SANDRA MOLL v. BOARD OF REVIEW et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5359-04T55359-04T5

SANDRA MOLL,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW and

GRACE WRIGHT, M.D.,

Respondents.

____________________________________

 

Submitted June 1, 2006 - Decided June 16, 2006

Before Judges Conley and Winkelstein.

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

Sandra Moll, appellant pro se.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondents (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Alan C. Stephens, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals the denial of her unemployment application pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). We affirm.

The pertinent facts are fairly straightforward. Appellant worked for respondent employer from January 2002 to January 7, 2005, as a housekeeper/nanny. In April 2004, she requested a pay raise. The request was denied and her employer told her she was free to leave if she could find a better paying job but to give her sufficient notice in advance so that the employer could make other arrangements. At that time, however, appellant decided to stay.

On December 31, 2004, appellant again requested a pay raise. There was a dispute as to what actually then occurred but the version accepted by the Appeal Tribunal and the Board was that after the employer denied the request, appellant told her that she did not want to work there anymore and gave the employer two weeks notice. Within a week, the employer placed her son in daycare. She then gave appellant her last paycheck and told her she was no longer needed.

Viewing these facts as a disqualifying voluntary quit, e.g., Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 213, 221-22 (1997), the Appeal Tribunal found:

In cases bordering between discharge and voluntary leaving, the one who initiates that action which eventually leads to the separation is the one who is responsible for breaking the employer-employee relationship.

In this case, the claimant gave notice of her intention to leave work for other employment which shows the claimant initiated the action which caused the separation. The claimant's reason for leaving was not for good cause. Therefore, the claimant is disqualified for benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) as of 1/2/2005, as the claimant left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work.

The Board agreed.

On appeal, appellant insists that she did no more than tell her employer she would begin to look for other employment and that if she found another job she would give her employer two or three weeks notice. But that was not the employer's testimony. It is, of course, not our function to interfere with the agency's credibility determinations and fact findings. Logan v. Bd. of Review, 299 N.J. Super. 346, 348 (App. Div. 1997). Furthermore, our scope of review is limited. Brady v. Bd. of Review, supra, 152 N.J. at 210-11. The Board's determination here was supported by the record and is not arbitrary, capricious nor unreasonable. As such, it is entitled to our deference. Ibid.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5359-04T5

June 16, 2006