KRISTEN REEDY 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4575-19
KRISTEN REEDY,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
and REEDY INTERNATIONAL
CORP.,
Respondents.
_________________________
Submitted September 21, 2021 – Decided December 10, 2021
Before Judges Currier and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of
Labor, Docket No. 181799.
Kristen Reedy, appellant pro se.
Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney for
respondent Board of Review (Sookie Bae-Park,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher J.
Hamner, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Kristen Reedy appeals from the May 28, 2020 decision of the
Board of Review (Board) dismissing as untimely her appeal from the denial of
her application for unemployment compensation. We affirm.
I.
Reedy was employed by respondent Reedy International Corp. (RIC) as
Vice President of Finance from June 2009 to April 2019 when her position was
eliminated. On April 28, 2019, Reedy filed an application with the Department
of Labor and Workforce Development for unemployment compensation
beginning that date (Claim No. 1). On May 9, 2019, a Deputy Director denied
Claim No. 1 because Reedy held more than a five percent interest in RIC during
and after her employment and the corporation had not permanently ceased
operations. See N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(m)(1)(A).
Reedy appealed the denial of Claim No. 1 to the Appeal Tribunal. On July
18, 2019, after a telephone conference in which Reedy participated, the Appeal
Tribunal affirmed the denial of Claim No. 1. Reedy did not include a complete
copy of the Appeal Tribunal decision in her appendix. It appears that the Appeal
Tribunal relied on Reedy's ownership of 16.3% of RCI as the basis for its
decision. Reedy did not appeal the Appeal Tribunal's decision to the Board, the
A-4575-19
2
body authorized to issue a final administrative agency decision on Reedy's
application.
In August 2019, Reedy was rehired by RIC to assist with the winding
down of the company's business prior to its sale. RIC was sold on December
13, 2019, and Reedy applied for unemployment compensation for the period
beginning December 29, 2019 (Claim No. 2).
On February 15, 2020, before Claim No. 2 had been decided, Reedy filed
an appeal with the Board. The Board docketed the appeal under Claim No. 1.
On May 28, 2020, the Board denied the appeal of Claim No. 1 as untimely
because it was filed beyond the twenty-day period established in N.J.S.A. 43:21-
6(c) and good cause was not shown for the late filing. The Board also referred
Claim No. 2 to the Deputy Director for an initial determination. The Deputy
Director denied Claim No. 2 on March 23, 2020. Reedy did not file an appeal
to the Appeal Tribunal from the March 23, 2020 decision.
On June 29, 2020, Reedy filed this appeal. In her notice of appeal, Reedy
states that she is appealing the May 28, 2020 decision of the Board. In her merits
brief, however, Reedy states "[m]y initial intent was not meant to appeal the
original denial of July 18th, 2019, but instead the March 23rd, 2020 denial."
Reedy's merits brief addresses only the March 23, 2020 decision.
A-4575-19
3
II.
While Reedy's notice of appeal states that she is appealing the Board's
May 28, 2020 decision, her merits brief contains no arguments concerning the
validity of that decision. She has, in effect, waived her appeal of the May 28,
2020 decision. "[A]n issue not briefed is deemed waived." Pressler and
Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 5 on R. 2:6-2 (2021); Telebright Corp.
v. Dir., N.J. Div. of Tax'n, 424 N.J. Super. 384, 393 (App. Div. 2012) (deeming
a contention waived when the party failed to include any arguments supporting
the contention in its brief).
With respect to Reedy's arguments concerning the validity of the Deputy
Director's March 23, 2020 decision, we do not consider decisions not identified
in a notice of appeal. See R. 2:5-1(e)(3)(i) (stating that a notice of appeal "shall
designate the judgment, decision, action or rule, or part thereof appealed from
. . . ."); Fusco v. Bd. of Educ., 349 N.J. Super. 455, 461-62 (App. Div. 2002)
(stating that appellate review pertains only to judgments or orders specified in
the notice of appeal).
In addition, the March 23, 2020 decision is not a final agency decision
subject to review by this court. We cannot review an agency decision until it
has become final. R. 2:2-3(a)(2). An appellant must exhaust administrative
A-4575-19
4
remedies before filing an appeal in this court. The doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is predicated on the principle that "[t]he expertise of an
administrative agency may not be exercised or known until it renders its final
decision and usually due deference is accorded to such expertise upon judicial
review." Triano v. Div. of State Lottery, 306 N.J. Super. 114, 121 (App. Div.
1997). The Board, which reviews decisions of the Appeal Tribunal, is the only
entity authorized to issue a final agency decision with respect to an application
for unemployment compensation. N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(h). Reedy has not pursued
an appeal to the Board, through the Appeal Tribunal, of the Deputy Director's
March 23, 2020 decision.
Affirmed.
A-4575-19
5