DENISE M. ELLIS v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4699-05T14699-05T1

DENISE M. ELLIS,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR, and INIMEG

MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC.,

Respondents.

 

Submitted March 21, 2007 - Decided March 30, 2007

 
Before Judges Winkelstein and Baxter.

On appeal from a Final Decision of the Board of Review, Department of Labor, 98,628.

Denise M. Ellis, appellant pro se.

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney for respondent, Board of Review (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Andrea R. Grundfest, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Denise Ellis, appeals from a March 30, 2006, final decision of the Board of Review. The Board affirmed a January 27, 2006 decision of the Appeal Tribunal that disqualified appellant for unemployment compensation benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) because she voluntarily left work without good cause attributable to work. We affirm.

Appellant was employed as an insurance coordinator at a doctor's office from April 23, 2005 through December 6, 2005; she worked Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, for a total of thirty hours a week, and was paid $21 per hour. The circumstances leading to her leaving the office were described during a January 20, 2006 telephonic hearing. Appellant testified at that hearing, as did her employer, Dr. Joseph Bufano, and two other witnesses: Bufano's mother, Charlene Bufano, the office manager; and another employee, Diana Andared.

In its decision, the Appeal Tribunal concisely summarized the events that led to appellant's resigning from her employment.

The claimant called in on 12/06/05 to report that she was going to be late for work. The claimant indicated that she would be in between 10:00am and 11:00am. The claimant's car was being repaired and her husband was going to bring her to work. The claimant arrived at work at 11:45am. The claimant was called into the doctor's office and issued a written warning for her late arrival. The claimant became quite upset and she left the office and called her husband to ask his advice concerning the situation.

The claimant returned to the doctor's office and tendered her resignation offering a two (2) week notice in order to be available to train a replacement. The employer told the claimant that her notice was not necessary and she could leave immediately. The claimant telephoned her husband and asked him to come and pick her up. The claimant's husband picked her up at the office and she left the facility.

An applicant for unemployment compensation benefits has the burden to prove entitlement to benefits. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 218 (1997). As an appellate court, our role of reviewing a State agency's decision is limited we only reverse the decision if it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656-57 (1999).

Here, having reviewed the facts in light of the applicable law, we conclude that the Board's decision is supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. After arriving at work at 11:45 a.m. on December 6, 2005, appellant was upset after being given a written reprimand for being late. After being presented with the written reprimand, she spoke to her husband by phone, and then simply quit. She was not terminated or otherwise forced to resign. She left because she did not believe a written reprimand was warranted.

Appellant claims that her working hours were too rigid, that her boss claimed that he "owned her," and that she was not provided time off for doctor's visits. Nevertheless, the record clearly supports the agency's decision that she left work because she was upset after being reprimanded for arriving late.

In her brief, appellant also raises a plethora of additional reasons why she believed she was forced to terminate her employment. She did not, however, assert those reasons during the hearing or before the Board, and, accordingly, those reasons are deemed waived. Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973). A fair reading of her hearing testimony shows that she only resigned after talking to her husband, who apparently told her that she should not have been reprimanded for arriving late. Given the circumstances, we do not find the decision of the Board to have been arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the Appeal Tribunal and adopted by the full Board.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-4699-05T1

March 30, 2007