KATHERINE P. CUCCI 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1629-04T51629-04T5

KATHERINE P. CUCCI,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR,

Respondent-Respondent,

and

KRAFT FOODS NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Respondent.

_____________________________________

 

Submitted September 28, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Wefing and Wecker.

On appeal from the Board of Review,

Department of Labor, BR-18,140.

Katherine P. Cucci, appellant pro se.

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General,

attorney for respondent Board of Review,

Department of Labor (Michael J. Haas,

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;

Alan C. Stephens, Deputy Attorney General,

on the brief).

Kraft Foods North America, Inc., respondent

has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Petitioner, Katherine P. Cucci, appeals from a final agency decision of the Board of Review, affirming the determination of the Appeal Tribunal. The Tribunal determined that petitioner was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she left her employment without good cause related to the job. N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a).

We have examined the record and the briefs in light of applicable law, and we are satisfied that petitioner's contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant extended discussion in a written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). We therefore affirm, adding only this brief comment.

After sixteen years in the employ of respondent Kraft Foods North America, Inc., and its predecessors, petitioner availed herself of a family medical leave beginning July 15, 2003, to care for and relocate her elderly mother to the milder climate of South Carolina. Petitioner assumed, without assurance from her employer, that she would be allowed to continue working (in her previous capacity) from her new home in South Carolina.

Four days before petitioner's family leave ended on October 7, she was told that her job in New Jersey remained available, but she could not telecommute; she would have to work from the office in New Jersey. That was not, however, a practical option, since petitioner had already moved to South Carolina.

While petitioner's reasons for moving are certainly understandable, even laudable, nonetheless they are entirely personal. Petitioner did not have good cause related to the job for leaving respondent's employ. The evidence clearly supports the agency's decision.

 
Affirmed.

Her assumption apparently arose from her perception that certain other employees had been permitted to work from home, and her employer's failure for several months to respond to her e-mailed intention to work from home.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1629-04T5

November 3, 2005