AKIMBERLY A. LIVINGSTON v. BOARD OF REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and PNC BANK

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

KIMBERLY A. LIVINGSTON,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW,

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

and PNC BANK,

Respondents.

________________________________________________________________

October 1, 2015

Submitted September 17, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Espinosa.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 341-289.

Kimberly A. Livingston, appellant pro se.

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Kristen N. Collar, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

This matter returns to us following a prior appeal and remand to the Appeal Tribunal. Kimberly A. Livingston appeals from a final decision of the Board of Review that found her disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits because she had been discharged for simple misconduct connected to her work. We affirm.

Appellant was employed as a manager at a branch of PNC Bank and was a licensed notary. It is undisputed that on April 20, 2011, she notarized an internal endorsement agreement for a bank customer who was in California. His wife was present in the bank at the time. Appellant testified that she spoke to him on the telephone and verified his signature on the electronic signature pad. In notarizing the document, appellant swore that the customer "personally appeared" before her. Appellant was discharged for falsifying a bank document by virtue of her notarizing the document.

In the hearing before the Appeals Examiner, appellant acknowledged that as a notary, she is required to only notarize the signature of a person who is in her presence and presents documentation that he or she is the person signing the form. She testified that a supervisor at another location, whom she could not identify, instructed her to notarize the document despite the fact that the bank customer was in California. She admitted she did not question the supervisor about this departure from the required procedure, that she did not know if the supervisor was a notary, and that "[l]ooking back," she should have had the person present when she notarized the document.

N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(b) provides that a person is disqualified for benefits for eight weeks if he or she is discharged for misconduct connected with the work. Based upon this record, the Appeal Tribunal concluded appellant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she engaged in simple misconduct connected to her work. The Appeal Tribunal explained its decision

[T]he claimant was discharged for improperly notarizing a bank document. The claimant is a licensed notary and should have known that it was not permitted to notarize a document without the person present before her even if it was requested by the customer and another employee. Although improper, the claimant's action does not rise to the level of severe misconduct. However, her action in violating the rules as a notary is considered simple misconduct.

The Board of Review affirmed the Appeal Tribunal's decision. Because there is sufficient credible evidence in the record from which the findings could reasonably have been drawn, In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999), we affirm.

Affirmed.