Lord v. Board of Review
40 A.3d 94
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2012Background
- appellant Talmage Lord worked for Crossmark to reset merchandise in stores, using his own car and earning $11/hour.
- A car breakdown around June 3, 2009 left Lord unable to commute; Crossmark excused him for the next day but he faced transportation issues thereafter.
- The garage diagnosed a broken transmission; Lord lacked funds to repair or rent a substitute vehicle.
- Lord spoke with his supervisor on Friday, June 5, 2009, and was told he had to resign effective immediately; he felt he had no choice and considered himself terminated.
- Lord filed for unemployment benefits the same day; the Division denied benefits for voluntary leaving without good cause attributable to the work.
- An Appeal Tribunal and Board of Review affirmed the denial, relying on the notion that Lord voluntarily left due to transportation problems.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the separation was voluntary under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) | Lord contends the resignation was compelled by employer; not voluntary. | Board argues it was voluntary because Lord chose to leave to address transportation. | Not voluntary; dismissal deemed involuntary, entitling benefits. |
| If compelled by employer, whether it constitutes good cause attributable to work | Even if compelled, there was good cause due to transportation impracticality caused by work use of his car. | Cited arguments focus on voluntary nature, finding no good-cause justification attributable to work. | Court did not need to reach good-cause issue; compelled nature precluded voluntariness. |
| Whether Campbell Soup Co. governs when the decision to resign is employer-initiated | Lord relies on Campbell Soup to show non-voluntary discharge when employer controls the decision. | Board relies on Self and similar cases to treat as voluntary if the employee initiates any action. | Campbell Soup controls; the action was employer-initiated and thus not voluntary. |
| Whether the Board's reliance on Self v. Board of Review was correct in this context | Self is distinguishable; here the employer discharged due to transportation issues. | Self supports treating absence due to transportation as voluntary, if employee initiates or fails to respond. | Self is distinguishable; here the separation was not employee-initiated. |
| Impact of liberal construction of Unemployment Compensation Law on outcome | Unemployment law should be liberally construed in favor of benefits. | Administrative decisions align with precedent; interpret 43:21-5(a) strictly to avoid unwarranted disqualifications. | Application of liberal construction supports entitlement to benefits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell Soup Co. v. Board of Review, 13 N.J. 431 (1953) (voluntariness requires worker-alone decision to stay or go)
- Self v. Board of Review, 91 N.J. 453 (1982) (transportation-absence cases hinge on employer vs. employee initiation)
- Utley v. Bd. of Review, 194 N.J. 534 (2008) (unemployment law construed liberally in favor of benefits)
- Yardville Supply Co. v. Bd. of Review, 114 N.J. 371 (1989) (supports liberal benefit interpretation)
- Domenico v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 192 N.J. Super. 284 (App. Div. 1983) (distinguishes duties of discharged vs. voluntary separation)