of demeaning and humiliating remarks, but also to disparate treatment by her immediate supervisor. On August 8, 2005, the Appeal Tribunal affirmed, rejecting claimant's allegations because "the evidence presented does not indicate the claimant was treated in an unprofessional manner, or in an unfair manner . . . . Therefore, the claimant's action in resigning because of her inability to take work[-] related criticism from her supervisor does not constitute good cause for leaving in accordance with [N.J.S.A.] 43:21-5(a)." On September 19, 2005, the Board affirmed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal.

On appeal, claimant asserts the same argument that she presented to the Appeal Tribunal.

Appellate courts have a limited role in reviewing decisions of an administrative agency. Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963); State-Operated Sch. Dist. of Newark v. Gaines, 309 N.J. Super. 327, 331 (App. Div.) (citing Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)), certif. denied, 156 N.J. 381 (1998). There should not be an independent assessment of the evidence by the appellate court. In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999). The appellate court must accord a strong presumption of reasonableness to the decision of an administrative agency. Smith v. Ricci, 89 N.J. 514, 525 (1982); City of Newark v. Natural Res. Council, 82 N.J. 530, 539, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 983, 101 S. Ct. 400, 66 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1980). Thus, the determinations of an administrative agency must be given great deference. State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 159 (1964). We cannot overturn an agency's decision that is based on sufficient evidence, even if this court would have reached a different result. Outland v. Bd. of Trs., 326 N.J. Super. 395, 400 (App. Div. 1999).

We have reviewed the record in its entirety and conclude that the argument is without sufficient merit to warrant a discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D) and (E). The decision of the Board is supported by substantial, credible evidence in the administrative record. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-0458-05T3

November 8, 2006