BETH S. TOBIAS, v. BOARD OF REVIEW

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1781-05T51781-05T5

BETH S. TOBIAS,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW,

Respondent-Respondent.

__________________________________

 

Submitted June 5, 2006 - Decided July 14, 2006

Before Judges Yannotti and C.L. Miniman.

On appeal from a Final Determination of the Department of Labor, Board of Review, Docket No. 66,186.

Joseph H. Cerame, attorney for appellant.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ellen A. Reichart, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal from a final determination of the Board of Review concluding that plaintiff Beth S. Tobias was disqualified for unemployment benefits from December 19, 2004. Because that determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious, we affirm.

Appellant, Beth S. Tobias, filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits on January 23, 2005. A determination of the Deputy Claims Examiner was mailed on February 14, 2005, holding Tobias disqualified for benefits from December 19, 2004, on the ground that she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. On February 19, 2005, Tobias filed an appeal of the determination of the Deputy with the Appeal Tribunal. Hearings in the matter were held before the Appeal Tribunal on March 15 and 29, 2005. On April 7, 2005, the decision was issued by the Appeal Tribunal holding Tobias disqualified for benefits from December 19, 2004, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). On April 10, 2005, Tobias filed an appeal of the decision of the Appeal Tribunal with the Board of Review. On May 13, 2005, the Board of Review affirmed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal. The evidence adduced at the hearings on March 14 and 29, 2005, follows.

Tobias was employed as a corporate administrator for NRK of New Jersey, Classic Realty Group, from August 1994 through December 25, 2004. Tobias left work because she believed that her working conditions were detrimental to her health. On her last day of work Tobias attended a meeting called by the President of Classic Realty, Charles Oppler. Oppler was also Tobias's supervisor. At the meeting, Tobias was reprimanded by Oppler for mistakes she had made, but Tobias did not believe that Oppler was offering constructive criticism.

Tobias stated that she resigned because of her poor work relationship with Oppler, which exacerbated her depression. Tobias stated that Oppler did not raise his voice or use profanity, but usually had a "disgusted" look on his face when talking to her about errors. Tobias felt that Oppler's constant reprimands created a hostile work environment. In particular, Oppler allowed his assistant, Marie Cordner, to talk down to Tobias concerning her work.

Oppler stated that Tobias left a voice mail message and sent a letter on December 25, 2004, stating that she was resigning. Oppler denied that his presence created a hostile work environment because he was in the office only two days per week. He acknowledged that Tobias had personality difficulties with Cordner; however, Tobias did not mention her problems with Cordner as a reason for leaving the job.

Oppler said that he was unaware that Tobias was seeing a doctor for depression. He acknowledged that he had problems with Tobias's work concerning the advertising schedule for real estate sales. Tobias had been assigned to work on the weekly advertisements for approximately two years. Tobias insisted upon re-creating each weekly advertisement, rather than just submitting the same advertisement with appropriate changes. Oppler said that Tobias made many mistakes when she completely rewrote the advertisements and resisted his method of just changing the relevant information each week. Consequently, in December 2004 Tobias made an error in an advertisement for a home with a listed selling price of $2.9 million.

As a consequence of the mistake, Classic Realty had to pay for the advertisement, which cost approximately $1,300. Tobias offered to pay for the advertisement, but Oppler was frustrated that Tobias refused to use his method of revising advertisements. During the course of Tobias's employment, Oppler had repeatedly discussed with her his method of submitting drafts for advertisements. Moreover, Tobias had been instructed to proofread each and every line, and if Tobias had followed his instructions, costly mistakes would have been avoided.

Tobias stated that she told Oppler that she was upset with the work, but never discussed her medical condition with him. Tobias had been prescribed anti-depressants by a doctor. Tobias's doctor knew about her problems at work, however, he did not advise her to resign from the job. On February 9, 2005, after Tobias had quit her job and only five days before the Deputy Claims Examiner mailed the denial of unemployment benefits, her doctor wrote a letter stating that Tobias was extremely anxious and depressed and that he believed that her condition was caused by work-related stress. Tobias did not discuss her medical condition with Oppler, nor did she provide him with a doctor's letter prior to resigning because she felt he was not interested in her personal problems.

Based on this evidence, the Appeal Tribunal found that Tobias resigned due to concerns about her health. The Appeal Tribunal also found that there was no evidence that Tobias's doctor advised her to resign for medical reasons. In addition, Tobias did not advise Oppler that she had a medical condition that she attributed to work conditions, thus depriving him of an opportunity to address her concerns. The evidence produced by Tobias at the hearing failed to show that the work conditions were hostile, but rather that Oppler had cause to reprimand Tobias for errors that she had made. Moreover, Tobias was resistant to the reprimands and directions issued by Oppler, even though Oppler's criticism was justified. The Appeal Tribunal held that Tobias failed to demonstrate that she left work for good cause attributable to the work. As a result Tobias was disqualified for benefits from December 19, 2004, as required by N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). That decision was affirmed by the Board of Review on May 13, 2005.

Section 5(a) of the New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Law provides that a claimant is disqualified for benefits:

For the week in which the individual has left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work, and for each week thereafter until the individual becomes reemployed and works four weeks in employment . . . and has earned in employment at least six times the individual's weekly benefit rate . . . .

[N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a).]

Appellate courts have a limited role in reviewing the decisions of administrative agencies. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197 (1997). Courts will not reverse an agency decision unless it is "arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or it is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Barry v. Arrow Pontiac, Inc., 100 N.J. 57, 71 (1985); Gloucester County Welfare Bd. v. N.J. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 93 N.J. 384, 391 (1983). In deciding whether an agency ruling is supported by substantial, credible evidence, we are obligated to accord deference to administrative agency fact-finding. Doering v. Bd. of Review, 203 N.J. Super. 241, 245 (App. Div. 1985).

We may not vacate an agency's determination because of doubts as to its wisdom or because the record may support more than one result. See Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980). If we find sufficient credible competent evidence in the record to support the agency's conclusion, then we must uphold the agency's findings. Clowes v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 109 N.J. 575, 585 (1988); Goodman v. London Metals Exchange, Inc., 86 N.J. 19, 29 (1981).

Thus, an administrative agency's decision may be disturbed only where it can be demonstrated that the agency's decision is arbitrary or capricious, unsupported in the record, or in violation of express or implicit legislative policies. N.J. Guild of Hearing Aid Dispensers v. Long, 75 N.J. 544, 562-63 (1978). In Worthington v. Fauver, 88 N.J. 183 (1982), the Court stated:

"Arbitrary and capricious action of administrative bodies means willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and in disregard of circumstances. Where there is room for two opinions, action is [valid] when exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached."

[Id. 204-05 (quoting Bayshore Sewerage Co. v. Dep't Envtl. Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199 (Ch. Div. 1973).]

Tobias had the burden of proving to the agency that she resigned for good cause attributable to the work. Morgan v. Bd. of Review, 77 N.J. Super. 209, 213 (App. Div. 1962). We have stated that "[w]hile the statute does not define 'good cause,' our courts have construed the statute 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. Labor & Indus. Dep't Review Bd., 192 N.J. Super. 284, 287 (App. Div. 1983), citing Condo v. Review Bd., 158 N.J. Super. 172, 174 (App. Div. 1978) (quoting Goebelbecker v. State, 53 N.J. Super. 53, 57 (App. Div. 1958)). We also stated that "[i]n scrutinizing an employee's reason for leaving, the test is one of ordinary common sense and prudence. . . . [I]t is the employee's responsibility to do what is necessary and reasonable in order to remain employed." Id. at 288.

The statutory scheme outlined by the Legislature envisions that unemployment compensation benefits be paid only to those individuals who have become unemployed through no fault of their own. Medwick v. Bd. of Review, 69 N.J. Super. 338 (App. Div. 1961). The Board of Review is obligated to preserve the fund against the claims of those not intended to share in its benefits. Schock v. Bd. of Review, 89 N.J. Super. 118, 125 (App. Div. 1965).

We have carefully reviewed the record in this matter and conclude that the decision of the Board of Review was supported by the record and neither arbitrary nor capricious. Tobias's doctor did not advise Tobias to leave her job. There is no evidence that Tobias brought her concerns to the attention of her employer, who might have been able to address those concerns. The proofs were insufficient to establish that Tobias's working environment was hostile. Furthermore, Tobias was properly reprimanded for her work performance. Tobias argues that the appeals examiner abused his discretion by refusing to consider letters from individuals who purportedly had knowledge of relevant facts; however, the letters were hearsay and, as such, were not competent evidence.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

9

A-1781-05T5

July 14, 2006