LYDIA WAGNER VS. BOARD OF REVIEWÂ Â (BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCEDEVELOPMENT), A-5689-14T1

Lydia Wagner worked for the U.S. Postal Service (1984–May 31, 2009) and accepted early retirement; she filed for unemployment on June 9, 2009 and received benefits June 13, 2009–May 29, 2010.
In December 2011 the Deputy Director found Wagner voluntarily left work without good cause and therefore was ineligible for benefits; Appeal Tribunal and Board of Review affirmed the disqualification and ordered repayment of $23,970; Wagner did not appeal that disqualification to court.
Wagner separately requested a waiver of repayment under N.J.A.C. 12:17-14.2(d); the Director denied the waiver, the Appeal Tribunal affirmed, and the Board of Review upheld the denial in a June 15, 2015 final decision.
The waiver denial rested on the Bureau investigator’s finding that Wagner’s financial disclosure did not show economic hardship and thus recovery was not patently contrary to equity.
Wagner appealed only the Board’s denial of the waiver (not the underlying disqualification); the Appellate Division reviewed under the limited standard applicable to agency factfinding and statutory interpretation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wagner is entitled to a waiver of repayment of unemployment overpayments under N.J.A.C. 12:17-14.2(d)	Wagner argued repayment would cause economic hardship and that she received benefits without bad faith, so waiver is equitable	Board argued Wagner’s financial disclosure failed to show economic hardship and the Director properly found recovery would not be "patently contrary to principles of equity"	Held: Waiver denial affirmed; Wagner failed to show hardship or other grounds for waiver, so repayment is required; agency decision supported by substantial credible evidence
Whether the court should revisit the underlying disqualification for benefits	Wagner contended she left for good cause (early retirement/downsizing)	Board: underlying disqualification already adjudicated and not appealed to court	Held: Underlying disqualification not before the court because Wagner did not timely appeal the Board’s disqualification decision

Stallworth v. Director, 208 N.J. 182 (2011) (scope of appellate review of agency decisions)
Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (1979) (deference to agency determinations)
Gloucester Cty. Welfare Bd. v. N.J. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 93 N.J. 384 (1983) (presumption of correctness for agency determinations)
McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super. 544 (App. Div. 2002) (burden of persuasion when challenging agency conclusions)
Bd. of Educ. of Neptune v. Neptune Twp. Educ. Ass’n, 144 N.J. 16 (1996) (deference to agency interpretation of statutes it enforces)
Lourdes Med. Ctr. of Burlington Cty. v. Bd. of Review, 197 N.J. 339 (2009) (deference when agency findings rest on sufficient credible evidence)
Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197 (1997) (standards for overturning agency determinations)
Bannan v. Bd. of Review, 299 N.J. Super. 671 (App. Div. 1997) (recoupment of erroneously paid unemployment benefits protects public fund despite claimant’s blamelessness)
Barry v. Arrow Pontiac, Inc., 100 N.J. 57 (1985) (court should not interfere with agency absent arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable action)