DOROTHY MOORE VS. BOARD OF REVIEWÂ (BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR)
A-4455-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Aug 25, 2017Background
- Dorothy Moore worked at Bergen Regional Medical Center from 2006 until she resigned on September 25, 2015 and moved out of state; she later filed for unemployment benefits and applied for only four jobs before deciding to retire at age 68.
- Moore testified she and family left her home abruptly after the mother of her grandchildren made death threats; she said the threats were reported to police and a police report was (or had been) sent to the unemployment office.
- The Deputy Director denied benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) (voluntary leaving without good cause); Moore appealed to the Appeal Tribunal, which conducted a telephone hearing and concluded she did not qualify for the domestic-violence exception in N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(j).
- The Tribunal relied on the pre-2015 statutory definition of "victim of domestic violence," finding Moore did not qualify because the alleged perpetrator never had a permanent residence with Moore; the Tribunal also found Moore’s job search was not sufficiently active (but called that determination "academic").
- The Board of Review adopted the Tribunal decision and affirmed the disqualification; Moore appealed to the Appellate Division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore was a "victim of domestic violence" qualifying for N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(j) exemption | Moore argued the threats from the grandchildren’s mother made her a victim and justified leaving work; she had been a household member with that person at times | Board/Tribunal relied on pre-amendment definition and argued Moore did not qualify because the alleged perpetrator never had a permanent residence with her | Court held Moore does qualify under the amended N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19 definition (post-2015) and the Board misinterpreted the Act |
| Whether Moore provided sufficient documentation under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(j)(2) (police record) to invoke the exception | Moore asserted she submitted a police report and agreed to provide another copy to the Tribunal | Tribunal/Board did not address sufficiency or fully develop the evidentiary record regarding the police report | Court remanded for the Board to determine whether the police report (or other permissible evidence) satisfied the statutory documentation requirement |
| Whether Moore was disqualified for inadequate work search | Tribunal found Moore’s post-claim job search inactive | Moore asserted limited applications and retirement decision | Court declined to decide; remand should allow Board to consider this if relevant after resolving domestic-violence documentation issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197 (1997) (standard of appellate review and burden to show good cause for leaving work)
- Self v. Bd. of Review, 91 N.J. 453 (1982) (agency factfinding review principles)
- Domenico v. Bd. of Review, 192 N.J. Super. 284 (App. Div. 1983) (definition and limits of "good cause" for leaving employment)
- Morgan v. Bd. of Review, 77 N.J. Super. 209 (App. Div. 1962) (personal reasons for leaving do not constitute good cause)
- Utley v. Bd. of Review, 194 N.J. 534 (2008) (deference to agency statutory interpretation but de novo review of pure legal questions)
- R.G. v. R.G., 449 N.J. Super. 208 (App. Div. 2017) (interpreting the expanded post-2015 definition of "household member" under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act)
Decision: Board's ruling vacated and remanded for the Board to determine whether Moore's police report (or other authorized documentation) satisfies N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(j)(2) and to reconsider eligibility consistent with this opinion.