BRIAN M. NORTON v. BOARD OF REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

BRIAN M. NORTON,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR and WILLIAMS-SONOMA,

INC.,

Respondents.

_________________________________

August 18, 2015

Submitted August 5, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Espinosa.

On appeal from the Board of Review,

Department of Labor, Docket No. 407,415.

Brian M. Norton, appellant pro se.

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General,

attorney for respondent Board of Review

(Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General,

of counsel; Cameryn J. Hinton, Deputy Attorney

General, on the brief).

Respondent Williams Sonoma, Inc., has not filed

a brief.

PER CURIAM

Claimant appeals from a December 18, 2013 final decision of the Board of Review. Because the Board's decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence and is consistent with applicable law, we affirm. R.2:11-3(e)(D); Brady v. Board of Review, 152 N.J.197, 210 (1997).

Claimant's appellate arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R.2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Nonetheless, we add these brief comments.

Claimant, an assistant store manager, was fired for violating his employer's policy concerning the use of an employee discount. The employer's policy was quite strict. Claimant signed an acknowledgement that he received a copy of the policy, which provided that misuse of an employee discount would be grounds for termination. Further, as an assistant manager he was responsible for enforcing the policy.

While the Deputy initially found claimant eligible for benefits, the employer appealed. Claimant failed to appear for the appeal hearing and has provided no explanation for his non-appearance. As a result, the only legally competent evidence in the record consists of the testimony and documents presented on behalf of the employer, and that evidence is sufficient to support the Board's conclusion that claimant was terminated for misconduct connected with the work. SeeN.J.S.A.43:21-5(b). On this appeal, claimant contends that what occurred was due to a misunderstanding. However, he admits he did not offer his employer that explanation before he was terminated. Moreover, if claimant wanted the Board and this court to consider his explanation, it was his obligation to participate in the hearing and provide sworn testimony. As previously noted he has not given any reason for failing to participate in the hearing.

Affirmed.