LATOYA HENDRICKS VS. BOARD OF REVIEW (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3158-19
LATOYA HENDRICKS,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
and PSKW, LLC,
Respondents.
________________________
Submitted April 19, 2021 – Decided May 13, 2021
Before Judges Gooden Brown and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of
Labor, Docket No. 199,528.
Latoya Hendricks, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent Board of Review (Jane C. Schuster,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Sean P.
Havern, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Latoya Hendricks appeals from the February 6, 2020 final agency decision
of the Board of Review (Board) upholding the Appeal Tribunal's determination
that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-
5(a). We affirm.
We glean these facts from the record. Hendricks worked at PSKW, LLC
as "a fixer"1 from July 11, 2018 to October 18, 2019, when she resigned. Her
claim for unemployment benefits filed in November 2019, was denied by the
Deputy of the Division of Unemployment Insurance under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a),
on the ground that Hendricks left work voluntarily without good cause
attributable to the work. Thereafter, Hendricks filed a timely administrative
appeal.
At a telephonic hearing before the Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal) conducted
on December 17, 2019, Hendricks testified she resigned because the childcare
program she enrolled her ten-year-old daughter in was discontinued and she
"was having an ongoing issue with having someone pick up [her] daughter from
school." Hendricks confirmed that there were no changes to the terms of her
1
The position involved assisting pharmacies processing coupons and discount
cards for various medications.
A-3158-19
2
employment, and the employer's representatives verified that had Hendricks not
resigned, she would still be employed at PSKW, LLC.
Following the hearing, the Tribunal found that "the sole reason
[Hendricks] resigned" was "childcare concerns" and that "[c]ontinuing work was
available" to her. While "sympathetic to her circumstances," the Tribunal
determined Hendricks's "reason for leaving was personal and not attributable to
the work. Therefore, she [was] disqualified for benefits . . . in accordance with
N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) and N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(e)(2), as she left work voluntarily
without good cause attributable to such work." The Board, in turn, affirmed the
Tribunal's decision, and this appeal followed.
On appeal, Hendricks reiterates that "[r]esigning from [her] job was an
exceedingly difficult decision" but, without childcare, it was necessary because
she "could not risk the welfare of [her] child." Like the Tribunal, while we are
sympathetic, our "capacity to review administrative agency decisions is
limited." Brady v. Bd. of Rev., 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997) (citing Pub. Serv. Elec.
& Gas Co. v. N.J. Dep't of Env't Prot., 101 N.J. 95, 103 (1985)).
"In reviewing the factual findings made in an unemployment
compensation proceeding, the test is not whether [we] would come to the same
conclusion if the original determination was [ours] to make, but rather whether
A-3158-19
3
the factfinder could reasonably so conclude upon the proofs." Ibid. (quoting
Charatan v. Bd. of Rev., 200 N.J. Super. 74, 79 (App. Div. 1985)). "If the
Board's factual findings are supported 'by sufficient credible evidence, [we] are
obliged to accept them.'" Ibid. (quoting Self v. Bd. of Rev., 91 N.J. 453, 459
(1982)); accord Messick v. Bd. of Rev., 420 N.J. Super. 321, 324-25 (App. Div.
2011). Only if the Board's action was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable
should it be disturbed. Brady, 152 N.J. at 210.
N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) provides that "[a]n individual shall be disqualified for
benefits . . . [f]or the week in which the individual has left work voluntarily
without good cause attributable to such work. . . ." While a worker may be
eligible for benefits if the "separation from employment[] was caused by work -
related factors," a "worker who voluntarily quits [a] job" for "personal
circumstances of the worker, unrelated to an alteration in the terms or conditions
of employment, . . . cannot show 'good cause' qualifying him [or her] for
benefits." Utley v. Bd. of Rev., Dep't of Lab., 194 N.J. 534, 544-45 (2008).
Significantly, an employee who leaves "for personal reasons, however
compelling, . . . is disqualified" from benefits under the statute. Id. at 544.
Here, by her own admission, Hendricks established that she resigned
because of childcare issues. While her reasons were compelling, they were
A-3158-19
4
personal to her and unrelated to any change in the terms of her employment. See
N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(e)(2) ("An individual's separation from employment shall be
reviewed as a voluntarily leaving work issue where the separation was for" the
"[c]are of children or other relatives. . . ."). Clearly, there was sufficient credible
evidence to support the Board's decision to deny Hendricks unemployment
benefits, and the Board's decision was not "arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable." Brady, 152 N.J. at 210.
Affirmed.
A-3158-19
5