HALINA PELCZAR VS. BOARD OF REVIEW(BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR)
A-2899-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | May 30, 2017Background
- Halina Pelczar worked as a clothing sorter for A&E Clothing from March 2011 until May 31, 2015; job required heavy lifting and repetitive motions.
- In January 2015 she suffered a non-work-related medical incident and was placed on medical leave; treating physician eventually cleared her for light-duty work effective June 1, 2015, with restrictions (no heavy lifting, bending, prolonged standing).
- Pelczar submitted a resignation on May 28, 2015, after alleging she told A&E her restrictions and the employer said no light-duty work was available.
- The Division Deputy Director disqualified Pelczar for voluntarily leaving without good cause; an Appeal Tribunal reversed, finding she notified the employer and no suitable work existed.
- The employer appealed to the Board, asserting Pelczar never said she could return to light duty and that it might have accommodated her. The Board accepted the Appeal Tribunal’s facts but reversed as a matter of law, disqualifying Pelczar under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a).
- The Appellate Division remanded for further factfinding because disputed factual issues (whether Pelczar communicated her ability to return to light duty and whether light duty was available) were raised to the Board but not resolved with additional evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pelczar voluntarily left without good cause attributable to work | Pelczar: she could perform light-duty work per physician, informed employer, employer said none available, so she did not voluntarily quit for personal reasons | A&E: Pelczar never informed employer she could return to light duty; if notified, employer may have accommodated or investigated availability | Remanded: factual disputes unresolved; Board must remit for further factfinding before legal determination |
| Whether N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.3(b) (aggravated non–work-related illness) protects Pelczar | Pelczar: her non–work-related condition was aggravated by job duties and suitable light duty was unavailable, so she should not be disqualified | A&E: contends lack of notice negates entitlement to the regulation’s protection; availability unknown | Court: Regulation may apply but factual issues (notice, availability) must be resolved on remand |
| Whether Board may reverse based solely on legal interpretation when facts disputed | Pelczar: Board improperly reached legal conclusion without resolving employer-raised factual disputes | Board/A&E: relied on precedent to reverse despite accepting Appeal Tribunal facts | Court: Reversed Board; where employer raised factual disputes not resolved below, Board should remand for additional evidence |
| Applicability of Stauhs precedent to bar benefits | A&E: cited Stauhs to support disqualification where medical condition not work-caused | Pelczar: Stauhs is distinguishable; she offered proof of ability to return to light duty and regulation post-dates Stauhs | Court: Stauhs does not control here; cannot be applied to foreclose consideration of regulatory exception without resolving facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradley v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197 (discusses standard of review for Board factual findings)
- Stauhs v. Bd. of Review, 93 N.J. Super. 451 (App. Div.) (1967) (earlier decision on non–work-related medical inability to perform job)
- Ardan v. Bd. of Review, 444 N.J. Super. 576 (App. Div.) (2016) (employee who attempts to protect employment while ill may avoid disqualification)
- Self v. Bd. of Review, 91 N.J. 453 (1982) (standard for accepting agency factual findings)
- Domenico v. Bd. of Review, 192 N.J. Super. 284 (App. Div.) (definition of "good cause" in unemployment statute)