DONSICK O. MCCREA 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1949-12T3

DONSICK O. MCCREA,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR and CAMDEN COUNTY COLLEGE,

Respondents.

____________________________________

July 2, 2014

Submitted May 6, 2014 Decided

Before Judges Ostrer and Higbee.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 375,007.

Donsick O. McCrea, appellant pro se.

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

Karl N. McConnell, General Counsel, attorney for respondent Camden County College.

PER CURIAM

Claimant Donsick McCrea appeals from a final decision of the Board of Review, affirming the Appeal Tribunal's determination that he was disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) because he left work "voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work." Claimant alleges that he had "good cause" for leaving his employment that was attributable to his work, and that therefore he is qualified for unemployment compensation benefits. We conclude that the final decision of the Board of Review was supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record, and therefore, we affirm.

Claimant was employed as an Information Technology Technologist and instructor by Camden County College from August 2006 until December 15, 2011, when he tendered his resignation. Claimant asserts that he ended his employment with Camden County College due to a hostile work environment that allegedly affected his health. Claimant described two incidents to support his claim that there was a hostile work environment. He claims that on September 2, 2011, he was verbally attacked by a co-worker during a joint project, and that on September 19, 2011, he was again verbally attacked by another co-worker. Claimant also asserts that the management failed to properly train new employees and regularly evaluate staff. Claimant alleges that he attempted to resolve his issues before tendering his resignation, but that management did little to address these issues.

To support his claim that the alleged hostile work environment affected his health, claimant proffered two doctor's notes. The first, dated May 13, 2011, states, "please excuse the above pt. from work 5/13-5/20 due to job related stress." The second, dated December 12, 2011, reads, "please excuse the above pt. from work 12/12-12/13." Claimant also asserts that his job was the cause of his back pain and weight loss, but he proffers no medical evidence in support of these claims.

On January 15, 2012, claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits. On February 13, 2012, the Deputy of the Division of Unemployment and Disability Insurance issued a determination, finding that claimant was disqualified for benefits from December 11, 2011, on the ground that he left work voluntarily without "good cause" attributable to the work. On February 24, 2012, claimant appealed the Deputy's determination to the Appeal Tribunal. The Appeal Tribunal conducted a hearing on August 2, 2012. On August 3, 2012, the Appeal Tribunal issued a decision disqualifying claimant for benefits from December 11, 2011 because he left work voluntarily without "good cause" attributable to his work pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). On August 22, 2012, claimant appealed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal to the Board of Review. On October 12, 2012, the Board of Review issued a decision affirming the decision of the Appeal Tribunal. This appeal followed.

"The judicial capacity to review administrative agency decisions is limited." Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). "In reviewing the factual findings made in an unemployment compensation proceeding, the test is not whether an appellate court would come to the same conclusion if the original determination was its to make, but rather whether the factfinder could reasonably so conclude upon the proofs." Ibid. (quoting Charatan v. Bd. of Review, 200 N.J. Super. 74, 79 (App. Div. 1985)). If the factual findings of the Board of Review are supported "'by sufficient credible evidence, courts are obliged to accept them.'" Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 210 (quoting Self v. Bd. of Review, 91 N.J. 453, 459 (1982)). "Unless a Court finds that the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, the agency's ruling should not be disturbed." Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 210.

N.J.S.A. 43:21-5 states "[a]n individual shall be disqualified for benefits: (a) For the week in which the individual has left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work, and for each week thereafter until the individual becomes reemployed and works eight weeks in employment . . ." The claimant has the burden to prove that he left his employment for "good cause attributable to such work." Zielenski v. Bd. of Review, 85 N.J. Super. 46, 52 (App. Div. 1964). "Good cause attributable to such work" is defined by N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(b) as "a reason related directly to the individual's employment, which was so compelling as to give the individual no choice but to leave the employment." It has also been defined as "cause sufficient to justify an employee's voluntarily leaving the ranks of the employed and joining the ranks of the unemployed." Zielenski, supra, 85 N.J. Super. at 52. If an employee leaves work for personal reasons that are not related to the employment, the employee will be disqualified for benefits. Self v. Bd. of Review, 91 N.J. 453 (1982).

In order to qualify as "good cause" for a claimant voluntarily leaving his employment, harassment must be quite severe. Compare Associated Util. Servs., Inc. v. Bd. of Review, 131 N.J. Super. 584, 587, 589 (App. Div. 1974) (affirming award of unemployment benefits where supervisor continuously harassed and mistreated the claimant, and frequently called her at home to scold her), and Doering v. Bd. of Review, 203 N.J. Super. 241, 245 (App. Div. 1985) (approving unemployment benefits where a claimant was subject to sexual harassment and racially prejudicial comments), with Gerber v. Bd. of Review, 313 N.J. Super. 37, 39-40 (App. Div. 1998) (finding that "on-the-job reprimands", even if "public and arguably improper and humiliating", did not constitute "good cause" sufficient to qualify a claimant for unemployment benefits). "Mere dissatisfaction with working conditions which are not shown to be abnormal or do not affect health, does not constitute 'good cause' for leaving work voluntarily." Associated Util. Servs., supra, 131 N.J. Super. at 587.

The record supports the decision of the Board of Review affirming the Appeal Tribunal's finding that claimant failed to demonstrate "good cause" for terminating his employment. The sporadic incidents that claimant alleges occurred are not the type of abnormal work conditions that could constitute "good cause" sufficient to justify the voluntary termination of employment.

Additionally, claimant failed to demonstrate that his employment with Camden County College caused or aggravated his medical conditions. "When an individual leaves work for health or medical reasons, medical certification shall be required to support a finding of good cause attributable to work." N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.3(d). A claimant satisfies this requirement when he provides medical documentation demonstrating that work conditions caused and/or aggravated his condition. Israel v. Bally's Park Place, 283 N.J. Super. 1, 5 (App. Div. 1995).

The two doctor's notes that claimant provided do not satisfy the standard under N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.3(d). The first note simply states that claimant had job-related stress, with no further diagnosis or documentation. The second note provides even less information, stating only that claimant should be medically excused from work for two days for unspecified reasons. Neither note establishes the evidence to support claimant's position that he was forced to leave his employment.

We affirm the Board of Review's decision affirming the Appeal Tribunal's determination that claimant was disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits.

Affirmed.