SELENA CHRISTMAS v. BERKELEY COLLEGE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2848-08T1

SELENA CHRISTMAS,

Appellant,

v.

BERKELEY COLLEGE,

Respondent.

________________________________________

December 1, 2011

Submitted January 24, 2011 Decided

Before Judges A. A. Rodr guez and Grall.

On appeal from the Division of Civil Rights, Docket No. PR16HK-02986.

Schiffman, Abraham, Kaufman & Ritter, attorneys for appellant (Evan L. Goldman, of counsel; Lori A. Johnson, on the brief).

Joseph V. MacMahon, attorney for respondent Berkeley College.

Paula T. Dow, Attorney General, attorney for respondent New Jersey Division of Civil Rights (Andrea M. Silkowitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Beverley A. Lapsley, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Selena Christmas appeals from the December 23, 2008 final decision of the Director of the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights (Director), finding that she had not established a claim pursuant to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49 (LAD), against defendant Berkeley College. We affirm.

The facts are disputed. The Director referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Law at Christmas's request. After an evidentiary hearing, the Director adopted the factual findings of the Administrative Law Judge. Christmas appeals. When error in a factfinding of an administrative agency is alleged, the scope of appellate review is limited. We will only decide whether the findings made could reasonably have been reached on "sufficient" or "substantial" credible evidence present in the record, considering the proof as a whole. We give "due regard" to the ability of the factfinder to judge credibility and, where an agency's expertise is a factor, to that expertise. In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999); Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965).

Applying that standard here, and after a careful review of the arguments and the proofs, we determined that the decision of the Director is supported by sufficient credible evidence on the record as a whole. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).

Affirmed.