OLGA KUHARETS VS. BOARD OF REVIEW (BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0446-18T2
OLGA KUHARETS,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and
BOROUGH OF FORT LEE,
Respondents.
Submitted December 3, 2019 – Decided December 13, 2019
Before Judges Fisher and Rose.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of
Labor, Docket No. 142,833.
Olga Kuharets, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent Board of Review (Donna Arons, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Sean P. Havern, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
Botta Angeli, LLC, attorneys for respondent Borough
of Fort Lee (Natalia R. Angeli, on the statement in lieu
of brief).
PER CURIAM
Claimant Olga Kuharets appeals a final decision of the Board of Review
disqualifying her from unemployment benefits because she left her job without
good cause attributable to the work. N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). We affirm.
Kuharets was employed by the Borough of Fort Lee's public library for
six years. An hour after her shift began on November 15, 2017, she reported her
absence, complaining of anxiety and depression. Kuharets sought
accommodations for those conditions and asked to change her employment from
full to part time. She was told to provide a doctor's note.
The next day, the note Kuharets provided from her physician stated
Kuharets was under his care for "intractable migraines and neck pain" and
needed "accommodations avoiding lifting, climbing stairs during the
exa[cerb]ation of her symptoms." Because the note was at odds with her verbal
reasons for calling out the day before, the employer requested additional medical
information in line with her reason for calling out on November 15. Kuharets
failed to provide that documentation, and never returned to work.
A-0446-18T2
2
In particular, Kuharets used two paid vacation days for November 16 and
17. Her employer then suspended Kuharets, without pay, from November 20 to
28 "due to both the late reporting of her absence [on] [November 15], and
numerous other recent absences." Kuharets signed a settlement agreement and
release, awarding her a $2,000 severance. 1 In exchange, Kuharets resigned from
her position effective November 30.
After a hearing in which the above facts were adduced, the Appeal
Tribunal determined claimant's allegations "that she was confused about the
separation process, was in danger of being fired, and that the union's legal team
. . . forc[ed] her to sign the . . . settlement agreement and release document . . .
lack[ed] credibility." The Appeal Tribunal elaborated:
While [claimant] was suspended for [eight] days for the
. . . improperly reported absence, and numerous other
recent absences, there [wa]s no written or verbal proof
presented to show that she was to be discharged upon
the conclusion of the suspension. Further, the language
of the settlement agreement, which the claimant signed,
allowed for a $2,000 severance payout, and also
allowed the claimant [twenty-one] days to fully review
the settlement. Clearly the claimant was financially
motivated to sign this document. If she was [sic]
initially confused about the whole process, it is clear
that she had a full [three] weeks to thoroughly review
the document prior to potentially signing the form. It
appears highly unlikely that the claimant would have
1
Only the first page of the agreement was provided on appeal.
A-0446-18T2
3
been forced by the union to sign the document based
upon this extensive timeline. Finally, while the
claimant contends that her medical issues were caused
by the job, this is not stated in the only medical note
provided by her to the employer dated 11/16/17.
The Board adopted the Appeal Tribunal's decision. This appeal followed.
In her pro se brief on appeal, Kuharets presents a single point for our
consideration:
CLAIMANT'S LEAVING [HER] JOB IN ORDER TO
WORK PART-TIME WHILE RECOVERING FROM
UNDETERMINED CONSEQUENCES DUE TO
INJURIES CONSTITUTES GOOD CAUSE
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE WORK AND,
THEREFORE, CLAIMAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN DISQUALIFIED FOR BENEFITS.
In support of her argument, Kuharets summarily states her employer
denied her request for part-time employment, which she sought "to improve
working conditions to recover fully from severe trauma." Kuharets contends
"habitual mental strain caused by unequal treatment combined with multiple
unforeseeable physical injuries demonstrate good cause attributable to work and
qualify [her] for benefits."
We have considered these contentions in light of the record and applicable
legal principles, and conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Pursuant to our limited
A-0446-18T2
4
standard of review, In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011), we affirm, as did
the Board, substantially for the reasons expressed in the Appeal Tribunal's
cogent written decision, which "is supported by sufficient credible evidence on
the record as a whole." R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D); see also Brady v. Bd. of Review,
152 N.J. 197, 210-11 (1997).
Affirmed.
A-0446-18T2
5