DIANE JANKOWSKI VS. BOARD OF REVIEW (BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1050-18T4
DIANE JANKOWSKI,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
and SENIOR CARE OF SOUTH
JERSEY, LLC,
Respondents.
_______________________________
Submitted April 27, 2020 – Decided May 11, 2020
Before Judges Fasciale and Rothstadt.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of
Labor, Docket No. 155,556.
Diane Jankowski, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent Board of Review (Donna Sue Arons,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Jana Rene
DiCosmo, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Respondent Senior Care of South Jersey, L.L.C. has not
filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
Diane Jankowski appeals from an October 5, 2018 Board of Review final
agency decision concluding she does not qualify for unemployment benefits
under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) because she left her employment without good cause
attributed to her work. Senior Care of South Jersey, LLC, employed Jankowski
as Director of Nursing from August 2016 to May 31, 2018, when she resigned
due to her belief that Senior Care was non-compliant with various nursing
statutes and regulations⸻specifically that her supervisor kept her from
participating in staff evaluations. We affirm.
Our review of an administrative agency's final determination is strictly
limited. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). "If the Board's
factual findings are supported 'by sufficient credible evidence, courts are obliged
to accept them.'" Ibid. (quoting Self v. Bd. of Review, 91 N.J. 453, 459 (1982)).
We may not disturb the agency's decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable or inconsistent with the applicable law. Ibid. Thus, "[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
A-1050-18T4
2
factfinder could reasonably so conclude upon the proofs." Ibid. (alteration in
original) (quoting Charatan v. Bd. of Review, 200 N.J. Super. 74, 79 (App. Div.
1985)).
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), an employee who "left work voluntarily
without good cause attributable to such work" is disqualified for unemployment
compensation benefits. "Under this section, the threshold question is whether
an applicant for unemployment compensation benefits left [the] job
'voluntarily.'" Lord v. Bd. of Review, 425 N.J. Super. 187, 190-91 (App. Div.
2012). "[W]hen an employee leaves work voluntarily [like here], he [or she]
bears the burden to prove he [or she] did so with good cause attributable to
work." Brady, 152 N.J. at 218. An employee has left work "voluntarily" within
the meaning of the statute when "the decision whether to go or to stay lay at the
time with the worker alone." Campbell Soup Co. v. Bd. of Review, 13 N.J. 431,
435 (1953); see also Utley v. Bd. of Review, 194 N.J. 534, 544 (2008).
On appeal, Jankowski argues:
[POINT] I
THE EXAMINER OF THE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
SUBMITTED INCORRECT INFORMATION IN HIS
FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION TO THE
BOARD OF REVIEW WHICH THEY RELIED UPON
TO RENDER THEIR DECISION. THE BOARD OF
REVIEW'S DECISION SHOULD BE REVERSED.
A-1050-18T4
3
[POINT] II
THE BOARD OF REVIEW AND THE APPEALS
TRIBUNAL BASED THEIR DENIAL OF BENEFITS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH [GOEBELBECKER V.
STATE, 53 N.J. SUPER. 53, 59 (APP. DIV. 1958).]
We considered Jankowski's contentions and conclude they are without sufficient
merit to warrant extended discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
We add the following brief remarks.
Senior Care disputed Jankowski's assertion that it was not in compliance
with the law. Jankowski testified that she called the Board of Nursing only to
ask whether she was required to give Senior Care notice before leaving her
position. She admitted that the Nursing Board never informed her that Senior
Care violated the law, acted unethically, that she would be liable for Senior
Care's actions, or that her nursing license was in jeopardy and, consequently,
Jankowski never filed a complaint against Senior Care. Jankowski admitted that
she was not under a threat of termination from her position. Rather, the credible
record supports the Appeal Tribunal's finding, as adopted by the Board, that
Jankowski left her job because she was unhappy with her work environment and
assignments.
Affirmed.
A-1050-18T4
4