JAMES YEE 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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

A-5360-12T1

JAMES YEE,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR, and CAIR-NJ, INC.,

Respondents.

_________________________________

December 7, 2015

Submitted November 4, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Espinosa and Currier.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket Nos. 422-226 and 381-330.

James Yee, appellant pro se.

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

Respondent Cair NJ, Inc., has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Claimant James Yee, appeals from a final decision of the Board of Review affirming the decision of the Appeal Tribunal finding his claim for unemployment benefits invalid pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), as he left his employment voluntarily without good cause attributable to his work. Yee also appeals the final decision of the Board affirming the Tribunal's finding that he is liable for a refund of paid benefits under N.J.S.A. 43-21.16(d) and N.J.A.C. 12:17-14.2. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.

In August 2010, Yee was hired by CAIR NJ, Inc., as its executive director. CAIR is a non-profit Muslim civil rights organization. Yee, who is Muslim, authored a book recounting the discrimination he endured while working as a chaplain in the military at Guantanamo Bay. In addition, he has given frequent speeches after the publication of his book regarding civil rights abuse and his own personal experiences.

On December 15, 2011, Yee emailed his resignation to the Board of Directors stating that he had enjoyed his time at CAIR, but had other opportunities and ideas that he wished to explore. When the chairman met with him personally to ask him to stay, Yee again stated he wished to pursue other avenues. His last day at CAIR was January 27, 2012. In April, Yee filed a petition for unemployment benefits. The Division of Unemployment Insurance advised Yee that he was ineligible for benefits as he had

voluntarily left [his] job because [he] was dissatisfied with the working conditions. There is no evidence that the conditions of [his] employment were so severe as to cause [him] to leave available work to become unemployed. Therefore, [Yee's] reason for leaving does not constitute good cause attributable to the work.

Yee appealed the agency's determination and two telephone interviews were later held in October 2012 before the Appeal Tribunal. The Tribunal reversed the prior decision, noting that "although . . . claimant's condition is not work connected, his medical condition is aggravated by his work environment. . . . As such, good cause [had] been established." The Tribunal determined that Yee had not left work voluntarily without good cause and he was entitled to benefits.

CAIR appealed the Tribunal's determination, and after finding some irregularities in the hearing officer's conduct during the first hearing, the matter was remanded to a new Appeal Tribunal. Another telephone interview was held on April 4, 2013, following which the Tribunal found Yee had left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work and was disqualified from benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). The Board affirmed the Tribunal's decision, and subsequently declined to reopen its decision. The Board also affirmed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal finding Yee liable for the return of $27,744 for benefits he had already received. These appeals ensued.

Yee contends that he left his job for medical and mental reasons which were aggravated by his work and, therefore, he should not have been disqualified from benefits. He states that his pre-existing medical condition of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was aggravated by his job with CAIR. We conclude that Yee did not provide sufficient evidence to support his argument.

Yee never disclosed his medical condition at any time during the course of his employment, nor at the time of his resignation. During the first telephone interview with the Appeal Tribunal, he provided a note dated December 7, 2011, from Dr. John Williams of the New Jersey Veterans Administration Health Care, which reiterated Yee's history with the military and stated "Patient meets criteria for mild PTSD. . . . Patient has been stable on the current regimen. Patient reports that he has been stable, he is looking for another position as Director of another non-profit." At the request of the hearing officer, Yee then provided an additional note during the second telephone interview, which stated

To whom it may concern, I have . . . treated Mr. James Yee for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder since April 2012. . . . He is trained in management and sales, and teaching English as a second language, and was a member of the clergy. Pursuing a career in one of these areas would be recommended. Work in law enforcement, security, military, and civil rights areas might be more likely to trigger PTSD symptoms.

The letter was signed by Gwen Jones, Ph.D., clinical psychologist. At the remand telephone interview in April 2013, Yee submitted a second letter from Jones. This letter was dated March 22, 2013, and reads similarly to the first note, however adding

It seems clear that the nature of Mr. Yee's employment at CAIR New Jersey, especially during the period August 2011 to January 2012, exacerbated his PTSD symptoms. . . . At this stage in his treatment it would be advisable for him to abort work in law enforcement, security, military, civil rights areas as these have been shown to trigger Mr. Yee's PTSD symptoms.

Yee's testimony reveals that he was diagnosed with PTSD in 2005. He contends that his PTSD was triggered in September 2011, with the extensive media coverage of the tenth anniversary of September 11 causing him to recall events that occurred to him personally in 2003. When Yee learned in October 2011 that the FBI and New York Police Department were conducting surveillance of the Muslim community, he decided to leave his job.

Our review of an agency decision is limited. A final decision of an administrative agency should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). An appellate court should undertake a "careful and principled consideration of the agency record and findings." Riverside Gen. Hosp. v. N.J. Hosp. Rate Setting Comm'n., 98 N.J. 458, 468 (1985). The findings of the administrative agency should be affirmed if they "'could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record,' considering 'the proofs as a whole,' with due regard also to the agency's expertise." Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965) (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964)).

The Appeal Tribunal found that Yee left his employment for personal reasons, confirming what he told CAIR at the time of his resignation. Yee never asked for any other position in the national organization, nor did he mention any medical condition to his employer. On December 11, before his resignation, Williams' note stated that Yee was looking for a position at another non-profit organization. It references Yee's diagnosis of mild PTSD as a stable condition. After being advised by a hearing officer to obtain additional medical information, Yee obtained a note from a psychologist which then recommended he obtain a job in another field, as working in the civil rights area might be more likely to trigger PTSD symptoms. At the remand hearing, Yee produced a second note from Jones, which was prepared sixteen months after his resignation. We do not find the proofs submitted by Yee to be persuasive evidence that he had a medical condition that was aggravated by his work. See Wojcik v. Bd. of Review, 58 N.J. 341, 344 (1971) (concluding that a doctor's statement that work may aggravate a claimant's pre-existing condition is not sufficient to support a finding of "good cause" under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a)).

The Board of Review correctly determined that Yee was disqualified for unemployment benefits. As such, Yee is liable for a refund of benefits received.

Affirmed.