CAROLYN M. GAILES v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2720-08T22720-08T2

CAROLYN M. GAILES,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR and WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

and DONAHOE & PUROHIT, INC.,

Respondents.

___________________________________

 

Submitted January 20, 2010 - Decided

Before Judges Fuentes, Gilroy and Simonelli.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No. 199,765.

Carolyn M. Gailes, appellant pro se.

Paula T. Dow, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Alan C. Stephens, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Respondent Donahoe & Purohit, Inc., has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Appellant Carolyn M. Gailes appeals from a final decision of the Board of Review (the Board) that affirmed the Appeal Tribunal's determination that she is ineligible for emergency unemployment compensation (EUC) benefits under the Federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 (Act), Pub. L. No. 110-252, Title IV, 122 Stat. 2323, 2353-57 (2008), for failure to establish at least twenty base weeks or earn wages exceeding forty times her weekly benefit rate during her base year.

Appellant contends that state employees in New York and New Jersey "misguided, [mis]instructed and [mis]informed" her in filing for benefits, resulting in her ineligibility for EUC benefits. Based upon our review of the record, in light of the applicable legal standards, we conclude that appellant's contention is without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). However, we add the following comments.

Appellant worked for Quintile in New York until March 2007. On April 2, 2007, she began employment with respondent Donahoe and Purohit, Inc. (Donahoe) in New Jersey. Her employment with Donahoe terminated in late May 2007.

Appellant filed for and collected unemployment benefits from New York from May 21, 2007 through May 25, 2008. Upon exhaustion of those benefits, she sought extended benefits in New York. She was instructed to file a new unemployment claim in New Jersey because Donahoe was her most recent employer.

On July 13, 2008, appellant filed for regular unemployment benefits in New Jersey. The claim was approved and established a base year of April 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008, and a weekly benefit rate of $560. Unemployment benefits were based on appellant's seven weeks of employment with Donahoe, which totaled $8,761.52. Appellant collected benefits from New Jersey through August 30, 2008, the date the claim was exhausted.

 
Appellant then sought EUC benefits. In order for her to be eligible for those benefits, the Act required that appellant have earnings in twenty base weeks of employment or earn forty times her weekly benefit rate of $560 ($22,400). Pub. L. No. 110-252, 4001 (d)(2), 122 Stat. 2323, 2354, 26 U.S.C. 3304 note. Appellant had no New York wages during the base year, she had only seven base weeks of employment with Donahoe, and she only had $8,761.53 in earnings. Accordingly, she was ineligible for EUC benefits.

Affirmed.

The Act appears as a note to and amends 26 U.S.C. 3304.

A base year is defined as the "first four of the last five completed calendar quarters immediately preceding an individual's benefit year." N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(c)(1).

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-2720-08T2

February 4, 2010