LORETTA MANFRE v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al.
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-6178-05T56178-05T5
LORETTA MANFRE,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
and MURPHY BUS CO.,
Respondent.
________________________________________________________
Submitted June 12, 2007 - Decided June 26, 2007
Before Judges Stern and Coburn.
On appeal from the Board of Review,
Department of Labor, 111,148.
Loretta Manfre, appellant pro se.
Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney
for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Ellen A.
Reichart, Deputy Attorney General, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
The Board of Review issued a final administrative decision on July 11, 2006, rejecting Loretta Manfre's claim for unemployment compensation. She appeals, arguing that the decision was contrary to the evidence and arbitrary.
After considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that the Board's decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence on the record as a whole, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D), and that the arguments raised by Manfre are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Nonetheless, we add the following comments.
In essence, Manfre resigned when her pay was cut from $10 per hour to $9.50 per hour. The Board found that Manfre believed the pay cut was done in retaliation for her voicing of concerns about an autistic child on her bus route. In fact, the reduction was based on her being switched from wheelchair to non-wheelchair runs, as testified to by her supervisor. The Board found that the resignation was voluntary and without good cause attributable to the work. See N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a); Self v. Board of Review, 91 N.J. 453, 457 (1982). Since the Board's determination is supported by substantial credible evidence, we are obliged to affirm. See Barry v. Arrow Pontiac, Inc., 100 N.J. 57, 71 (1985).
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-6178-05T5
June 26, 2007
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.