BERNARD N. HOPKINS 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0208-12T4

BERNARD N. HOPKINS,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR and MANHEIM

REMARKETING, INC.,

Respondents.

________________________________________________________________

Submitted May 6, 2014 Decided May 15, 2014

Before Judges Espinosa and Koblitz.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 361,469.

Bernard N. Hopkins, appellant pro se.

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Nicole P. Col n, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Respondent Manheim Remarketing, Inc. has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Bernard N. Hopkins appeals from a July 30, 2012 final decision of the Board of Review that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits. We affirm.

Hopkins worked for Manheim Remarketing, Inc. as a car auction worker for $8 an hour from August 5, 2010 until September 22, 2011. As a requirement of the job, he was obligated to work at two auctions each week, one on Tuesday afternoon and the other Thursday night. He was also provided other work during the week transporting cars. On September 22, seventy-five-year-old Hopkins informed his employer that he was unable to work at the Thursday night auction because he suffered from macular degeneration. Although the auction site was well-lit, driving home at night after the auction was dangerous due to his vision impairment. As he could no longer safely commute home from a required job activity, he was terminated.

Hopkins was initially found eligible for unemployment benefits. Manheim Remarketing appealed to the Appeal Tribunal and a telephonic hearing was held. The Appeal Tribunal disqualified Hopkins for benefits because he voluntarily left "without good cause attributable to the work." The Board of Review affirmed.

N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) disqualifies a claimant from receiving unemployment benefits if the employee "has left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work[.]" N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.3(b) provides that an individual

who leaves a job due to a physical and/or mental condition or state of health which does not have a work-connected origin but is aggravated by working conditions will not be disqualified for benefits for voluntarily leaving work without good cause "attributable to such work," provided there was no other suitable work available which the individual could have performed within the limits of the disability. When a non-work connected physical and/or mental condition makes it necessary for an individual to leave work due to an inability to perform the job, the individual shall be disqualified for benefits for voluntarily leaving work.

Employees who quit because of commuting difficulties do not demonstrate "good cause attributable to [] work." White v. Bd. of Review, 146 N.J. Super.268, 270 (App. Div. 1977). Here, Hopkins informed his employer that he could no longer perform a required part of his job, working the Thursday night auction, because of the commute home. The work did not aggravate his vision problem. Although Hopkins did not specifically inform his employer that he quit, by informing his employer that he would no longer perform a required part of the job due to a commuting difficulty, he gave the employer no choice but to terminate him or change the job requirements. Hopkins provides no legal support for his position that, pursuant to the Unemployment Compensation Law, N.J.S.A.43:21-1 to -24.30, the employer was required to change the job requirements to accommodate his commuting difficulty.

The facts giving rise to the application of the disqualification here are undisputed. It was Hopkins' burden to establish his entitlement to collect unemployment benefits, Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 218 (1997), a burden he failed to meet. We therefore conclude that the Board's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable and had adequate support in the record. Id. at 210-11.

Affirmed.