ZULLY ROMAN v. BOARD OF REVIEW

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3260-04T53260-04T5

ZULLY ROMAN,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW,

Respondent.

____________________________________________

 

Submitted March 15, 2006 - Decided March 23, 2006

Before Judges Stern and Grall.

On appeal from a final decision of the

Board of Review.

Zully Roman, appellant pro se.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney

for respondent (Michael J. Haas, Assistant

Attorney General, of counsel; Alan C.

Stephens, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Claimant, Zully Roman, appeals from the final administrative determination of the Board of Review, concluding that she was disqualified for benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). The Board of Review affirmed the determination of the Appeal Tribunal which found that "[t]he claimant left the job because of relocation to another state due to personal reasons."

Before us, claimant argues that she left her job because of conditions at work including that she was "paid overtime off the books and in cash" but not at the appropriate "rate of time and a half." She contends that she told her supervisor that she "would have to leave the job because the pay rate was not fair [while] the hours were oppressive and [she was] being under- paid." She further asserts that she "was forced to quit." Finally, and significantly, she now asserts that she was told to "withhold information relating to the pay practices" of the employer, such as "cash for overtime," and that she would "receive [her] unemployment without [a] problem." She insists that she "gave only part of the story during [her] phone interview" with the Appeal Tribunal.

In essence, claimant asserts that she was not disqualified for benefits on the grounds that she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work, and that she was "constructively terminated."

As claimant herself recognizes, she did not tell her present story, or assert those allegations, before the Appeal Tribunal. To the contrary, during her telephone hearing of November 24, 2004, she stated that she "voluntarily quit" because she "was having problems with [her] baby's father." She stated that, "I had a restraining order on him and he was causing trouble at my job." According to the claimant, the situation was "really stressing [her] out to work there with him doing all these things to [her]," and she decided to leave New Jersey. Ultimately the couple "decided to get back together to move out to Florida to start a new life." Before the couple moved to Florida, however, claimant told her employer the "reasons" for leaving, and said "[t]hat [she] was moving out of state."

The Appeal Tribunal expressly asked claimant "[w]as there any other reason why you left the job other than relocating to Florida?" She answered "Yes. I couldn't afford paying child care at the rate that they were paying me." At the time of the hearing, the couple was living in Florida and the father was "supporting [claimant] and [her] two children." Finally, claimant said that the reason she withdrew the restraining order was that she "didn't want any more problems," and that "sooner or later [she] would have lost [her] job because of him."

Our scope of review is extremely limited. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). If the Board of Review's findings of fact are supported "by sufficient credible evidence, courts are obligated to accept them." Ibid. We can overturn the Board's final administrative determination only if it was "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable." Ibid.

The record in this case clearly demonstrates no basis for reversing the denial of benefits on the grounds that claimant left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work. N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). Nothing in the record made before the Appeal Tribunal demonstrates a basis for a determination that claimant left work other than for personal reasons, which required the denial of benefits. See Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 213; Self v. Bd. of Review, 91 N.J. 453, 456-57 (1982).

Accordingly, the final administrative determination of the Board of Review is affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-3260-04T5

March 23, 2006