MECCA K. BROWN 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0

MECCA K. BROWN,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT

OF LABOR, and STATE OF NEW

JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF JUDICIARY,

Respondents.

_______________________________

December 16, 2015

Submitted October 27, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Whipple.

On appeal from Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 00002428.

The Law Firm of Irving & Mendenhall, attorneys for appellant (Farrah A. Irving, of counsel and on the brief).

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondents (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Peter H. Jenkins, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Mecca Brown, appeals from an April 8, 2014 final decision of the Board of Review (the Board) decision denying her unemployment benefits. We affirm.

Brown was employed by the New Jersey Judiciary as a Court Services Supervisor from August 2011 until September 2013. In March 2013, Brown had requested to take Family and Medical Leave through the Human Resources Department. She asserts that during a conversation between herself and a representative of Human Resources she was ridiculed about her medical condition. She reported the incident to her supervisor. Brown also reported dissatisfaction with reassignment to the Criminal Division which she said was not conducive to her health because she considered it a hostile work environment. After her reassignment she tendered her resignation in a letter dated September 16, 2013 indicating that she needed to "advance [her] professional career and utilize [her skills] and experience in another capacity".

Brown applied for unemployment benefits on September 29, 2013 and was notified on October 23, 2013 that she was ineligible for benefits because she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work. Brown appealed the disqualification to the Appeal Tribunal. The Appeal Tribunal affirmed the decision after a hearing on January 15, 2014. Brown appealed the decision to the Board and on April 8, 2014, the Board affirmed the Appeal Tribunal's ruling. This appeal followed.

We maintain a limited capacity when reviewing administrative agency decisions. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). We will not upset the ultimate determination of an agency unless shown that it was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or that it violated legislative policies expressed or implied in the act governing the agency or the findings on which the decision is based are not supported by the evidence. See Prado v. State, 186 N.J. 413, 427 (2006). Moreover, "[i]n 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." Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 210. Because Brown challenges the Board's finding of fact, the Brady standard is applicable here.

The New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Law states an individual shall be disqualified for benefits

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, which may include employment for the federal government, and has earned in employment at least ten times individual's weekly benefit rate, as determined in each case.

[N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) (emphasis added).]

Brown admitted during the hearing that she left voluntarily. Her single claim on appeal is that she left voluntary with good cause, and is thus eligible for benefits. We disagree.

As a preliminary matter, Brown had the burden of proof in establishing that she left her job for good cause attributable to her work. Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 213. She argues that she left her job because the circumstances were so inhospitable that she was constructively discharged. However, "[a] constructive discharge claim requires more egregious conduct than that sufficient for a hostile work environment claim." Shepherd v. Hunterdon Developmental Ctr., 174 N.J. 1, 28 (2002). It requires conduct that is so intolerable that a reasonable person would be forced to resign rather than continue to endure such conduct in the work place. Ibid. This standard envisions a "sense of outrageous, coercive and unconscionable requirements." Ibid.

In this case, Brown asserts that her experience with a human resources representative laughing at her, as well as her experience in being transferred to a unit where some co-workers were disrespectful, constituted conduct tantamount to discharge. However, she never submitted evidence supporting her testimony. Moreover, Brown did not utilize all of the resources available to her to resolve her problems. She had the ability, as a supervisor, to document and correct insubordinate, disrespectful behavior. She also could have reported her issues with the workplace to a union representative, or to one of her superiors. "An employee has the obligation to do what is necessary and reasonable in order to remain employed rather than simply quit." Ibid. Brown's failure in this regard is enough to deny her claim because of her obligation to take steps to remain employed.

Finally, Brown's resignation letter states that the reason for her departure was to search for additional professional opportunities. She did not allege the same problems as she did with the appeal examiner in her letter. Taken together, there is sufficient, credible evidence to support the Board's findings and there is no basis to disturb the Board's decision, as the decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Affirmed.