JOYEBUZOR-ONAYEMI v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2001-16T4
JOY EBUZOR-ONAYEMI,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,
CARINGHOUSE PROJECTS, AW HOLDINGS,
and SUSSEX COUNTY ARC,
Respondents.
_______________________________
Submitted January 25, 2018 – Decided February 14, 2018
Before Judges Simonelli and Haas.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department
of Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No.
099,758.
Onyejekwe & Associates, LLP, attorneys for
appellant (Sylvia I. Onyejekwe, on the
briefs).
Gubir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
for respondent Board of Review (Melissa Dutton
Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of
counsel; Aimee Blenner, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
Respondents Caringhouse Projects, AW
Holdings, and Sussex County ARC, have not
filed briefs.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Joy Ebuzor-Onayemi appeals from the December 5,
2016 decision of the Board of Review (Board) finding that she was
not entitled to extended unemployment benefits during training
(ABT). For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
The relevant facts are not in dispute. Appellant worked for
three different employers as a direct care aide. She was employed
by Caringhouse Projects from March 2011 until she was laid off on
March 30, 2014; by AW Holdings from September 2011 until she was
laid off on March 30, 2014; and by Sussex County ARC from September
2009 until she was fired on March 9, 2014.
On April 13, 2014, appellant filed a claim for unemployment
benefits based upon her work for each of her three employers. On
May 21, 2014, a Deputy Claims Examiner (Deputy) found that
appellant was disqualified for benefits because all three
employers had allegedly discharged her for severe misconduct
connected with the work under
N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(b). Appellant
appealed these determinations to the Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal).
Following a telephone hearing at which appellant and all
three employers participated, the Tribunal found that Sussex
County ARC terminated appellant's employment "because she was
2 A-2001-16T4
caught on camera sleeping on the job." The Tribunal concluded
that appellant's actions that evening constituted "simple
misconduct" and disqualified her for benefits for the eight-week
period between March 9, 2014 and May 3, 2014. After this period
of disqualification, appellant became eligible again and collected
all the benefits due to her for her work for Sussex County ARC.
With regard to appellant's two other employers, the Tribunal
found that appellant "did not engage in any act that could be
construed as misconduct." Accordingly, the Tribunal found
appellant eligible for unemployment benefits without
disqualification based upon her employment at Caringhouse Projects
and AW Holdings. Appellant thereafter collected all the benefits
due to her for her work with these two employers.
On August 28, 2016, appellant applied for ABT while she was
participating in a vocational training program. The purpose of
ABT is to provide benefits to workers who have been displaced from
their employment while they attend training programs that teach
them "new skills to reenter a more marketable area of the economy."
Bonilla v. Bd. of Review,
337 N.J. Super. 612, 616 (App. Div.
2001).
In order to receive ABT, a claimant must meet a number of
statutory requirements set forth in
N.J.S.A. 43:21-60, including
3 A-2001-16T4
two that are relevant to the present appeal. In pertinent part,
N.J.S.A. 43:21-60 provides that ABT
shall be provided to any individual who:
a. Has received a notice of a permanent
termination of employment by the individual's
employer or has been laid off and is unlikely
to return to his previous employment because
work opportunities in the individual's job
classification are impaired by a substantial
reduction of employment at the worksite; [and]
b. Is, at the time of the layoff or
termination, eligible, pursuant to the
"unemployment compensation law," [N.J.S.A.]
43:21-1 et seq., for unemployment benefits[.]
As already noted, appellant was laid off from two of her
employers, Caringhouse Projects and AW Holdings. The Tribunal
found that appellant's third employer, Sussex County ARC, had
terminated her for simple misconduct.
A Deputy initially granted appellant's application for ABT,
and she collected these benefits for two weeks. However, the
Deputy then issued a redetermination holding her ineligible for
benefits for ABT because of her prior disqualification for simple
misconduct in connection with her work at Sussex County ARC. The
Deputy also requested that appellant refund the ABT she had already
received.
Appellant filed an appeal with the Tribunal, arguing that
even if she was not eligible for ABT because she had been
4 A-2001-16T4
terminated for simple misconduct, rather than laid off, by Sussex
County ARC, she still qualified for ABT based upon her employment
with Caringhouse Projects and AW Holdings. On October 18, 2016,
the Tribunal determined after a telephone hearing that appellant
was ineligible for ABT under
N.J.S.A. 43:21-60(a).
The Tribunal found that because appellant was terminated by
Sussex County ARC for simple misconduct, her separation from
employment was not due to "substantial reduction in work" as
required by
N.J.S.A. 43:21-60(a). The Tribunal did not address
the fact that appellant had worked for two other employers and
that both of them had laid her off because of a lack of work.
Appellant filed an appeal with the Board, which issued its
final decision on December 5, 2016. Although the Board adopted
the Tribunal's findings of fact, it disagreed with the Tribunal's
conclusion that appellant was ineligible for ABT under
N.J.S.A.
43:21-60(a). Instead, the Board denied her claim based upon
N.J.S.A. 43:21-60(b) which, as stated above, provides that ABT
benefits are not available to a claimant who "at the time of the
layoff or termination," is not "eligible . . . for unemployment
benefits."
In so ruling, the Board noted that Sussex County ARC
terminated appellant on March 9, 2014 for simple misconduct and
she would later be disqualified for benefits for an eight-week
5 A-2001-16T4
period ending on May 3, 2014. Thus, the Board concluded that
appellant was not eligible for unemployment benefits when she
applied for them on the basis of her work for three separate
employers on April 13, 2014. According to the Board, it did not
matter that appellant was laid off by Caringhouse Projects and AW
Holdings three weeks after Sussex County ARC terminated her, and
she was eligible for unemployment benefits for her work with these
two employers from March 30, 2014. The Board stated:
The fact that [appellant's] separation with
two other employers were [sic] not for
disqualifying reasons does not overcome the
disqualification imposed with [Sussex County
ARC]. Since [appellant] was not eligible for
benefits after her termination, she is
ineligible for [ABT] in accordance with
N.J.S.A. 43:21-60(b).
This appeal followed.
On appeal, appellant argues that the Board erred when it
found her ineligible for ABT under
N.J.S.A. 43:21-60(b) because
she was plainly eligible for unemployment benefits at the time she
was laid off by Caringhouse Projects and AW Holdings. Therefore,
appellant asserts she was entitled to ABT based upon her work
with, and wages earned from, these two employers. We agree.
Our review of an administrative agency decision is limited.
Brady v. Bd. of Review,
152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). In reviewing
the agency's factual findings, we give due regard to the agency's
6 A-2001-16T4
expertise. Greenwood v. State Police Training Ctr.,
127 N.J. 500,
513 (1992). Absent a finding that it was "arbitrary, capricious,
or unreasonable," we will not disturb an agency's decision. Brady,
152 N.J. at 210.
To ascertain whether an agency's decision is arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable, we must determine:
(1) whether the agency's action violates
express or implied legislative policies, that
is, did the agency follow the law; (2) whether
the record contains substantial evidence to
support the findings on which the agency based
its action; and (3) whether in applying the
legislative policies to the facts, the agency
clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that
could not reasonably have been made on a
showing of the relevant factors.
[Lavezzi v. State,
219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014)
(quoting In re Stallworth,
208 N.J. 182, 194
(2011)).]
"As a reviewing court, while we respect an agency's expertise,
ultimately the interpretation of statutes and regulations is a
judicial, not administrative, function and we are not bound by the
agency's interpretation." Silver v. Bd. of Review,
430 N.J. Super.
44, 58 (App. Div. 2013). Therefore, we are "not 'bound by [an]
agency's interpretation of a statute or its determination of a
strictly legal issue[.]'" Lavezzi,
219 N.J. at 172 (quoting
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Intermodal Props., LLC,
215 N.J. 142, 165
(2013)).
7 A-2001-16T4
"Our analysis of a statute begins with its plain language,
giving the words their ordinary meaning and significance." In re
Estate of Fisher,
443 N.J. Super. 180, 190 (App. Div. 2015) (citing
State v. Olivero,
221 N.J. 632, 639 (2015)). When, as here, the
language of a statute "clearly reveals [its] meaning, the court's
sole function is to enforce the statute in accordance with those
terms." Ibid.
Applying these principles, we are constrained to conclude
that the Board's determination that appellant was not eligible for
ABT based upon her work for Caringhouse Projects and AW Holdings
was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because it was
contrary to the plain language of
N.J.S.A. 43:21-60(b).1 As noted
above, this statute provides that in order to qualify for ABT, the
claimant must be, "at the time of the layoff or termination,
eligible . . . for unemployment benefits." Here, the record
clearly demonstrates that appellant was eligible for unemployment
benefits for her work with both Caringhouse Projects and AW
Holdings on March 30, 2014, the date these employers laid her off.
Thus, appellant was clearly "eligible" for unemployment benefits
from these two employers "at the time of the layoff[,]" which is
1
Consistent with its final decision, the Board does not assert
on appeal that appellant failed to meet the requirements of
N.J.S.A. 43:21-60(a).
8 A-2001-16T4
all that
N.J.S.A. 43:21-60(b) requires. Therefore, the Board
should have granted appellant's application for ABT based upon her
work with, and wages earned from, Caringhouse Projects and AW
Holdings.
On appeal, the Board asserts that once appellant was
disqualified for unemployment benefits for her work with Sussex
ARC as of March 9, 2014, she was not "eligible" for these benefits
when she was laid off three weeks later by her two other employers.
It boldly states, "[t]he fact that [appellant] was terminated from
two other employers for separate reasons does not negate her
ineligibility." In making this argument, however, the Board does
not cite to any statute, regulation, or decisional law in this
State supporting this proposition.
It is well established that "[c]ourts should use common sense
in interpreting statutes and avoid absurd results." Simpkins v.
Saiani,
356 N.J. Super. 26, 36 (App. Div. 2002) (citation omitted).
If the Board's reasoning were adopted, appellant would be punished
for having worked for three separate employers and then having the
misfortune of being fired by one of them before being laid off by
the other two because of a lack of work. There is simply nothing
in
N.J.S.A. 43:21-60(b) that requires, or even suggests, that a
disqualification based on a claimant's work with one employer
should act as a bar to ABT based upon the claimant's separate work
9 A-2001-16T4
history with two other employers, which resulted in her receipt
of unemployment benefits without any period of disqualification.
Therefore, we reject the Board's contention.
We reverse the final decision of the Board denying ABT and
the request for refund. The case is remanded to the Division of
Unemployment Insurance to determine the amount of ABT to which
appellant is entitled for her employment with Caringhouse Projects
and AW Holdings within thirty days of the date of this opinion.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
10 A-2001-16T4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
