Damaris A. Taylor v. Board of Review ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1508-22
DAMARIS A. TAYLOR,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
and NATIONAL RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Respondents.
___________________________
Submitted October 9, 2024 – Decided October 30, 2024
Before Judges Currier and Torregrossa-O'Connor.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of
Labor, Docket No. 244730.
Tonacchio, Spina & Compitello, LLC, attorneys for
appellant (Matthew Dourdis, on the brief).
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent Board of Review, Department of Labor
(Donna Arons, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;
Eric A. Zimmerman, Deputy Attorney General, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Claimant Damaris A. Taylor appeals from the final agency decision of the
Board of Review, New Jersey Department of Labor (Board), denying in part her
claim for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) under the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9141.
Affording deference to the Board's determination that claimant was ineligible
for PUA benefits after June 28, 2020, we affirm.
I.
Claimant worked as a project manager for National Recovery Associates,
Inc., from November 14, 2019, until she admittedly "[r]esigned" her position on
February 26, 2020, for self-described "[p]ersonal reasons." Claimant filed for
unemployment benefits, N.J.S.A. 43:21-1 to -71, and thereafter for PUA,
claiming she resigned her job to care for her children, then ages twelve, ten,
four, and two, due to COVID-19 concerns for her family's safety.
On March 2, 2021, claimant received notice from the Division of
Unemployment Insurance, advising she was disqualified from traditional
unemployment benefits as she resigned from her job voluntarily without good
cause attributable to her work. See N.J.S.A. 43:21-5. The notice further deemed
her ineligible for PUA under the CARES Act because her unemployment was
A-1508-22
2
not due to a statutorily enumerated qualifying reason. See 15 U.S.C. §
9021(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I).
Claimant appealed, and the Appeal Tribunal conducted a hearing on April
23, 2021. Claimant testified and confirmed that she resigned because of her own
fear for her family's safety as COVID-19 began to spread. She explained that
upon resigning from her position, she immediately removed her youngest child
from daycare, which remained open, as did the schools attended by her older
children.
By written decision, the Appeal Tribunal found claimant disqualified from
regular unemployment benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5, as claimant's "decision
to leave work was ultimately for reasons not connected to the work itself." The
Tribunal also denied any claim for PUA benefits, finding claimant failed to
establish eligibility under one of the qualifying COVID-19-related reasons
under the CARES Act. Specifically, the Tribunal found claimant "left work at
a time when it was open and there were no school or childcare closures affecting
her ability to work." The Tribunal determined that her voluntary resignation
was due to "her fears" of COVID-19, which, without more, was not a covered
reason under the CARES Act.
A-1508-22
3
On appeal, the Board affirmed the Tribunal's denial of regular
unemployment benefits but remanded for a new hearing and additional
testimony regarding the PUA claims. A second hearing took place before the
Appeal Tribunal on March 1, 2022.
Testimony at the second hearing revealed that the schools and daycare
facilities attended by claimant's children were closed due to COVID-19 on
March 13, 2020 and remained closed until the school year ended on June 24,
2020. Claimant, represented by counsel, testified that the children's typical
summer camps and daycare were reopened on June 15, 2020, providing child
care options. Claimant explained that she chose to not enroll the children in
summer camp as she deemed her husband "immunocompromised." When asked
whether she was instructed by a doctor to "isolate for the whole family," she
replied, "[w]e were just told to do best practices, keep masked up, [and] social
distance."
Claimant further testified she could have worked at that time, including
remotely, because her husband "had the freedom to work from home." She
further conceded that although her husband and her youngest child had "the flu"
in early 2020, no one in her family was ever diagnosed with COVID-19. When
A-1508-22
4
asked whether her husband "could have watched the kids, [so she] would have
been available to go to work," she responded, "[a]bsolutely."
The Appeal Tribunal issued a written decision, finding that from May 10,
2020 through June 27, 2020, claimant was unable to work due directly to the
COVID-19 pandemic and therefore qualified for PUA benefits under the
CARES Act during that period of time. However, for the period after June 28,
2020 through April 10, 2021, the Tribunal, determined that claimant's husband
was working from home and available for child care, making claimant available
to work from June 28, 2020 forward.
Claimant again appealed. In a letter to the Board, claimant indicated her
husband, although working from home during the period between June 28, 2020
and April 10, 2021, was unavailable to care for the children due to the demands
of his job as a call center representative.
Finding claimant had the opportunity at two separate hearings to offer
"any and all evidence" to support her claims, the Board determined there was
"no valid ground for a further hearing." The Board found claimant's request for
benefits "from June 28, 2020 through April 10, 2021 contradict[ed] her own
testimony that she was available for work during the period in which her
husband worked remotely from home." Thus, the Board "agree[d] with the
A-1508-22
5
decision reached" by the Appeal Tribunal, finding claimant's availability to
work during that period "was not impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic," within
the meaning of Section 2102(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of the CARES Act, 15 U.S.C. §
9021(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I).
II.
On appeal, claimant argues the Board did not conduct a proper analysis of
the record and overlooked her husband's inability to care for the children; failed
to consider that claimant would have continued to work if given a remote option;
gave no weight to claimant's husband's flu in early 2020; and determined
arbitrarily that claimant "contradicted her own testimony."
III.
"We review a decision made by an administrative agency entrusted to
apply and enforce a statutory scheme under an enhanced deferential standard."
E. Bay Drywall, LLC v. Dep't of Lab. & Workforce Dev., 251 N.J. 477, 493
(2022). Accordingly, "we will disturb an agency's adjudicatory decision only
upon a finding that the decision is 'arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable,' or is
unsupported 'by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.'"
Sullivan v. Bd. of Rev., Dep't of Lab., 471 N.J. Super. 147, 155-56 (App. Div.
2022) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)). The
A-1508-22
6
burden to show an agency's abuse of discretion "is on the challenger." Parsells
v. Bd. of Educ., 472 N.J. Super. 369, 376 (App. Div. 2022).
"'[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 factfinder could reasonably so conclude upon the proofs.'" Brady
v. Bd. of Rev., 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997) (quoting Charatan v. Bd. of Rev., 200
N.J. Super. 74, 79 (App. Div. 1985)). Further, we afford "[w]ide
discretion . . . to administrative decisions because of an agency's specialized
knowledge." In re Request to Modify Prison Sentences, 242 N.J. 357, 390
(2020); see also Sullivan, 471 N.J. Super. at 156.
IV.
We discern no abuse of discretion in the Board's determination, rooted in
the hearing record, denying PUA benefits after June 28, 2020. Congress enacted
the CARES Act as a vehicle to afford PUA benefits to certain "covered
individual[s]" otherwise ineligible for regular unemployment benefits during the
pandemic, but unemployed for one of the COVID-19-related reasons listed in
the statute. See Sullivan, 471 N.J. Super. at 153; see also 15 U.S.C. § 9021.
A-1508-22
7
The CARES Act narrowly defines a "covered individual" in pertinent part
as one who:
(i) is not eligible for regular compensation or extended
benefits under State or Federal law or pandemic
emergency unemployment compensation under section
9025 . . . including an individual who has exhausted all
rights to regular unemployment or extended benefits
under State or Federal law or pandemic emergency
unemployment compensation under section 9025 . . . .
(ii) provides self-certification that the individual—
(I) is otherwise able to work and available for
work within the meaning of applicable State law,
except the individual is unemployed, partially
unemployed, or unable or unavailable to work
because—
(aa) the individual has been diagnosed with
COVID-19 or is experiencing symptoms of
COVID-19 and seeking a medical
diagnosis;
(bb) a member of the individual's
household has been diagnosed with
COVID-19;
(cc) the individual is providing care for a
family member or a member of the
individual's household who has been
diagnosed with COVID-19;
(dd) a child or other person in the
household for which the individual has
primary caregiving responsibility is unable
to attend school or another facility that is
A-1508-22
8
closed as a direct result of the COVID-19
public health emergency and such school
or facility care is required for the
individual to work;
(ee) the individual is unable to reach the
place of employment because of a
quarantine imposed as a direct result of the
COVID-19 public health emergency;
(ff) the individual is unable to reach the
place of employment because the
individual has been advised by a health
care provider to self-quarantine due to
concerns related to COVID-19;
(gg) the individual was scheduled to
commence employment and does not have
a job or is unable to reach the job as a direct
result of the COVID-19 public health
emergency;
(hh) the individual has become the
breadwinner or major support for a
household because the head of the
household has died as a direct result of
COVID-19;
(ii) the individual has to quit his or her job
as a direct result of COVID-19;
(jj) the individual's place of employment is
closed as a direct result of the COVID-19
public health emergency; or
(kk) the individual meets any additional
criteria established by the Secretary for
A-1508-22
9
unemployment assistance under this
section.
[15 U.S.C. § 9021(a)(3)(A).]
A covered individual does not include "an individual who has the ability to
telework with pay." 15 U.S.C. § 9021(a)(3)(B)(i).
The record sufficiently supports the Board's decision that claimant was
not eligible for PUA benefits after June 28, 2020, as she did not fall within one
of the enumerated statutory categories. Claimant testified that she elected not
to utilize open and available summer camp and daycare options after June 28,
2020. She further explained that she was available to work at that time as her
husband worked from their home. She also confirmed that neither she nor any
member of her family contracted COVID-19 during that time.
We are mindful of "the hardship many people . . . endured during the 2020
lockdown as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic," Sullivan, 471 N.J. Super. at
152, and the challenges families faced at that unprecedented time. Nevertheless,
we discern nothing arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable about the Board's
determination that claimant was not unemployed "due to one of the COVID-19
related reasons identified in Section 2102 (a)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of the CARES Act."
See 15 U.S.C. § 9021(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I).
A-1508-22
10
The Board relied on the record to decide that claimant's unemployment
after June 28, 2020 was a personal election that fell outside of the carefully
defined eligibility requirements of the CARES Act. Claimant asserted for the
first time on her second appeal to the Board that her husband was not an
available caregiver for the children, in direct contrast to her prior hearing
testimony. We will not interfere with the Board's discretionary determination
that claimant was not entitled to a new hearing having already had two
opportunities to present her claim for benefits during which she testified she was
available to work after June 28, 2020. Here, the record amply supports the
Board's findings.
Affirmed.
A-1508-22
11