KAREN JOHNSON VS. BOARD OF REVIEWÂ (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5474-15T1
KAREN JOHNSON,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR, EQUINOX MANAGEMENT GROUP,
INC., and STARR COMPANY,
Respondents.
________________________________
Submitted June 19, 2017 – Decided June 26, 2017
Before Judges Yannotti and Haas.
On appeal from Board of Review, Department of
Labor and Workforce Development, Docket No.
085,240.
Karen Johnson, appellant pro se.
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent Board of Review
(Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Christopher J. Hamner,
Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Respondents Equinox Management Group, Inc. and
Starr Company have not filed briefs.
PER CURIAM
Karen Johnson appeals from a final decision of the Board of
Review (Board), dated June 20, 2016, which upheld a determination
of the Appeal Tribunal, finding that Johnson was disqualified from
unemployment compensation benefits for the period from January 31,
2016, to February 13, 2016, because she failed to comply with the
reporting requirements in N.J.A.C. 12:17-4.2(a). We affirm.
Johnson was employed by Equinox Management Group (Equinox)
as a senior underwriter/project and program manager. On February
2, 2016, Johnson gave Equinox written notice of her intent to
resign her position on February 16, 2016. It appears that Johnson
had accepted a job with Starr Company (Starr), one of Equinox's
competitors, and she would be starting work for Starr on February
16, 2016.
Equinox has a policy that prohibits employees from working
their two final weeks if they are leaving the company to work for
a competitor. Therefore, Equinox terminated Johnson, effective
February 2, 2016. Johnson did not return to work at Equinox after
that date.
Johnson alleges that she first learned she had been terminated
on February 9, 2016. The following day, Equinox offered to give
Johnson two weeks of severance pay if she executed a separation
agreement, which stated that she was not going to work for a
competitor. Johnson began to work for Starr on February 16, 2016.
2 A-5474-15T1
Johnson's attorney later advised her not to sign the severance
agreement. On February 21, 2016, Johnson filed a claim for
unemployment compensation benefits.
On March 22, 2016, a deputy director of unemployment insurance
in the Department of Labor and Workforce Development found Johnson
ineligible for benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) because
she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the
work. Johnson appealed that determination to the Appeal Tribunal,
which conducted a hearing in the matter on April 26, 2016.
The Appeal Tribunal issued a decision, which was mailed on
April 28, 2016, reversing the deputy's determination. The Appeal
Tribunal rejected the deputy's finding that Johnson left work
voluntarily, but found that she was disqualified from receiving
unemployment benefits because at the time she submitted her claim,
she was working for a new employer. Johnson appealed the Appeal
Tribunal's decision to the Board.
The Board thereafter affirmed the Appeal Tribunal's findings
of fact, but modified its decision. The Board determined that
Johnson was not eligible for benefits for the week of January 31,
2016, to February 13, 2016, because she did not comply with the
reporting requirements in N.J.A.C. 12:17-4.2(a). The Board noted
that Johnson did not file her claim for benefits until February
21, 2016. The Board refused to allow Johnson to backdate the claim,
3 A-5474-15T1
noting that she made no attempt to file the claim prior to February
21, 2016. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Johnson argues that the Board should have awarded
her unemployment benefits for the period from February 3, 2016,
to February 15, 2016. She contends that she did not know until
February 21, 2016, that she would not be receiving two weeks of
severance pay. Johnson therefore claims she was unable to submit
a claim for unemployment benefits before that date.
The scope of our review in an appeal from a final
determination of an administrative agency is strictly limited. We
will not disturb an agency's decision unless it is shown to be
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Brady v. Bd. of Review,
152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997) (citing In re Warren, 117 N.J. 295, 296
(1989)). We can only intervene "in those rare circumstances in
which an agency action is clearly inconsistent with its statutory
mission or with other State policy." Ibid. (quoting George Harms
Constr. v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 137 N.J. 8, 27 (1994)).
Furthermore, "[i]n 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 the factfinder could
reasonably so conclude upon the proofs." Ibid. (alteration in
4 A-5474-15T1
original) (quoting Charatan v. Bd. of Review, 200 N.J. Super. 74,
79 (App. Div. 1985)).
Here, the Board found that Johnson was disqualified from
receiving benefits for the period from January 31, 2016, to
February 13, 2016, because she did not comply with the reporting
requirements of N.J.A.C. 12:17-4.2(a). The regulation provides
that "[a]n individual shall telephone a Reemployment Call Center
or contact the Division via an Internet application to file an
initial claim for benefits, unless another method of filing is
prescribed by the Division." N.J.A.C. 12:17-4.2(a). The regulation
further provides that "[t]he effective date of an initial claim
for benefits is the Sunday of the week in which the claimant first
reports to claim benefits." Ibid.Johnson concedes that she did not report her claim for
unemployment benefits until February 21, 2016. Although Johnson
asserts she did not know she would not be receiving two weeks of
severance pay until February 21, 2016, her testimony before the
Appeal Tribunal shows that she was terminated on February 2, 2016.
She stated that persons at Equinox "walked me out the door and
said good luck[,] good-bye."
Furthermore, Johnson knew on February 9, 2016, that she would
not be paid for the two weeks after she gave notice. On February
10, 2016, Johnson was offered the opportunity to be paid for those
5 A-5474-15T1
two weeks, but she had to sign an agreement indicating she would
not work for one of Equinox's competitors. Johnson never signed
that agreement, and she did not file a claim until February 21,
2016.
Thus, there is sufficient credible evidence in the record to
support the Board's determination that Johnson was disqualified
from receiving benefits from January 31, 2016, to February 13,
2016. Johnson did not report her initial claim in the manner
required by N.J.A.C. 12:17-4.2(a) before February 21, 2016, and
she failed to establish good cause for failing to submit her claim
before that date.
Affirmed.
6 A-5474-15T1