AMINATA M. KOROMA VS. BOARD OF REVIEW (BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT) ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4092-16T3
AMINATA M. KOROMA,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT, U.S. SECURITY
ASSOCIATES, INC. and SECURITAS
SECURITY SERVICES U.S.,
Respondents.
Submitted December 12, 2018 – Decided December 31, 2018
Before Judges Ostrer and Currier.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of
Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No.
108,805.
Aminata M. Koroma, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent Board of Review (Melissa Dutton Schaffer,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Marolhin D.
Mendez, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Respondents U.S. Security Associates, Inc. and
Securitas Security Services U.S. have not filed briefs.
PER CURIAM
Claimant Aminata Koroma appeals from the April 3, 2017 decision of the
Board of Review (Board) finding her false and fraudulent representations
disqualified her from unemployment benefits, N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(g)(1), and
finding her liable for a refund of benefits paid and the imposed fine. We affirm.
Claimant applied for unemployment benefits in April 2015. She certified
her earnings using the telephone system of the Division of Unemployment
Insurance (Division). In response to the question whether claimant had worked
that week, she answered "no." She answered "no" to this inquiry for the twenty-
five weeks she confirmed her eligibility to receive benefits. Claimant received
unemployment benefits from April 11 to June 27, 2015, and July 11 to October
3, 2015, totaling $6500.
In November 2016, the Division learned claimant had received wages
from two employers while also receiving unemployment benefits. As a result,
the Division mailed claimant a form, advising that her claim was under
investigation and requesting information about the specific weeks she had
claimed and received benefits. Claimant answered the form questions, stating
she was employed during the pertinent weeks.
A-4092-16T3
2
The Director of the Division mailed claimant a "Determination and
Demand for Refund of Unemployment Benefits" in November 2016. The letter
noted claimant had received wages from two employers during the same period
she received unemployment benefits. As a result of her false or fraudulent
representations, claimant was disqualified from unemployment benefits for the
next year under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(g)(1). In addition, she was liable to refund the
paid benefits of $6500 and a penalty of $1625, authorized under N.J.S.A. 43:21-
16(a)(1).
After claimant appealed, the Appeal Tribunal remanded to the Director
for a possible redetermination. The Director reopened the matter and conducted
a telephonic hearing in February 2017. At the hearing, claimant admitted she
was employed while receiving unemployment benefits. She believed that if she
was not working in a full-time position, it was not necessary to report her
earnings to the Division.
Following the hearing, the Appeal Tribunal affirmed the Director's
determination that claimant was disqualified from benefits, liable for a refund,
and subject to the imposed fine. The Tribunal stated: "The evidence clearly
indicates that the claimant knowingly made false statements to receive benefits
because the claimant answered 'No' to the certification question 'Did you work?'
A-4092-16T3
3
The receipt of these benefits is considered to be as a result of false or fraudulent
representation." The Board affirmed the decision.
On appeal, claimant does not contest the factual findings but asserts the
applicable statutes' "elements" are vague and undefined. We disagree.
Our review of administrative agency decisions is limited. We will not
disturb an agency's action unless it was clearly "arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable." Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997).
It is undisputed two companies employed and paid claimant during the
weeks she reported earning no income to the Division and collected
unemployment benefits. Her failure to report her employment and earnings was
a fraudulent misrepresentation.
When a claimant receives benefits to which she is not entitled "by reason
of the nondisclosure or misrepresentation . . . of a material fact" she shall be
liable to repay those benefits in full. N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(d)(1). If a false
representation has been made, the Division is authorized to impose a "fine of
25% of the amount fraudulently obtained." N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(a)(1).
The substantial credible evidence in the record supports the Board's
determination.
Affirmed.
A-4092-16T3
4