RENEE D. DANIELS v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4808-04T24808-04T2

RENEE D. DANIELS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR and INTERNAL REVENUE

SERVICE,

Defendant-Respondents.

_______________________________

 

Submitted January 18, 2006 - Decided February 14, 2006

Before Judges Hoens and Seltzer.

On appeal from a final decision of the

Board of Review, Department of Labor,

64,498.

Renee D. Daniels, appellant pro se.

Nancy Kaplen, Acting Attorney General,

attorney for respondent Board of Review

(Patrick DeAlmedia, Assistant Attorney

General, of counsel; Allan J. Nodes,

Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Respondent Internal Revenue Service did

not file a brief.

PER CURIAM

Claimant, Renee D. Daniels, filed a claim for unemployment benefits. A deputy to the Director of the Division of Unemployment and Disability Insurance Services denied the application. An appeal was taken to the Appeal Tribunal and, after a hearing, the denial of benefits was affirmed. The Board of Review affirmed and Daniels appeals from that decision. Because the agency decision is supported by substantial credible evidence in the record, we affirm.

We note at the outset that our review of the decision of an administrative agency is relatively narrow. Our task is simply to determine whether the agency could reasonably have reached its conclusion based upon the proofs before it. We, therefore, look only to determine if "substantial credible evidence supports an agency's conclusion." Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). If so, we may not substitute our own conclusion for that of the agency, even if we would have decided differently had the matter been presented to us initially. Id.

The evidence produced at the hearing demonstrated Daniels had worked for the Internal Revenue Service as a tax examiner from December 21, 1987, until December 3, 2004, when she left the position. She admitted that she was married and that her husband, who worked for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was transferred, at his request, to a position in North Carolina. Claimant had also requested a transfer to North Carolina but no positions were open. Her husband's transfer was effective on December 13, 2004 and she moved to North Carolina with him.

Claimant testified that she left her job, not to accompany her husband, but because she had been told that her job was going to be abolished, although no specific date was ever announced. Daniels admitted that she was told, variously, that termination would occur in September, 2004, January, 2005, and, later, in March of 2005. As of the March 2005, hearing date, the position had not yet been abolished.

The Appeal Tribunal rejected claimant's explanation for her resignation. It found "the claimant worked for [the Department of Treasury] as a tax examiner from December 21, 1987 through December 3, 2004, at which time she left the work voluntarily to relocate to another area." Given that factual finding, the Board concluded that "the claimant is disqualified for benefits as of November 28, 2004, under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) as she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work."

The finding that claimant resigned to relocate with her husband is amply supported in this record. Given the temporal proximity of claimant's resignation to her husband's transfer and her unsuccessful attempt to obtain a transfer to the same area, the Board could well have concluded that claimant resigned in preparation for her relocation.

N.J.S.A. 43:21-5 provides that "an individual shall be disqualified for benefits" when that individual "has left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work." Claimant has the burden of demonstrating that a voluntary absence from her work was for good cause attributable to the work. Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 218. A relocation for personal reasons cannot be "attributable to the work." N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(e)(7) provides "an individual's separation from employment shall be reviewed as a voluntary leaving work issue where the separation was for the following reasons including, but not limited to: . . . (7) relocating to another area to accompany a spouse or other relatives."

The Board of Review's determination that claimant left her work for personal reasons relating to relocation is supported by substantial credible evidence, and its legal conclusion that the reason for separation was not "attributable to the work" was appropriate. We have no basis to reverse the decision.

For the sake of completeness, we add the following comments. Claimant would not be entitled to a different result even if the Board accepted that she resigned her position as a result of her belief that it would be abolished. Fernandez v. Bd. of Review, 304 N.J. Super. 603 (App. Div. 1997), considered the right of an employee to obtain unemployment benefits when he had resigned and accepted an early retirement package for fear that his position would be abolished. We held that "an employee's acceptance of a 'severance package' or 'early retirement incentive package' bars him from receiving unemployment benefits unless he shows he accepted the package because of a real, imminent and substantial risk of losing his job." Id. at 607. Claimant here is in the same situation. Absent a showing of a "real, imminent and substantial risk of losing" her job, claimant is not entitled to compensation benefits. The Board found, and Daniels admitted, that she "had been advised that her department was going to be abolished but no date was given to her." Accordingly she did not face any "real, imminent and substantial risk" of job loss.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-4808-04T2

February 14, 2006

 


Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.